In
footage published on Monday, the conservative media watchdog shared around eight minutes of
an interview with a man identified as Ritesh Lakhkar, said to be a technical program manager at
Google's Cloud service, who accused the company of putting its thumb on the digital scales for
the Democrats.
"The wind is blowing toward Democrats, because GOP equals Trump and Trump equals GOP.
Everybody hates it, even though GOP may have good traits, no one wants to acknowledge them
right now," Lakhkar said when asked whether Google favors either political party.
Project Veritas @Project_Veritas BREAKING:
@Google Program Manager Confirms Election Interference In Favor of
@JoeBiden Google search "skewed by owners and drivers of the algorithm" "Plain and simple
trying to play god"
While Lakhar – whose LinkedIn page states he's worked at Google since
May 2018 – did not specify exactly how the company gives an edge to certain political
viewpoints, he suggested the platform is selling favorable coverage to the highest bidder.
"It's skewed by the owners or the drivers of the algorithm. Like, if I say 'Hey Google,
here's another two billion dollars, feed this data set of whenever Joe Biden is searched,
you'll get these results,'" he went on, blasting Big Tech firms for "playing god and
taking away freedom of speech on both sides."
Lakhkar complained of a suffocating, overly-political atmosphere at Google, where he said
"your opinion matters more than your work," recalling a dramatic response to Donald
Trump's 2016 election win at the company. Several media reports have documented employees'
appalled reactions to the victory, including
internal company footage of a meeting soon after the election, where co-founder Sergey Brin
is heard comparing Trump's win to the rise of fascism in Europe.
"When Trump won the first time, people were crying in the corridors of Google. There were
protests, there were marches. There were like, I guess, group therapy sessions for employees
organized by HR," he said.
I guess that's one of the reasons I feel suffocated [at Google]. Because on one side
you have this unprofessional attitude, and on the other side you have this ultra-leftist
attitude. Your entire existence is questioned.
PetarGolubovicRomanov 19 hours ago Nothing unexpected there - it always seemed a
dodgy thing to me Google is 'the greatest' place to work. It must be to 'keep the lights on'
with all their servers, but it is a company with what, two products - search and maps - and
both have not changed almost at since they were created over a decade ago. Reply 5 2 Head like
a rock PetarGolubovicRomanov 18 hours ago but it is run by the CIA so what do you expect?
Mickey Mic 16 hours ago For the life on me; I just can't understand, why so many have faith in
a system that has enormous disdain for them. Do the people really need the news to make the
announcement ? Sadly, that is the case, because most can't think for themselves anymore, they
rely on the narrative that everything is on a honest base system still !? The fact checkers
don't check the facts, there is no such thing as a private large corporation with out ties to
the intelligence apparatus. Big Company's are used by the shadow Gov. to gain the kind of
wealth they need to stage their secrete plans of the NWO. People like Bill Gates, Fauci,
only spoken in generalities, because they where only groomed to make the wealth for the
advancements of the puppet masters agenda's. How many conspiracies must come true for one to
think that the word "conspiracy" is only used to make others think, the next person must be
crazy to think the way he does ? What the world needs is more common sense, and less dependence
on the glow boxes in front of them. True wisdom, is only for the few that don't think the world
is what they was conditioned to believe in. Ethnocentric pride creates a comfort zone; which is
hard to break, it gets internalized though generations just like how holidays are created.
Sadly, most wouldn't remember by next week; because the their brain is constantly getting
flooded by squeals of events. And to top it all we have fake news to underline the long term
memory bank system. Salman M Salman 14 hours ago Big tech companies represent the pillars of
globalism which by definition supports only their people. The world after the elections will
see their take over or demise.
Head like a rock TheLeftyHater 18 hours ago but those are both CIA creations, is that 'lefty'?
Guns Blazing 14 hours ago Very old news, but worthy of repeating. Just watch that exchange in
Congress between Senator Cruz and Dr. Robert Epstein. Google swaying millions of votes in favor
of Democrats. Also top Clinton campaign donor in 2016 was Alphabet, the parent company of
Google.
"It went on to target broadcasters, a ski resort, Olympic officials and sponsors of the
games in 2018. The GRU deployed data-deletion malware against the Winter Games IT systems and
targeted devices across the Republic of Korea using VPNFilter."
The Russian hackers' alleged attempt to cover their tracks included using certain
snippets of code and techniques to try to confuse investigators into think they were from
China and North Korea.
The UK's National Cyber Security Centre, a branch of GCHQ, believe Russia's aim was to
sabotage the running of the games, the Foreign Office said .
####
So as usual, nothing but the Foreign Orifice's word and they wouldn't make stuff up,
especially on order when the government is under heavy domestic pressure? No. Never.
I wonder if Tokyo has been asked for comment or given 'evidence?' Again, absence of
information gives it away.
Other outlets are putting out this FO press release with little comment, as usual.
"The Russian hackers' alleged attempt to cover their tracks included using certain
snippets of code and techniques to try to confuse investigators into think they were from
China and North Korea."
Just by the most marvelous coincidence, other bogus source codes in the Marble Framework
tickle trunk are those of China, North Korea and Iran.
Well, well – hello, Chrystia Freeland, I'd like you to meet Andrzej Duda, President
of Poland. What, your Grampy was a Nazi collaborator, too?? You're kidding me – why,
we're like brother and sister!!
"Polish President Andrzej Duda pursues a Russophobic policy and actively supports
Ukrainian nationalists, because one of his ancestors was a Nazi collaborator who served the
Nazi invaders and took part in the massacres on the territory of Belarus.
Ukrainian publicist Miroslava Berdnik, previously persecuted by the SBU, reported this
in her Telegram channel, the correspondent of PolitNavigator reports."
The CIA's domestic propaganda campaign has been massively successful over the past four
years. There are tens of millions who literally believe that Trump is a Russian agent. They
believe that everyone should wear masks on their faces, forever, and they believe there are
Nazis everywhere. They believe there were no riots this summer, that thousands of blacks are
murdered every year by police, and that Christians are trying to establish a theocracy in the
US. They believe that little children should be able to have their genitals surgically
removed. They believe that the 2016 election was stolen, but that the one coming up cannot
be, even if ballots without postmarks show up on trucks ten days after November 3rd.
These are just a few of their insane beliefs that have been put into their heads through
social media and television.
Trump never had any power to stop this. Both the Democrats and Republicans are completely
in thrall to the intelligence and police agencies. It's all an act. There's no democracy left
in this country and there is no chance of reforming this system, ever. It has to collapse or
be seized and turned mercilessly against those who are perpetrating this horror show.
Dragonlord , 59 minutes ago
FBI and CIA betraying the country is no longer surprising, what surprising is how fast
tech giants jump onto the scum train even though some only exist less than 20 years. This
reveal why quickly the globalists can turn anyone into scumbags.
Finally, depths of Biden corruption proves our hypothesis that the so called ruling class
like Nancy, Obama, Clinton, etc, are not at the top echelon, there is a group or class of
people higher than them. They are probably the overlord class of the globalists.
philmannwright , 56 minutes ago
The FBI has always been a tool. Recall J Edgar.
Big Tech has enabled all of this. NSA/Data collection - Big brother goodbye freedom. seems
like a natural progression.
Gold Pedant , 1 hour ago
Hahaha, William Colby is the third man in the newspaper clipping above, but he isn't even
mentioned. Well after he retired from the CIA, he was assassinated to send a message. Look up
"WHO MURDERED THE CIA CHIEF?" It's a good quick read.
"Colby was fired on Nov. 2, 1975, as head of the CIA after being accused of talking too
much. He was said to have been too candid in testimony to congressional investigators; he had
long ago aroused the ire of the agency's old guard for trying to channel more effort into the
gathering, evaluation and analysis of information and less into covert operation."
And Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe, Weissman, Sally Yates, Bruce And Nellie Ord, James Baker,
Comey, Rosenstein, the entire brench of the FISA Court, and about 500 Senators and
Congressmen out of 535. It's a start.
Eastern Whale , 1 hour ago
"National Security" in the US is the get out of free card for politicians and the rich
with clout. paedophile, corruption, murder you name it.
PigmanExecutioner , 23 minutes ago
Anytime I hear "Russia" or "Democracy" these days, I have to ponder for the fate of
mankind. Imagine being that infantile in one's worldview and devoid of the ability to
critically analyze information? "National Security" is a made up term to excuse criminal
actions that somehow leaked out through unauthorized channels.
philmannwright , 1 hour ago
So, we have all been educated on how when the Democrats accuse, they are most likely
projecting upon their target their own behavior. Over and over again we see the blatant and
obvious hypocrisy in almost everything we hear from the likes of Hillary, Pelosi, Schumer,
Shiff, Obama, and on and on.
It stands to reason then, that what is going on now is no different and involves all of
them, including the left wing media - they are actually and in reality agents of the
Kremlin/China/the communist world order, aligned in agenda, and working toward tipping the
largest Domino, and I believe they have the U.S. teetering on the ropes.
It seems like it's either 1) the left is a national security risk or 2) Trumpers, welcome
to reeducation camp.
kudocast , 46 minutes ago
Yes we agree that JFK and MLK were assassinated by a group including the CIA, NSA, FBI,
Mafia, Nixon, LBJ, Bush and more.
But to suggest that Trump is in a similar situation as JFK and MLK, and on their moral,
intellectual, and visionary level is ludicrous.
Trump's a criminal, looting, lying, incompetent idiot. Why would the CIA, NSA, FBI, and
others waste their time trying to destroy Trump? Fat Orange Man accomplishes that all by
himself, no assistance required.
PigmanExecutioner , 31 minutes ago
Imagine thinking that the US was any different than the Soviet Union all these decades?
They just hid the tyranny better due to all the material distractions.
KGB, CIA.............All the same demons.
Automatic Choke , 23 minutes ago
my aha moment came when i started subscribing to John Williams "Shadow Govt Statistics" to
track the markets.....way back nearly 20 years ago. it quickly became clear that our trusted
government financial agencies were no more trustworthy than the old soviet "5 year plans"
that we all (in the US) used to laugh at. a mirror is a painful thing.
turkey george palmer , 54 minutes ago
empire looks pretty shaky. suppose a lot will go wrong. at least we have bill and melinda
talking about basic human rights are a threat to the population and only those who are
billionaires can decide what goes in your body. ok sure.
they say there will be a trade your debt for ubi. give up personal property. live where
and how by state dictate. unplanned breeding a crime. isolation camps for non compliance.
wonder where all the property will end up. I know there's only one type of person they all
say are the bad ones just one color. mein
A grand jury in Pennsylvania indicted the six men for "conspiracy, computer hacking,
wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and false registration of a domain name," the DOJ
announced on Monday, describing them as officers in Unit 74455 of the Russian Main
Intelligence Directorate, or GRU.
The indictment identifies them as Yuriy Sergeyevich Andrienko, Sergey Vladimirovich
Detistov, Pavel Valeryevich Frolov, Anatoliy Sergeyevich Kovalev, Artem Valeryevich
Ochichenko and Petr Nikolayevich Pliskin.
According to the charges, they used malware like KillDisk, Industroyer, NotPetya and
Olympic Destroyer to attack everything from networks in Ukraine and Georgia to the Olympics
held in PyeongChang two years ago – in which Russian athletes were not allowed to
participate under their national flag, due to doping allegations made by a disgruntled
doctor.
The six are also accused of undermining "efforts to hold Russia accountable for its use
of a weapons-grade nerve agent, Novichok, on foreign soil" – referring to the March
2018 claims by the British government that Russia "highly likely" used the toxin
against a former spy and his daughter, an accusation Moscow repeatedly denied.
Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers has
claimed that "No country has weaponized its cyber capabilities as maliciously or
irresponsibly as Russia, wantonly causing unprecedented damage to pursue small tactical
advantages and to satisfy fits of spite."
Monday's indictment is hardly a surprise, considering that NATO and US officials have
blamed the 2017 NotPetya outbreak on Moscow for years, even though the malware struck
numerous Russian companies – from the central bank to the oil giant Rosneft and
metal-maker Evraz – as well.
The October 2019 Georgia attack was "in line with Russian tactics,"declared
CrowdStrike, the same security company that was tasked with dealing with the 2016
"hack" of the Democratic National Committee. CrowdStrike's president had secretly
admitted to Congress that they had no actual evidence of the hack itself.
The indictment also accuses the "GRU officers" of trying to breach the Organisation
for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). The international body faced a scandal after
whistleblowers revealed that a report blaming chemical attacks in Syria on the country's
government omitted details that did not fall in line with the narrative pushed by the US and
the UK.
In announcing the indictment, the DOJ thanked the authorities in Ukraine, Georgia, New
Zealand, South Korea, and UK "intelligence services" – as well as Google,
Facebook and Twitter – for "significant cooperation and assistance" with the
investigation.
The same "GRU unit" and Kovalev specifically were previously indicted by Special
Counsel Robert Mueller for alleged "meddling" in 2016 US elections. As with Mueller's
indictments, Monday's charges have largely symbolic value; the accused are not likely to ever
see the inside of a US courtroom. The only indictment that was actually contested in court
– against the so-called IRA troll farm – was dropped by the DOJ in
March, due to lack of evidence.
Russia's military intelligence has not gone by the name of GRU since 2010.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
"Treason doth never prosper; what is the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it
treason."
– Sir John Harrington.
As Shakespeare would state in his play Hamlet , " Something is rotten in the state of
Denmark ," like a fish that rots from head to tail, so do corrupt government systems rot from
top to bottom.
This is a reference to the ruling system of Denmark and not just the foul murder that King
Claudius has committed against his brother, Hamlet's father. This is showcased in the play by
reference to the economy of Denmark being in a state of shambles and that the Danish people are
ready to revolt since they are on the verge of starving. King Claudius has only been king for a
couple of months, and thus this state of affairs, though he inflames, did not originate with
him.
Thus, during our time of great upheaval we should ask ourselves; what constitutes the
persisting "ruling system," of the United States, and where do the injustices in its state of
affairs truly originate from?
The tragedy of Hamlet does not just lie in the action (or lack of action) of one man, but
rather, it is contained in the choices and actions of all its main characters. Each character
fails to see the longer term consequences of their own actions, which leads not only to their
ruin but towards the ultimate collapse of Denmark. The characters are so caught up in their
antagonism against one another that they fail to foresee that their very own destruction is
intertwined with the other.
This is a reflection of a failing system.
A system that, though it believes itself to be fighting tooth and nail for its very
survival, is only digging a deeper grave. A system that is incapable of generating any real
solutions to the problems it faces.
The only way out of this is to address that very fact. The most important issue that will
decide the fate of the country is what sort of changes are going to occur in the political and
intelligence apparatus, such that a continuation of this tyrannical treason is finally stopped
in its tracks and unable to sow further discord and chaos.
When the Matter of "Truth"
Becomes a Threat to "National Security"
When the matter of truth is depicted as a possible threat to those that govern a country,
you no longer have a democratic state. True, not everything can be disclosed to the public in
real time, but we are sitting on a mountain of classified intelligence material that goes back
more than 60 years.
How much time needs to elapse before the American people have the right to know the truth
behind what their government agencies have been doing within their own country and abroad in
the name of the "free" world?
From this recognition, the whole matter of declassifying material around the Russigate
scandal in real time , and not highly redacted 50 years from now, is essential to addressing
this festering putrefaction that has been bubbling over since the
heinous assassination of President Kennedy on Nov. 22nd, 1963 and to which we are still
waiting for full disclosure of classified papers 57 years later.
If the American people really want to finally see who is standing behind that curtain in Oz,
now is the time .
These intelligence bureaus need to be reviewed for what kind of method and standard they are
upholding in collecting their "intelligence," that has supposedly justified the Mueller
investigation and the never-ending Flynn investigation which have provided zero conclusive
evidence to back up their allegations and which have massively infringed on the elected
government's ability to make the changes that they had committed to the American people.
Just like the Iraq and Libya war that was based off of cooked British intelligence (refer
here
and here ),
Russiagate appears to have also had its impetus from our friends over at MI6 as well. It is no
surprise that Sir Richard Dearlove, who was then MI6 chief (1999-2004) and who
oversaw and stood by the fraudulent intelligence on Iraq stating they bought uranium from
Niger to build a nuclear weapon, is the very same Sir Richard Dearlove who promoted the
Christopher Steele dossier as something "credible" to American intelligence.
In other words, the same man who is largely responsible for encouraging the illegal invasion
of Iraq, which set off the never-ending wars on "terror," that was justified with cooked
British intelligence is also responsible for encouraging the Russian spook witch-hunt that has
been occurring within the U.S. for the last four years over more cooked British intelligence,
and the FBI and CIA are knowingly complicit in this.
Neither the American people, nor the world as a whole, can afford to suffer any more of the
so-called "mistaken" intelligence bumblings. It is time that these intelligence bureaus are
held accountable for at best criminal negligence, at worst, treason against their own
country.
When Great Figures of Hope Are Targeted as Threats to "National Security"
The Family Jewels
report , which was an investigation conducted by the CIA to investigate itself , was
spurred by the Watergate Scandal and the CIA's unconstitutional role in the whole affair. This
investigation by the CIA reviewed its own conduct from the 1950s to mid-1970s.
The Family Jewels report was only partially declassified in June 25, 2007 (30
years later). Along with the release of the redacted report included a six-page summary with
the following introduction:
" The Central Intelligence Agency violated its charter for 25 years until revelations of
illegal wiretapping, domestic surveillance, assassination plots , and human experimentation
led to official investigations and reforms in the 1970s. " [emphasis added]
Despite this acknowledged violation of its charter for 25 years, which is pretty much since
its inception, the details of this information were kept classified for 30 years from not just
the public but major governmental bodies and it was left to the agency itself to judge how best
to "reform" its ways.
On Dec. 22, 1974, The
New York Times published an article by Seymour Hersh exposing illegal operations conducted
by the CIA, dubbed the "family jewels". This included, covert action programs involving
assassination attempts on foreign leaders and covert attempts to subvert foreign governments,
which were reported for the first time . In addition, the article discussed efforts by
intelligence agencies to collect information on the political activities of U.S. citizens.
Largely as a reaction to Hersh's findings, the creation of the Church Committee was approved
on January 27, 1975, by a vote of 82 to 4 in the Senate.
The Church Committee also published an interim
report titled "Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders", which investigated
alleged attempts to assassinate foreign leaders, including Patrice Lumumba of Zaire, Rafael
Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, Ngo Dinh Diem of Vietnam, Gen. René Schneider of
Chile and Fidel Castro of Cuba. President Ford attempted to withhold the report from the
public, but failed and reluctantly issued Executive
Order 11905 after pressure from the public and the Church Committee.
Executive Order 11905 is a United States Presidential Executive Order signed on February 18,
1976, by a very reluctant President Ford in an attempt to reform the United States Intelligence
Community, improve oversight on foreign intelligence activities, and ban political
assassination.
The attempt is now regarded as a failure and was largely undone by President Reagan who
issued Executive
Order 12333 , which extended the powers and responsibilities of U.S. intelligence agencies
and directed leaders of the U.S. federal agencies to co-operate fully with the CIA, which was
the original arrangement that CIA have full authority over clandestine operations (for more
information on this refer to my papers
here and
here ).
In addition, the Church Committee produced seven case studies on covert operations, but only
the one on Chile was released, titled " Covert Action in
Chile: 1963–1973 ". The rest were kept secret at the CIA's request.
Among the most shocking revelation of the Church Committee was the discovery of Operation
SHAMROCK , in which the major telecommunications companies shared their traffic with the
NSA from 1945 to the early 1970s. The information gathered in this operation fed directly into
the NSA Watch List. It was found out during the committee investigations that Senator Frank
Church, who was overseeing the committee, was among the prominent
names under surveillance on this NSA Watch List.
In 1975, the Church Committee decided to unilaterally declassify the particulars of this
operation, against the objections of President Ford's administration (refer here and
here for more information).
The Church Committee's reports constitute the most extensive review of intelligence
activities ever made available to the public. Much of the contents were classified, but over
50,000 pages were declassified under the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records
Collection Act of 1992.
President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas on Nov. 22nd, 1963. Two days before his
assassination a hate-Kennedy handbill (see picture) was circulated in Dallas accusing the
president of treasonous activities including being a communist sympathizer.
On March 1st, 1967 New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison arrested and charged Clay Shaw
with conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy, with the help of David Ferrie and others.
After a little over a one month long trial, Shaw was found not guilty on March 1st, 1969.
David Ferrie, a controller of Lee Harvey Oswald, was going to be a key witness and would
have provided the "smoking gun" evidence linking himself to Clay Shaw, was likely murdered on
Feb. 22nd, 1967, less than a week after news of Garrison's investigation broke in the
media.
According to Garrison's team findings, there was reason to believe that the CIA was involved
in the orchestrations of President Kennedy's assassination but access to classified material
(which was nearly everything concerning the case) was necessary to continue such an
investigation.
Though Garrison's team lacked direct evidence, they were able to collect an immense amount
of circumstantial evidence, which should have given the justification for access to classified
material for further investigation. Instead the case was thrown out of court prematurely and is
now treated as if it were a circus. [Refer to Garrison's book for further details and Oliver
Stone's excellently researched movie JFK ]
To date, it is the only trial to be brought forward concerning the assassination of
President Kennedy.
The Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) was created in 1994 by the Congress enacted
President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, which mandated that all
assassination-related material be housed in a single collection within the National Archives
and Records Administration. In July 1998, a staff report
released by the ARRB emphasized shortcomings in the original autopsy.
The
ARRB wrote , "One of the many tragedies of the assassination of President Kennedy has been
the incompleteness of the autopsy record and the suspicion caused by the shroud of secrecy that
has surrounded the records that do exist." [emphasis added]
" Asked about the lunchroom episode [where he was overheard stating his notes of the
autopsy went missing] in a May 1996 deposition, Finck said he did not remember it. He was
also vague about how many notes he took during the autopsy but confirmed that "after the
autopsy I also wrote notes" and that he turned over whatever notes he had to the chief
autopsy physician, James J. Humes.
It has long been known that Humes destroyed some original autopsy papers in a fireplace at
his home on Nov. 24, 1963. He told the Warren Commission that what he burned was an original
draft of his autopsy report. Under persistent questioning at a February 1996 deposition by
the Review Board, Humes said he destroyed the draft and his "original notes."
Shown official autopsy photographs of Kennedy from the National Archives, [Saundra K.]
Spencer [who worked in "the White House lab"] said they were not the ones she helped process
and were printed on different paper. She said "there was no blood or opening cavities" and
the wounds were much smaller in the pictures [than what she had] worked on
John T. Stringer, who said he was the only one to take photos during the autopsy itself,
said some of those were missing as well. He said that pictures he took of Kennedy's brain at
a "supplementary autopsy" were different from the official set that was shown to him. "
[emphasis added]
This not only shows that evidence tampering did indeed occur, as even the Warren Commission
acknowledges, but this puts into question the reliability of the entire assassination record of
John F. Kennedy and to what degree evidence tampering and forgery have occurred in these
records.
We would also do well to remember the numerous crimes that the FBI and CIA have been guilty
of committing upon the American people such as during the period of McCarthyism. That the FBI's
COINTELPRO has been implicated in covert operations against members of the civil rights
movement, including Martin Luther King Jr. during the 1960s. That FBI director J. Edgar Hoover
made no secret of his hostility towards Dr. King and his ludicrous belief that King was
influenced by communists, despite having no evidence to that effect.
King was assassinated on April 4th, 1968 and the civil rights movement took a major
blow.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
In November 1975, as the Church Committee was completing its investigation, the Department
of Justice formed a Task Force to examine the FBI's program of harassment directed at Dr. King,
including the FBI's security investigations of him, his assassination and the FBI conducted
criminal investigation that followed. One aspect of the Task force study was to determine
"whether any action taken in relation to Dr. King by the FBI before the assassination had, or
might have had, an effect, direct or indirect, on that event."
In its report
, the Task Force criticized the FBI not for the opening, but for the protracted continuation
of, its security investigation of Dr. King:
" We think the security investigation which included both physical and technical
surveillance, should have been terminated in 1963. That it was intensified and augmented by a
COINTELPRO type campaign against Dr. King was unwarranted; the COINTELPRO type campaign,
moreover, was ultra vires and very probably felonious. "
In 1999, King Family
v. Jowers civil suit in Memphis, Tennessee occurred, the full transcript of the trial can
be found here
. The jury found that Lloyd Jowers and unnamed others, including those in high ranking
positions within government agencies, participated in a conspiracy to assassinate Dr. King.
During the four week trial, it was pointed out that the rifle allegedly used to assassinate
King did not have a scope that was sighted, which meant you could not have hit the broad side
of a barn with that rifle, thus it could not have been the murder weapon .
This was only remarked on over 30 years after King was murdered and showed the level of
incompetence, or more likely, evidence tampering that was committed from previous
investigations conducted by the FBI.
The case of JFK and MLK are among the highest profile assassination cases in American
history, and it has been shown in both cases that evidence tampering has indeed occurred,
despite being in the center of the public eye. What are we then to expect as the standard of
investigation for all the other cases of malfeasance? What expectation can we have that justice
is ever upheld?
With a history of such blatant misconduct, it is clear that the present demand to declassify
the Russiagate papers now, and not 50 years later, needs to occur if we are to address the
level of criminality that is going on behind the scenes and which will determine the fate of
the country.
The American People Deserve to Know
Today we see the continuation of the over seven decades' long ruse, the targeting of
individuals as Russian agents without any basis, in order to remove them from the political
arena. The present effort to declassify the Russiagate papers and exonerate Michael Flynn, so
that he may freely speak of the intelligence he knows, is not a threat to national security, it
is a threat to those who have committed treason against their country .
On Oct. 6th, 2020, President Trump ordered the declassification of the Russia Probe
documents along with the classified documents on the findings concerning the Hillary Clinton
emails. The release of these documents threatens to expose the entrapment of the Trump campaign
by the Clinton campaign with help of the U.S. intelligence agencies.
The Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe released some of these documents
recently, including former CIA Director John Brennan's handwritten notes for a meeting with former
President Obama, the notes revealing that Hillary Clinton approved a plan to "vilify Donald
Trump by stirring up scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service."
Trey Gowdy, who was Chair of the House Oversight Committee from June 13th, 2017 – Jan.
3rd, 2019, has stated in
an interview on Oct. 7th, 2020 that he has never seen these documents. Devin Nunes, who was
Chair of the House Intelligence Committee from Jan. 3rd, 2015 – Jan. 3rd, 2019, has also
said in a recent interview that he has never seen these documents.
And yet, both the FBI and CIA were aware and had access to these documents and sat on them
for four years, withholding their release from several government-led investigations that were
looking into the Russiagate scandal and who were requesting relevant material that was in the
possession of both intelligence bureaus. Do these intelligence bureaus sound like they are
working for the "national security" of the American people?
The truth must finally be brought to light, or the country will rot from its head to
tail.
Problem here is when you suggest that killing a president is justified you eliminate any
possibility of democracy / republic whatever you name it. You are installing being ruled at
the wrong end of a barrel.
Miffed Microbiologist , 27 minutes ago
I have to agree with you. My mother was an investigative reporter who worked for Pierre
Salinger. She told me some pretty interesting things that were going on in the White House
during Camelot which the press shielded from the public. However to be fair, I honestly think
this was nothing unusual. Truth and politics rarely go together.
Miffed
Duke6 , 13 minutes ago
LOL. Compared to the globalist animals running the country after his death , the above is
poor at attempt at deflection.
If JFK flopped it was because he was taken out. He was also too promiscuous for his own
good. He really pissed some people off, which is the reason behind the gruesome public
assassination.
USGrant , 3 minutes ago
"Some people" was the MIC. His reluctance to fight a war in Vietnam and the firing of
Allen Dulles in the spring of 1962 set the stage. Johnson OKed it and the first full day as
president had a meeting with the military chiefs to ramp up the war. The red seal ones and
fives issued directly by the Treasury with no debt backing may have gotten the old money in
Europe involved as well.
I agree. I roll my eyes every time. It goes to show how deeply embedded the false
narrative of NSDAP is. Many otherwise bright writers use this same example. Use the
Bolshevism of the USSR instead.
Invest time in viewing 'The Greatest Story NEVER Told' or 'EUROPA: The Last Battle.'
They're both long, but comprehensive.
Bolshevism may not a good comparison to the common perception of Nazism as Hitler won over
the loyalty of much of the German citizenry where Bolshevism was terror handed down to the
population by the tyrannical minority at the top.
And that's by design. False flags like Scripal Novichok saga are just a smoke screen over UK
problems, the ciursi of neoliberalism in the country, delegitimization of neoliberal elites and
its subservience to the USA global neoliberal empire, which wants to devour Russia like it
plundered the USSR in the past.
But why outgoing MI6 chief decided to tell us the truth? This is not in the traditions of the
agency.
After years of focusing on combating terrorism, US Special Forces are preparing to turn
their attention to the possibility of future conflict with adversaries Russia and China. The
outgoing head of MI6, the UK's clandestine intelligence service, says that the perceived threat
posed by Russia and China against the UK is overstated and distract from addressing the UK's
domestic problems. Meanwhile, his replacement insists that the threat posed by Russia and China
is real and is growing in complexity. Rick Sanchez explains. Then former US diplomat Jim Jatras
and "Going Underground" host Afshin Rattansi share their insights.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is meeting for a for a final day of deliberations before the
confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump's controversial pick for the US
Supreme Court. RT America's Faran Fronczak reports. RT America's Trinity Chavez reports on the
skyrocketing poverty across the US as coronavirus relief funds dry up and the White House
stalls on additional stimulus. RT America's John Huddy reports on the backlash against Facebook
and Twitter for their suppression of an incendiary new report about Democratic nominee Joe
Biden's son Hunter Biden and his foreign entanglements.
Fight it all you want, but there's nothing you can do. "The emails are Russian" is going to
be the official dominant narrative in mainstream political discourse, and there's nothing you
can do to stop it. Resistance is futile.
Like the Russian hacking narrative, the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, the Russian
bounties in Afghanistan narrative, and any other evidence-free framing of events that
simultaneously advances pre-planned cold war agendas, is politically convenient for the
Democratic party and generates clicks and ratings, the narrative that the New York Post
publication of Hunter Biden's emails is a Russian operation is going to be hammered and
hammered and hammered until it becomes the mainstream consensus. This will happen regardless of
facts and evidence, up to and including rock solid evidence that Hunter Biden's emails were not
published as a result of a Russian operation.
This is happening. It's following the same formula all the other fact-free Russia hysteria
narratives have followed. The same media tour by pundits and political operatives saying with
no evidence but very assertive voices that Russia is most certainly behind this occurrence and
we should all be very upset about it.
"To me, this is just classic textbook Soviet Russian tradecraft at work," Russiagate founder
and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is heard assuring CNN's audience .
"Joe Biden – and all of us – SHOULD be furious that media outlets are spreading
what is very likely Russian propaganda," begins and eight-part thread by Democratic Senator
Chris Murphy, who claims the emails are "Kremlin constructed anti-Biden propaganda."
"It's not really surprising at all, this was always the play, but still kind of
head-spinning to watch all the players from 2016 run exactly the same hack-leak-smear op in
2020. Even with everyone knowing exactly what's happening this time," tweets MSNBC's Chris
Hayes.
"How are you all circling the wagons instead of being embarrassed for peddling Russian ops
18 days before the election. It's not enough that you all haven't learned from your atrocious
handling of 2016 -- you are doubling down," Democratic Party think tanker Neera Tanden
tweeted in admonishment of
journalists who dare to report on or ask questions about the emails.
Virtually the entirety of the Democratic Party-aligned political/media class has streamlined
this narrative of Russian influence into the American consciousness with very little inertia,
despite the fact that neither Joe nor Hunter Biden has disputed the authenticity of the emails
and despite a complete absence of evidence for Russian involvement in their publication.
This is surely the first time, at least in recent memory, that we have ever seen such a
broad consensus within the mass media that it is the civic duty of news reporters to try and
influence the outcome of a presidential general election by withholding negative news coverage
for one candidate. There was a lot of fascinated hatred for Trump in 2016, but people still
reported on Hillary Clinton's various scandals and didn't attack one another for doing so. In
2020 that has changed, and mainstream news reporters have now largely coalesced along the
doctrine that they must avoid any reporting which might be detrimental to the Biden
campaign.
"Dem Party hacks (and many of their media allies) genuinely believe it's immoral to report
on or even discuss stories that reflect poorly on Biden. In reality, it's the responsibility of
journalists to ignore their vapid whining and ask about newsworthy stories, even about Biden,"
tweeted The Intercept 's Glenn
Greenwald recently.
"You don't even have to think the Hunter Biden materials constitute some kind of
earth-shattering story to be absolutely repulsed at the authoritarian propaganda offensive
being waged to discredit them -- primarily by journalists who behave like compliant little
trained robots ," tweeted journalist Michael
Tracey.
Last month The Spectator 's Stephen L Miller described how the consensus
formed among the mainstream press since Clinton's 2016 loss that it is their moral duty to
be uncritical of Trump's opponent.
"For almost four years now, journalists have shamed their colleagues and themselves over
what I will call the 'but her emails' dilemma," Miller writes. "Those who reported dutifully on
the ill-timed federal investigation into Hillary Clinton's private server and spillage of
classified information have been cast out and shunted away from the journalist cool kids'
table. Focusing so much on what was, at the time, a considerable scandal, has been written off
by many in the media as a blunder. They believe their friends and colleagues helped put Trump
in the White House by focusing on a nothing-burger of a Clinton scandal when they should have
been highlighting Trump's foibles. It's an error no journalist wants to repeat."
So "the emails are Russian" narrative serves the interests of political convenience,
partisan media ratings, and the national security state's pre-planned agenda to continue
escalating against Russia as part of its
slow motion third world war against nations which refuse to bow to US dictates, and you've
got essentially no critical mainstream news coverage putting the brakes on any of it. This
means this narrative is going to become mainstream orthodoxy and treated as an established
fact, despite the fact that there is no actual, tangible evidence for it.
Joe Biden could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and the mainstream
press would crucify any journalist who so much as tweeted about it. Very
little journalism is going into vetting and challenging him, and a great deal of the energy
that would normally be doing so is going into ensuring that he slides right into the White
House.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
If the mainstream news really existed to tell you the truth about what's going on, everyone
would know about every questionable decision that Joe Biden has ever made, Russiagate would
never have happened, we'd all be acutely aware of the fact that powerful forces are pushing us
into increasingly aggressive confrontations with two nuclear-armed nations, and Trump would be
grilled about
Yemen in every press conference.
But the mainstream news does not exist to tell you the truth about the world. The mainstream
news exists to advance the interests of its wealthy owners and the status quo upon which they
have built their kingdoms. That's why it's
so very, very important that we find ways to break away from it and share information with
each other that isn't tainted by corrupt and powerful interests.
* * *
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see
the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack , which will get you an email
notification for everything I publish. My work is
entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around,
liking me on Facebook
, following my antics on Twitter ,
throwing some money into my tip jar on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise ,
buying my books Rogue Nation:
Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone and
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and
what I'm trying to do with this platform,
click here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded,
has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else
I've written) in any way they like free of charge.
Esper's speech demonstrates a confluence of policies, ideas, and funds that permeate
through the system, and are by no means unique to a single service, think tank, or
contractor.
First, Esper consistently situated his future expansion plans in a need to adapt to "an
era of great power competition." CNAS is one of the think tanks leading the charge in
highlighting the threat from Beijing.
They also received at least $8,946,000 from 2014-2019 from the U.S. government and
defense contractors, including over $7 million from defense contractors like Northrop
Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Huntington Ingalls, General Dynamics, and Boeing who would stand
to make billions if the 500-ship fleet were enacted.
It's all about the money. Foreign and domestic policy is always all about the money,
either directly or indirectly. Of course, the ultimate goal is power - or more precisely, the
ultimate goal is relief of the fear of death, which drives every single human's every action,
and only power can do that, and in this world only money can give you power (or so the
chimpanzees believe.)
I'll join the chorus calling New York Times columnist Bret Stephens "brave" for last week's
takedown of his
newspaper's "1619 Project." But I'd also like to ask him: What took you so long?
The 100-page collection of 18 articles that infamously claimed America's "true founding"
date is not 1776, but 1619 – the year enslaved Africans were first brought to these
shores – has received withering criticism since it was published
in August 2019 .
Ten months ago some of the nation's leading historians – including Pulitzer
Prize winners Gordon Wood and James McPherson –
wrote the Times to challenge a wide array of its claims, which the newspaper and its
partner, The Pulitzer Center, were disseminating free of charge
in the nation's classrooms . The historians were especially troubled by its assertion that
the Revolutionary War was fought to preserve slavery and the project's near total erasure of
the contributions of whites to dismantling slavery and working for freedom. Their letter
described these failings as "a displacement of historical understanding by ideology."
Their criticisms were
echoed and extended by others including
Leslie M. Harris, an African American professor of history at Northwestern University, who said
she "vigorously disputed" some central claims of the project when she helped fact-check it
before publication. "Despite my advice," she
wrote in Politico seven months ago , "the Times published the incorrect statement about the
American Revolution anyway."
Stephens' sharply written broadside breaks no new ground. What it does provide is a skillful
synthesis and endorsement of these voluminous critiques in the Times – by a Timesman.
That is significant. But his decision to write the essay so long after the project's mistruths
have been laid bare – and months after it was honored with a George Polk Award and a
Pulitzer Prize – suggests more rot at the Gray Lady and in American journalism.
As Stephens (pictured) himself suggests, the precipitating event was Phillip W. Magness'
Sept. 19 article in
Quillette , which revealed that the Times has "taken to quietly altering the published text
of the project itself after one of its claims came under intense criticism." Most significant,
the paper had scrubbed the claim that 1619 was "our true founding" from the online text without
acknowledgment.
This is not mere editing, but stealthy expurgation intended to cover up the paper's
journalistic malpractice.
This sketchy conduct, presumably approved by New York Times Magazine Editor Jake Silverstein
and others, warrants far more than a column. It demands a published response from the paper's
executive editor, Dean Baquet, that acknowledges the misdeed and states whether Baquet knew of
and/or approved the secret changes. Baquet must also detail the paper's response and explain
why the Times still stands by the project, given the need for such major corrections.
In this context, a column by someone with no authority at the Times beyond his opinion seems
part of a strategy to acknowledge a problem without fixing it. For all his bravery in writing
this piece, Stephens is the perfect foil for the Times, one that creates an escape hatch for
1619 acolytes.
It is relevant that Stephens – a conservative who came to the Times after a Pulitzer
Prize-winning stint at the Wall Street Journal – is the columnist whom so many liberal
Times subscribers love to hate. One of the few scribes at the paper who does not incessantly
preach to its woke choir, he has generated strong pushback from colleagues and readers for his
opinions on
climate change and the
Middle East . This may explain why the
New York Times Guild initially felt comfortable sending a now deleted Tweet criticizing the
editors for running Stephens' 1619 piece, which, it said, "reeks."
Stephens' standing makes it easier for many Times readers to dismiss or ignore his
devastating critique. Imagine the impact a similar piece might have had if it been written by
David Brooks or Nicholas Kristof.
Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger appears to be unconcerned by the allegations. The man who
forced editorial page editor James Bennet to resign because he ran a
controversial op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton , issued a brief statement
Sunday that ignored the journalistic and factual issues raised by Stephens and others, and
instead insisted that the 1619 Project was "a journalistic triumph" whose publication is "the
proudest accomplishment of my tenure as publisher."
[ Baquet echoed Sulzberger's
comments in a note to his staff on Oct. 13, when this column was posted. Without directly
addressing the ethical and factual issues raised, he asserted that "the project fell fully
within our standards as a news organization" and that it "fill(s) me with pride."]
The deeper issue raised by Stephens' column is that the 1619 Project is just one example of
the degree to which the Times and other mainstream news outlets have displaced traditional
journalistic practice with ideology. Informed by the tenets of social justice and
critical race theory that have long dominated the humanities departments at leading
universities, journalists have abandoned a commitment to the elusive ideal of objectivity for a
naked embrace of results-oriented activism masquerading as reportage. In this regard,
journalism is a symptom, rather than cause, of the deep-seated cultural relativism that
pervades American culture.
The essence of the 1619 Project is the idea that America is a permanently racist nation
whose founding ideals were lies. This is the capital T truth it seeks to advance. It dismisses
facts that undermine that narrative, distorting the historical record because they are seen as
roadblocks in the arc that bends toward justice. This approach relies on one of the most
dangerous engines of dishonesty in human history: the notion that the means justify the
ends.
That the Pulitzer board would bestow its prize for commentary to the lead writer of the 1619
Project, Nikole Hannah-Jones, despite damning scholarly critiques, suggests how deeply this
activist approach has infected journalism.
This impulse now drives much of the coverage in the Times, the Washington Post, the New
Yorker, NPR, and other prestigious news organizations. The clearest example is reporting on
Donald Trump, whom the left sees as an existential threat. This is the capital T truth they
advance through stories that insistently eschew nuance to portray the president as a
monster.
From climate change to identity politics, examples of their tendentious coverage are legion.
But none is more thoroughgoing and dishonest than the years-long coverage claiming Trump
colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election.
My RealClearInvestigations colleagues are among those
who followed the leads and dug up the facts mainstream outlets refused to and, so, got the
story right. Tom Kuntz, a former Times editor who leads RCI,
detailed how the Times and the Post relied on untrustworthy anonymous sources, unfair
innuendo and cherry-picked facts to advance this narrative in a series of stories that won both
papers a Pulitzer Prize in 2018.
This effort to distort the truth continues unbowed and unabated. Last week,
New Yorker writer Dexter Filkins wrote that Christopher Steele's dossier – opposition
research paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign that claimed the Russians had been
cultivating Trump as an asset for decades – "has been neither proved nor
disproved."
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
In fact, much of it has been debunked and the key parts of it that haven't been probably
never will because you can't prove a negative – one can't ever prove that there is no
videotape showing Trump paid Russian prostitutes to pee on a Moscow hotel bed the Obamas had
slept in.
Shane Harris of the Washington Post encapsulated the ongoing dishonesty in an article last
week acknowledging, after a fashion, damning new intelligence tying the Clinton campaign to
Russiagate. In a single paragraph he both denied overwhelming evidence that the Clinton
campaign helped generate that now debunked scandal while also insisting that the conspiracy
theory was legitimate. Harris wrote:
"Trump allies have seized on the intelligence as evidence that Clinton was in some way
involved in ginning up an investigation of Trump to tie his campaign to Russia. The president
has consistently denied the charge as a 'hoax,' even though multiple investigations have
documented numerous instances in which his campaign sought Russian assistance in damaging
Clinton."
There is hardly any evidence that the Trump campaign "sought" such assistance. The most that
can be said is that it was receptive to offers of dirt on Clinton at the infamous
June 2016 Trump Tower meeting . Her campaign, by contrast, used people like Steele to
actively seek compromising material on Trump, which appears to have included Russian
disinformation.
Such reporting is so brazen that it suggests a far deeper problem than any one story.
Indeed, the deeply misleading Trump/Russia coverage and the 1619 Project are not deviations
from the norm. They are the new standard at prestigious outlets that are committed to pursuing
their notion of the capital T truth – inconvenient facts be damned.
American diplomat George Messersmith found himself in an awkward situation while attending a
luncheon in Kiel, Germany in August of 1933.
As lunch came to a close, the attendees erupted into song with arms outstretched in the Nazi
salute.
First they belted out Germany's national anthem, followed by the anthem of the
Stormtroopers– the paramilitary "Brownshirts" who violently enforced Germany's new social
rules.
Messersmith was the US Consul-General overseeing America's diplomatic ties with Germany, so
he politely stood at attention. But he did not salute or sing along.
Germans were required by law to render the Nazi salute, especially during the anthem; Hitler
had been awarded supreme executive authority only a few months before, and he made the
mandatory salute law of the land.
Foreigners, however, were explicitly exempt from saluting or singing the anthem.
But that didn't help Messersmith.
Even though he was legally excused from making the Nazi salute, angry Brownshirts menacingly
glared at him for not participating in their rituals.
Messersmith later wrote in his memoirs that he felt threatened, as if the Brownshirts were
ready to attack him.
"I felt really quite fortunate that the incident took place within doors. . . For if it
had been in a street gathering, or in an outdoor demonstration, no questions would have been
asked as to who I was, and that I would have been mishandled is almost unquestionable."
Messersmith was one of the few US officials who grasped just how dangerous the Nazis were in
1933. Others had to witness it first hand before they understood.
A similar event unfolded when a US radio host and his family found themselves amidst an
impromptu Nazi parade in Berlin.
And in order to avoid Hailing Hitler, they turned their backs to the parade and gazed into a
store window.
But several Brownshirts quickly surrounded the family and demanded to know why they did not
salute.
The family explained that they were from the US and didn't know the customs in Germany. But
the Brownshirts didn't care. The family was assaulted as police officers watched and did
nothing to stop the violence.
News of these sorts of incidents quickly made their way overseas, and foreigners read the
about Americans traveling in Germany being savagely beaten or threatened for not engaging in
Nazi rituals.
But more surprising is that many foreigners actually sided with the Nazis.
Even the daughter of the US Ambassador to Germany defended the Nazis and their Brownshirt
enforcers.
She said that news reports of these assaults and beatings were "exaggerated by bitter,
close-minded people" who ignored the "thrilling rebirth" Hitler had ushered in for Germany.
Of course, we know in retrospect that these early warning signs were not at all an
exaggeration. They were a small preview for what would come next.
Today we are obviously in a different time dealing with totally different circumstances.
But it would be foolish to ignore the early warning signs and pretend as if what's happening
now is not a preview for what could come next.
This is perhaps best illustrated by a CNN reporter in Kenosha, Wisconsin back in August who
stood in front of burning cars and buildings, with a violent mob all around him, yet declared
the protests "fiery but mostly peaceful."
This willful ignorance of the undercurrent coursing its way through the Western world will
not save anyone from the destruction it brings.
For example, just this past Monday, "peaceful protesters" in Portland, Oregon celebrated
Columbus Day with an "Indigenous People's Day of Rage."
They weren't even pretending to be peaceful. They called it what it is: RAGE. That's
literally the name they gave to their own actions.
Hundreds of people dressed in all black, covered their faces, and armed themselves with
shields and nightsticks. They marched their way through the city, smashed windows, and forced
any witnesses to stop filming and delete photographs.
A man who filmed from his apartment's terrace had lasers shined in his eyes and was doused
in some sort of liquid.
The protesters tore down statues of Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln. They smashed the
windows of the Oregon Historical Society building, and unfurled a banner that said "stop
honoring racist colonizer murderers."
Police did not even attempt to intervene until the rioters had been on the streets for hours
and had already caused havoc and destruction.
(Ironically, much of the mainstream media still refuses to acknowledge that this group
'antifa'– the fascists who call themselves anti-fascists– even exists.)
It's obvious that a small, fringe, ideological minority has started to take control.
They have squashed civil discourse and free speech. Dissent is met with violence and
intimidation. And if you dare to speak out, you become a target.
That could mean being "cancelled" by the Twitter mob. Or being accosted in public and forced
to raise your fist. Several people have already been killed in protests across the nation.
This is far from the first time in history that a tiny fraction of the population has
resorted to violence and extremism to force their agenda on an entire nation.
But you don't have to watch helplessly as the born-again Brownshirts destroy everything you
have worked for.
The first step is to recognize that the radical movement will not simply go away on its own.
This has been growing for some time, and history tells us that it could become much
worse.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Second, have a rock solid Plan B. This means deciding– in advance, when you're still
calm and rational– what steps to take in order to secure your family's safety, your
prosperity, and your freedom in a worst case scenario.
After all, you don't want to be thinking about your next move when some antifa thug
'peacefully' hurls a molotov cocktail through your window.
On another note We think gold could DOUBLE and silver could increase by up to 5 TIMES in the
next few years.
If The Federalist's
Sean Davis ' informants are even half right, director of the Central Intelligence Agency
Gina Haspel is making a big mistake - for herself, for the CIA , and, above all, for the country.
Davis wrote:
"Haspel is personally blocking the declassification and release of key Russiagate documents in the hopes that
President Donald Trump will lose his re-election bid, multiple senior U.S. officials told The
Federalist. The officials said Haspel, who served under former CIA Director John Brennan as
the spy agency's station chief in London in 2016 and 2017, is concerned that the
declassification and release of documents detailing what the CIA was doing during the 2016
election and the 2017 transition could embarrass the CIA and potentially even implicate
Haspel herself."
What Haspel seems to be missing here is that the CIA, and the FBI , of course, have already been embarrassed,
greatly, their reputations tarnished almost beyond recognition with tens of millions of U. S.
citizens by the Spygate/Russiagate scandal.
She and FBI director Christopher Wray , deluding themselves
that they are protecting vital institutions of our society, are apparently waiting with the
proverbial bated breath for a Biden administration so that all revelations and potential
indictments that might come via John Durham and William Barr are flushed down the equally
proverbial memory hole.
It won't work. The only way to resuscitate those reputations is for them, Haspel and Wray,
to be fully transparent, now , before the election .
Even if everything Durham and Barr are investigating is flushed away before reaching
fruition, even if the Biden-Harris administration instantly installs a new attorney general and
cleanses the DOJ and the intelligence agencies of all remnants of the dreaded Trump over night,
tens of millions of Americans already know.
They have already seen at least parts of the story and they won't forget. How could
they?
They know their new president Joe Biden and many allied with him have been implicated in a
treasonous plot of previously unheard of proportions to upend the prior administration.
These same people, these millions, now distrust the CIA and the FBI, and, to a great extent,
their government. They consider these pivotal institutions their enemies, working against their
interests and, more importantly, the interests of the country. And these people are some of the
most deeply patriotic of all Americans.
What a situation for our county! How can we then function as a democratic republic?
Did Ms. Haspel think about that? Did Mr. Wray consider that as he withholds or endlessly
redacts documents, allegedly to protect who exactly?
(Wray has taken his desire for a Biden victory to such lengths that he tried to downplay the
importance of Antifa.)
Haspel and Wray are doing the reverse of safeguarding their vital institutions. They are
increasing public distrust of them, a distrust so great that many of us see our society moving
inexorably in the direction of China, a high-tech tyranny of "social credit scores" and
obedience to a Big Brother Orwell could never have conceived.
What is the road back from that?
We should be heartened, however, by reports today as President Trump was exiting from Walter
Reed Hospital that the president was planning on declassifying and releasing many of these
documents himself within days. His chief of staff Mark Meadows was said to have a briefcase
stuffed with them.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Perhaps, by the time you read this, you will know more.
If so, Haspel and Wray, to use another old proverb, will have missed the boat. Everyone will
know that their agencies need a thorough house cleaning and it will be done, as it should be,
without them.
And I will add, although the media will shout the contrary to the hills, though this is
October, revealing these documents is in no way an October Surprise. This is information We the
People (remember them?) were owed years ago.
When you have been deliberately deceived, that's no October Surprise. That's justice.
SilverRhino , 25 minutes ago
We are WELL beyond saving the FBI or the CIA.
Thucydides , 22 minutes ago
Full transparency will end up with all of them at Leavenworth KS.
Macho Latte , 11 minutes ago
CIA, and the FBI ,
of course, have already been embarrassed
Embarrassed? JFC! The author is the one who is delusional.
CIA, DOJ & FBI are corrupt DemonRat from top to bottom.
NoDebt , 9 minutes ago
The title to this article has to be one of the most darkly funny ones I've ever read on
ZH: "Only Full Transparency Will Save The CIA And FBI Now"
It's not just that they will never be transparent because obfuscation and opacity are
their stock-in-trade. It's that the idea that somehow becoming the opposite of what they
are (and were born to be) would "save" them.
That's like saying that auditing The Fed would "save" them. Or that fish should get out
of the water so they can breathe better. It's ridiculous in the extreme. It would kill
them. Which is why they don't do it. And never will.
ze_vodka , 26 minutes ago
Nope.
In 2010, I thought the FBI and CIA were OK.
Now I know full well that they serve only a single purpose... to harass, imprison, and
kill Americans who deviate from the preferred narrative.
Tenebrose , 24 minutes ago
"National Security" means the status quo in this our brave new America
And that is whatever we say it is, slave
Unknown User , 26 minutes ago
JFK tried to shut down the CIA, so they shot him.
namrider , 20 minutes ago
Deep State protecting themselves. C LIE A, FBLIE. Their purpose is NOT PUBLIC SAFETY, it
is deception. On behalf of their masters they have created an upsidedown world where it is
"legal" for them to lie, but not the public - this is bassackwards, they work for us, not
the other way around (except we know who they actually work for).
Both agencies should be 100% eliminated - same with the fake "Patriot Act" and all the
fake agencies it created.
When you pursue "safety" you wind up with neither safety nor FREEDOM.
2banana , 23 minutes ago
obama wesponized the FBI, CIA, DOJ, IRS and EPA to go after political enemies and those
who just had different viewpoints.
The left cheered. The fake legacy media cheered.
And now no one trusts any of them.
To include those on the left.
The Chicago Way.
spam filter , 8 minutes ago
Is a community organizer synonymous with organized crime boss? Obama will go down as the
most corrupt potus in history.
Yen Cross , 6 minutes ago
Devin Nunez, suggested during very compelling house testimony, that these agencies be
shuttered until they're cleansed.
Pretty good idea, based on all the horse **** we've been fed?
Nelbev , 12 minutes ago
The CIA has admittingly been engineering elections round the planet for years, it was
just under Brennan that they turned covert ways inward to US to get Hillary elected and
keep incumbent demoncrats in control. Brennan should be in prison. Haspel ran the London
CIA in 2016, thus helped or was congnizant of Halper, 5 eyes spying on Trump campaign
people like, coordination to get Papadopoulos to start Crossfire Hurricane. Haspel just
covering her ***. Not enough Kentucky bourbon to save her. Liked her deal in with
Mohammed bin Salman to cover up his assassination of Khashoggi in Tukey, what a charmer
.
spam filter , 18 minutes ago
What does government do when caught in the wrong? They arrogantly double down.
Government rarely admits wrongdoing. They're hinging their hopes on Biden winning, at all
costs. Look for the dirtiest tricks in political history, and i think we've already
witnessed germ warfare unleashed on the Potus by those elements who have the most to lose
in a Trump win.
Fuster-cluck , 5 minutes ago
100 years ago a spy was correctly considered despicable - at the level of child
molester or lower. Governments and militaries held their noses and used them even while
disgusted.
Somehow since the 50's onward spies became glorified (probably James Bond), and today
spying is pervasive, from the cameras in our houses, to Google, to the 3 letter
agencies.
Somehow we need to get the right attitude back. A spy is repugnant slime. They would
foul a cesspit, and no decent person would allow such filth in their house, much less at
their table.
There is no path to grace for the agencies, nor should we seek one. Eradicate every
last one of them and desecrate their memory.
PGR88 , 13 minutes ago
The idea that the CIA and FBI are in any danger from public opinion is preposterous.
They are in no danger because as perhaps the most important arms of the deep state, they
will have total protection from other arms of the deep-state; media, entertainment,
business, government bureaucracy, etc...
This is not just about Russiagate. It's also about Syria, including jihadists who
imposed Sharia law on portions of Syria they controlled with the aid of the CIA and false
flag chemical weapons attacks. Horrendous war crimes were inflicted, evidence for which
has been presented to the UN but kept out of the public eye.
The only possible road back from that is to blame it on someone else. Turkey's Erdogan
would be the best choice as he's made himself an enemy of everyone, including the Saudis.
Don't be surprised if Greece joins with Armenia and both get the backing of the US
against soon-to-be-ex-NATO-member Turkey.
An interviewer should test this man's integrity with a simple question, such as.. "When
you retire, will promise to live off your generous pension....like Eisenhower in his rocking
chair....and not go to work for an arms manufacturer or think tank or any other paid
position?"
Rocky_Fjord 9 September, 2020 9 Sep, 2020 05:18 AM
"... AP is hardly the Ministry of Truth, dictating Newspeak under the penalty of torture. As it turns out, it doesn't have to be. A bit of updated style – and thought – guidance announced on Twitter from time to time will do. ..."
Used as the journalism Bible by most English-language media, the AP Stylebook has updated its guidance for employing the word 'riot,'
citing the need to avoid "stigmatizing" groups protesting "for racial justice."
While acknowledging the dictionary definition of riot as a "wild or violent disturbance of the peace," AP said the word
somehow "suggests uncontrolled chaos and pandemonium."
Worse yet, "Focusing on rioting and property destruction rather than underlying grievance has been used in the past to stigmatize
broad swaths of people protesting against lynching, police brutality or for racial justice " the Stylebook account tweeted on
Wednesday.
The claim that something has been used in the past in a racist way has already led to banishing many English terms to the Orwellian
"memory hole." It certainly appears the AP is trying to do the same with "riot" now.
Instead of promoting precision, the Stylebook is urging reporters to use euphemisms such as "protest" or "demonstration."
It advises "revolt" and "uprising" if the violence is directed "against powerful groups or governing systems,"
in an alarming shift in focus from what is being done towards who is doing it to whom .
There is even a helpful suggestion to use "unrest" because it's "a vaguer, milder and less emotional term for a condition
of angry discontent and protest verging on revolt."
Translated to plain English, this means a lot more mentions of "unrest" and almost no references to "riot," in media
coverage going forward, regardless of how much actual rioting is happening.
Mainstream media across the US have already gone out of their way to avoid labeling what has unfolded since the death of George
Floyd in May as "riots." Though protests in Minneapolis, Minnesota turned violent within 48 hours, before spreading to other
cities across the US – and even internationally – the media continued calling them "peaceful" and "protests for racial
justice."
Yet in just the first two weeks of the riots, 20 people have been killed and the property damage has
exceeded $2 billion , according
to insurance estimates – the highest in US history.
AP is no stranger to changing the language to better comport to 'proper' political sensitivities. At the height of the riots in
June, the Stylebook decided to capitalize"Black" and "Indigenous" in a "racial, ethnic or cultural sense."
A month later, the expected decision
to leave "white" in lowercase was justified by saying that "White people in general have much less shared history and culture,
and don't have the experience of being discriminated against because of skin color."
Moreover, "Capitalizing the term 'white,' as is done by white supremacists, risks subtly conveying legitimacy to such beliefs,"
wrote AP's vice-president for standards John Daniszewski.
The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law, as its full name goes, has effectively dictated the tone of English-language
outlets around the world since it first appeared in 1953. It is also required reference material in journalism schools.
So when it embraces vagueness over precision and worrying about "suggestions" and "subtly conveying" things over
plain meaning, that rings especially Orwellian – in both the '1984' sense of censoring speech and thought and regarding the corruption
of language the author lamented in his famous 1946
essay 'Politics and the English language.'
AP is hardly the Ministry of Truth, dictating Newspeak under the penalty of torture. As it turns out, it doesn't have to be.
A bit of updated style – and thought – guidance announced on Twitter from time to time will do.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of RT.
Nebojsa Malic is a Serbian-American journalist, blogger and translator, who wrote a regular column for Antiwar.com from
2000 to 2015, and is now senior writer at RT. Follow him on Twitter @NebojsaMalic
I draw your attention to the irrefutable fact that Mr. Cohen said that the Buk missile, which
brought down Malaysian Flight 370 over the skies of Donbas, was the Ukraine government "playing
with its new toys and made a big mistake." -- and I draw your attention to the irrefutable fact
that Mr. Cohen said that the Buk missile, which brought down Malaysian Flight 370 over the skies
of Donbas, was the Ukraine government "playing with its new toys and made a big mistake."
He was a real giant in comparison with intellectual scum like Fiona Hill, Michael McFaul and other neocons.
Notable quotes:
"... I tried to explain to American friends what was happening, but quickly realized that ultimately, even friends believe what they read in the newspapers, and the newspapers were pushing the Washington line. Except for Steve Cohen. Steve was the only major figure in America who insisted on remembering the Russian-speaking Ukrainians who, like my family members, distrusted and hated the new Kiev government. He spoke of neo-Nazi paramilitiaries who fought for the US-backed government committing war crimes against civilians in eastern Ukraine. He spoke the truth, regardless of how unwieldy it was. ..."
"... There's a lot to say about Steve. He was extraordinarily kind, never forgetting that in geopolitics, the ones who have the most to lose aren't strategists but everyday individuals impacted by policy. He was a consummate teacher, insisting on giving mentees the skills to navigate the world, a real proponent of the Teach a man to fish philosophy. He had facets and stories and memories; he lived life with empathy and gusto. ..."
"... Steve's insistence on speaking the truth about Ukraine and US-Russia relations drew all sorts of attention. America was hurtling toward a new cold war with Russia, and Steve well, from the perspective of Washington's foreign policy establishment, Steve was fucking up the narrative. Steve talked about inconvenient things, things like US-backed war criminals and America's own meddling in Russian affairs; in the process, he himself had become inconvenient. ..."
"... After all, this wasn't some random blogger. This was one of America's foremost Russia experts, a tenured professor at Princeton and New York University, someone who didn't just write about history but had dinner with it, had briefed US presidents, and was friends with legends like Mikhail Gorbachev. Steve had clout earned from decades of brilliant work; by 2014, he was using that clout to throw a wrench in the think tank world. ..."
"... It was something far colder, more sustained, something that ironically the Soviets did to dissidents: a relentless crusade to render the target untouchable, a leper without a platform. The barrage of articles and diatribes hurled at Steve in the national press painted him as not just a dissenter but a supporter of dictators and murderers. It was a vicious, prolonged assault carried out by think tank toadies, the kind of people who win races by kneecapping the competition. ..."
"... I'd often talk with Steve after a new hatchet job or smear on national television. Of course, the attacks were hurtful -- the only way to not be affected was to not care, and Steve cared. But I also noticed he was remarkably free of bitterness. Every time I thought he'd snap, he'd return the next day to write, discuss, keep fighting. ..."
"... It took me a couple of years to understand that what kept Steve going was faith in his beloved institutions. He believed in academia, in scholarship, in discourse, debate, and civility. He believed in the capacity of everyday people to explore and engage with their world, he believed in Russia, and he always believed in America. He believed in these things far more than he believed in the power of today's warmongers. ..."
"... In 1967 Noam Chomsky wrote an article in the NY Review entitled "the Responsibility of Intellectuals" the first sentence ran like this: "IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies.". Stephen Cohen did precisely that when all the parrots and pundits were lined up against him. ..."
"... Always I was skeptical of prevailing scholarly interpretive trends on the Soviet experience that were echoed by colleagues claiming expertise on the subject. Cohen provided the foundation for my skepticism and invigorated my lectures on American foreign policy. ..."
"... Once Cohen plied his knowledge against the hysterical narrative that culminated in 4 years of frothing neo-McCarthyism (by the freakin' "left," no less), we were no longer gonna see him on the PBS newshour any more likely than we would and will see chris hedges, chomsky, or margaret kimberly. ..."
"... His book War With Russia? was an oasis of counter-narrative when I picked it up. Losing voices like his is immeasurable as we hurtle toward total war with Russia and/or China, both of whom are finally, naturally, and perfectly predictably beginning to draw a line in the sand. ..."
I first reached out to Stephen Cohen because I was losing my mind.
In the spring of 2014, a war broke out in my homeland of Ukraine. It was a horrific war in a
bitterly divided nation, which turned eastern Ukraine into a bombed-out wasteland. But that's
not how it was portrayed in America. Because millions of eastern Ukrainians were against the
US-backed government, their opinions were inconvenient for the West. Washington needed a clean
story about Ukraine fighting the Kremlin; as a result, US media avoided reporting about the
"wrong" half of the country. Twenty-plus million people were written out of the narrative, as
if they never existed.
I tried to explain to American friends what was happening, but quickly realized that
ultimately, even friends believe what they read in the newspapers, and the newspapers were
pushing the Washington line. Except for Steve Cohen. Steve was the only major figure in America
who insisted on remembering the Russian-speaking Ukrainians who, like my family members,
distrusted and hated the new Kiev government. He spoke of neo-Nazi paramilitiaries who fought
for the US-backed government committing war crimes against civilians in eastern Ukraine. He
spoke the truth, regardless of how unwieldy it was.
And so I e-mailed him, asking for guidance as I began my own writing career. Of course,
there were many who clamored for Steve's time, but I had an advantage over others. Steve and I
were both night owls, real night owls, the kind who have afternoon tea at three am. It
was then, when the east coast was sleeping, that he became my mentor and friend.
There's a lot to say about Steve. He was extraordinarily kind, never forgetting that in
geopolitics, the ones who have the most to lose aren't strategists but everyday individuals
impacted by policy. He was a consummate teacher, insisting on giving mentees the skills to
navigate the world, a real proponent of the Teach a man to fish philosophy. He had
facets and stories and memories; he lived life with empathy and gusto.
But one thing Steve taught me is to stick to my strengths, and truth be told, there are
others who can describe his life better than I. I'll stick to what I learned during our
conversations at three in the morning, which is that, above all else, Stephen F. Cohen was a
man of faith.
Steve's insistence on speaking the truth about Ukraine and US-Russia relations drew all
sorts of attention. America was hurtling toward a new cold war with Russia, and Steve well,
from the perspective of Washington's foreign policy establishment, Steve was fucking up the
narrative. Steve talked about inconvenient things, things like US-backed war criminals and
America's own meddling in Russian affairs; in the process, he himself had become
inconvenient.
After all, this wasn't some random blogger. This was one of America's foremost Russia
experts, a tenured professor at Princeton and New York University, someone who didn't just
write about history but had dinner with it, had briefed US presidents, and was friends with
legends like Mikhail Gorbachev. Steve had clout earned from decades of brilliant work; by 2014,
he was using that clout to throw a wrench in the think tank world.
The DC apparatchiks couldn't discredit Steve's credentials or track record -- he'd predicted
events in Ukraine and elsewhere years before they occurred. They couldn't intimidate him --
he'd faced far worse threats, like the KGB. Instead, they set out to turn him into an
America-hating, Putin-loving pariah.
This went beyond an ad hominem campaign. It was something far colder, more sustained,
something that ironically the Soviets did to dissidents: a relentless crusade to render the
target untouchable, a leper without a platform. The barrage of articles and diatribes hurled at
Steve in the national press painted him as not just a dissenter but a supporter of dictators
and murderers. It was a vicious, prolonged assault carried out by think tank toadies, the kind
of people who win races by kneecapping the competition.
I'd often talk with Steve after a new hatchet job or smear on national television. Of
course, the attacks were hurtful -- the only way to not be affected was to not care, and Steve
cared. But I also noticed he was remarkably free of bitterness. Every time I thought he'd snap,
he'd return the next day to write, discuss, keep fighting.
It took me a couple of years to understand that what kept Steve going was faith in his
beloved institutions. He believed in academia, in scholarship, in discourse, debate, and
civility. He believed in the capacity of everyday people to explore and engage with their
world, he believed in Russia, and he always believed in America. He believed in these things
far more than he believed in the power of today's warmongers.
Steve liked movies and would often end a lecture with a movie reference to drive home the
thesis. When I think of him, I think of the ending of The Shawshank Redemption , the
line about Andy Dufresne crawling through filth and coming out clean on the other side. Steve
didn't live in a movie; I can't claim he emerged unscathed. What he did was come through
without bitterness or cynicism. He refused to turn away from the ugliness, but he didn't allow
it to blind him to beauty. He walked with grace. And he lost neither his convictions nor his
faith.
Lev
Golinkin Lev Golinkin is the author of A Backpack, a Bear, and Eight Crates of Vodka,
Amazon's Debut of the Month, a Barnes & Noble's Discover Great New Writers program
selection, and winner of the Premio Salerno Libro d'Europa. Golinkin, a graduate of Boston
College, came to the US as a child refugee from the eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkov (now
called Kharkiv) in 1990. His writing on the Ukraine crisis, Russia, the far right, and
immigrant and refugee identity has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los
Angeles Times, CNN, The Boston Globe, Politico Europe, and Time (online), among other venues;
he has been interviewed by MSNBC, NPR, ABC Radio, WSJ Live and HuffPost Live.
Pierre Guerlain says: October 1, 2020 at 12:42 pm
In 1967 Noam Chomsky wrote an article in the NY Review entitled "the Responsibility of
Intellectuals" the first sentence ran like this: "IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY of intellectuals
to speak the truth and to expose lies.". Stephen Cohen did precisely that when all the
parrots and pundits were lined up against him. He was a Mensch. History will bear him
the historian out.
Valera Bochkarev says to Lance Haley: October 1, 2020 at 11:09 am
Hmm, who's the apologist here ?
If the Ukraine is SO sovereign how is it I did not see any outrage in your diatribe
against 'Toria, Pyatt and the rest orchestrating the Maidan putsch or the $5Billion US spent
on softening up the ukraine for the regime change ?
I believe in numbers, as in the number of military bases any given country has surrounding
the ones it wants to subvert, in the amount of money allocated to vilify and eventually bring
down the "unwanted" regimes and the quantity and 'quality' of sanctions imposed against those
regimes; and the sum of all of the above perpetrated against humanity in the past 75 or so
years.
Your vapid drivel, Mr Haley, evaporates almost without a trace once seen with those
parameters in mind.
Numbers don't lie.
Michael Batinski says: September 30, 2020 at 5:48 pm
Let me add from the perspective of an American historian who taught for forty years in a
midwestern university. From the start I depended on William Appleman Williams to keep
perspective and to counter prevailing interpretive trends.
Always I was skeptical of
prevailing scholarly interpretive trends on the Soviet experience that were echoed by
colleagues claiming expertise on the subject. Cohen provided the foundation for my skepticism
and invigorated my lectures on American foreign policy.
I will always be thankful.
Michael Batinski
Tim Ashby says: September 30, 2020 at 2:37 pm
The smothering agitprop in America trumps even Goebbels and co. with its beautifully
dressed overton window and first-amendment-free-press bullshit.
Once Cohen plied his knowledge against the hysterical narrative that culminated in 4 years
of frothing neo-McCarthyism (by the freakin' "left," no less), we were no longer gonna see
him on the PBS newshour any more likely than we would and will see chris hedges, chomsky, or
margaret kimberly.
Let's face it, we were lucky to win the editorial fight to even give him
space in the Nation.
His book War With Russia? was an oasis of counter-narrative when I picked it up. Losing
voices like his is immeasurable as we hurtle toward total war with Russia and/or China, both
of whom are finally, naturally, and perfectly predictably beginning to draw a line in the
sand.
Hannah Arendt books is junk, as elements of totalitarim are present inmst modern sociery,
espcally neoliberal. The USA after 9/11 is one example.
Notable quotes:
"... Some émigrés who grew up in Soviet-dominated societies are sounding the alarm about the West's dangerous drift into conditions like they once escaped. They feel it in their bones. Reading Arendt in the shadow of the extraordinary rise of identity-politics leftism and the broader crisis of liberal democracy is to confront a deeply unsettling truth: that these refugees from communism may be right. ..."
"... Regarding transgressive sexuality as a social good was not an innovation of the sexual revolution. Like the contemporary West, late imperial Russia was also awash in what historian James Billington called "a preoccupation with sex that is quite without parallel in earlier Russian culture." Among the social and intellectual elite, sexual adventurism, celebrations of perversion, and all manner of sensuality was common. And not just among the elites: the laboring masses, alone in the city, with no church to bind their consciences with guilt, or village gossips to shame them, found comfort in sex. ..."
"... Heda Margolius Kovály, a disillusioned Czech communist whose husband was executed after a 1952 show trial, reflects on the willingness of people to turn their backs on the truth for the sake of an ideological cause: It is not hard for a totalitarian regime to keep people ignorant. Once you relinquish your freedom for the sake of "understood necessity," for Party discipline, for conformity with the regime, for the greatness and glory of the Fatherland, or for any of the substitutes that are so convincingly offered, you cede your claim to the truth. Slowly, drop by drop, your life begins to ooze away just as surely as if you had slashed your wrists; you have voluntarily condemned yourself to helplessness. ..."
"... You can also surrender it by hating others more than you love truth. ..."
"... In 2019, Zach Goldberg, a political science PhD student at Georgia Tech, found that over a nine-year period, the rate of news stories using progressive jargon associated with left-wing critical theory and social justice concepts shot into the stratosphere. The mainstream media is framing the general public's understanding of news and events according to what was until very recently a radical ideology confined to left-wing intellectual elites. ..."
"... For a man desperate to believe, totalitarian ideology is more precious than life itself. "He may even be willing to help in his own prosecution and frame his own death sentence if only his status as a member of the movement is not touched," Arendt wrote. Indeed, the files of the 1930s Stalinist show trials are full of false confessions by devout communists who were prepared to die rather than admit that communism was a lie. ..."
"... Similarly, under the guise of antiracism training, U.S. corporations, institutions, and even churches are frog-marching their employees through courses in which whites and other ideologically disfavored people are compelled to confess their "privilege." Some do, eagerly. ..."
"... "Totalitarianism in power invariably replaces all first-rate talents, regardless of their sympathies, with those crackpots and fools whose lack of intellect and creativity is still the best guarantee of their loyalty," wrote Arendt. ..."
"... President Donald Trump is a rule-breaker in many ways. He once said, "I value loyalty above everything else -- more than brains, more than drive, and more than energy." ..."
"... Trump's exaltation of personal loyalty over expertise is discreditable and corrupting. But how can liberals complain? Loyalty to the group or the tribe is at the core of leftist identity politics. This is at the root of "cancel culture," in which transgressors, however minor their infractions, find themselves cast into outer darkness. ..."
"... Beyond cancel culture, which is reactive, institutions are embedding within their systems ideological tests to weed out dissenters. At universities within the University of California system, for example, teachers who want to apply for tenure-track positions have to affirm their commitment to "equity, diversity, and inclusion" -- and to have demonstrated it, even if it has nothing to do with their field. ..."
"... De facto loyalty tests to diversity ideology are common in corporate America, and have now found their way into STEM faculties and publications, as well as into medical science. ..."
"... A Soviet-born U.S. physician told me -- after I agreed not to use his name -- that social justice ideology is forcing physicians like him to ignore their medical training and judgment when it comes to transgender health. He said it is not permissible within his institution to advise gender dysphoric patients against treatments they desire, even when a physician believes it is not in that particular patient's health interest. ..."
"... Like the imperial Russians, we Americans may well be living in a fog of self-deception about our own country's stability. It only takes a catalyst like war, economic depression, plague, or some other severe and prolonged crisis that brings the legitimacy of the liberal democratic order into question. ..."
"... If totalitarianism comes, it will almost certainly not be Stalinism 2.0, with gulags, secret police, and an all-powerful central state. That would not be necessary. The power of surveillance technology, woke capitalism, and fear of losing bourgeois comfort and status will probably be enough to compel conformity by most. ..."
"... At least at first, it will be a soft totalitarianism, more on the Brave New World model than the Nineteen Eighty-Four one -- but totalitarianism all the same. ..."
n 1951, six years after the end of World War II, the political philosopher Hannah Arendt
published The Origins of Totalitarianism , in an attempt to understand how such radical
ideologies of both left and right had seized the minds of so many in the 20th century. Arendt's
book used to be a staple in college history and political theory courses. With the end of the
Cold War 30 years behind us, who today talks about totalitarianism? Almost no one -- and if
they do, it's about Nazism, not communism.
Unsurprisingly, young Americans suffer from profound ignorance of what communism was, and
is. The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, a nonprofit educational and research
organization established by the U.S. Congress, carries out an annual survey of Americans to
determine their attitudes toward communism, socialism, and Marxism in general. In 2019, the
survey found that a startling number of Americans of the post-Cold War generations have
favorable views of left-wing radicalism, and only 57 percent of Millennials believe that the
Declaration of Independence offers a better guarantee of "freedom and equality" than The
Communist Manifesto .
Some émigrés who grew up in Soviet-dominated societies are sounding the alarm
about the West's dangerous drift into conditions like they once escaped. They feel it in their
bones. Reading Arendt in the shadow of the extraordinary rise of identity-politics leftism and
the broader crisis of liberal democracy is to confront a deeply unsettling truth: that these
refugees from communism may be right.
What does contemporary America have in common with pre-Nazi Germany and pre-Soviet Russia?
Arendt's analysis found a number of social, political, and cultural conditions that tilled the
ground for those nations to welcome poisonous ideas.
Loneliness and Social Atomization
Totalitarian movements, said Arendt, are "mass organizations of atomized, isolated
individuals." She continues:
What prepares men for totalitarian domination in the non-totalitarian world, is the fact
that loneliness, once a borderline experience usually suffered in certain marginal social
conditions like old age, has become an everyday experience of the ever-growing masses of our
century.
The political theorist wrote those words in the 1950s, a period we look back on as a golden
age of community cohesion. Today, loneliness is widely recognized by scientists as a critical
social and even medical problem. In the year 2000, Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam
published Bowling Alone , an acclaimed study documenting the steep decline of civil
society since midcentury and the resulting atomization of America.
Since Putnam's book, we have experienced the rise of social media networks offering a
facsimile of "connection." Yet we grow ever lonelier and more isolated. It is no coincidence
that Millennials and members of Generation Z register much higher rates of loneliness than
older Americans, as well as significantly greater support for socialism. It's as if they aspire
to a politics that can replace the community they wish they had.
Sooner or later, loneliness and isolation are bound to have political effects. The masses
supporting totalitarian movements, says Arendt, grew "out of the fragments of a highly atomized
society whose competitive structure and concomitant loneliness of the individual had been held
in check only through membership in a class."
A polity filled with alienated individuals who share little sense of community and purpose,
and who lack civic trust, are prime targets for totalitarian ideologies and leaders who promise
solidarity and meaning.
Losing Faith in Hierarchies and Institutions
Surveying the political scene in Germany during the 1920s, Arendt noted a "terrifying
negative solidarity" among people from diverse classes, united in their belief that all
political parties were populated by fools. Likewise, in late imperial Russia, Marxist radicals
finally gained traction with the middle class when the Tsarist government failed miserably to
deal with a catastrophic 1891-92 famine.
Are we today really so different? According to Gallup, Americans' confidence in their
institutions -- political, media, religious, legal, medical, corporate -- is at historic lows
across the board. Only the military, the police, and small businesses retain the strong
confidence of over 50 percent. Democratic norms are under strain in many industrialized
nations, with the support for mainstream parties of left and right in decline.
In Europe of the 1920s, says Arendt, the first indication of the coming totalitarianism was
the failure of established parties to attract younger members, and the willingness of the
passive masses to consider radical alternatives to discredited establishment parties.
A loss of faith in democratic politics is a sign of a deeper and broader instability. As
radical individualism has become more pervasive in our consumerist-driven culture, people have
ceased to look outside themselves to religion or other traditional sources of authoritative
meaning.
But this imposes a terrible psychological burden on the individual. Many of them may seek
deliverance as the alienated masses of pre-totalitarian Germany and Russia did: in the
certainties and solidarity offered by totalitarian movements.
The Desire to Transgress and Destroy
The post-World War I generation of writers and artists were marked by their embrace and
celebration of anti-cultural philosophies and acts as a way of demonstrating contempt for
established hierarchies, institutions, and ways of thinking. Arendt said of some writers who
glorified the will to power, "They read not Darwin but the Marquis de Sade."
Her point was that these authors did not avail themselves of respectable intellectual
theories to justify their transgressiveness. They immersed themselves in what is basest in
human nature and regarded doing so as acts of liberation. Arendt's judgment of the postwar
elites who recklessly thumbed their noses at respectability could easily apply to those of our
own day who shove aside liberal principles like fair play, race neutrality, free speech, and
free association as obstacles to equality. Arendt wrote:
The members of the elite did not object at all to paying a price, the destruction of
civilization, for the fun of seeing how those who had been excluded unjustly in the past forced
their way into it.
One thinks of the university presidents and news media executives of our time who have
abandoned professional standards and old-fashioned liberal values to embrace "antiracism" and
other trendy left-wing causes. Some left-wing politicians and other progressive elites either
cheered for the George Floyd race riots, or, like New York mayor Bill De Blasio, stood idly by
as thuggish mobs looted and burned stores in the name of social justice.
Regarding transgressive sexuality as a social good was not an innovation of the sexual
revolution. Like the contemporary West, late imperial Russia was also awash in what historian
James Billington called "a preoccupation with sex that is quite without parallel in earlier
Russian culture." Among the social and intellectual elite, sexual adventurism, celebrations of
perversion, and all manner of sensuality was common. And not just among the elites: the
laboring masses, alone in the city, with no church to bind their consciences with guilt, or
village gossips to shame them, found comfort in sex.
The end of official censorship after the 1905 uprising opened the floodgates to erotic
literature, a prefiguration of our century's technology-driven pornographic revolution. "The
sensualism of the age was in a very intimate sense demonic," Billington writes, detailing how
the figure of Satan became a Romantic hero for artists and musicians. They admired the diabolic
willingness to stop at nothing to satisfy one's desires and to exercise one's will.
Propaganda and the Willingness to Believe Useful Lies
Heda Margolius Kovály, a disillusioned Czech communist whose husband was executed after a 1952 show trial,
reflects on the willingness of people to turn their backs on the truth for the sake of an ideological cause: It is not hard for a totalitarian regime to keep people ignorant. Once you relinquish your
freedom for the sake of "understood necessity," for Party discipline, for conformity with the
regime, for the greatness and glory of the Fatherland, or for any of the substitutes that are
so convincingly offered, you cede your claim to the truth. Slowly, drop by drop, your life
begins to ooze away just as surely as if you had slashed your wrists; you have voluntarily
condemned yourself to helplessness.
You can surrender your moral responsibility to be honest out of misplaced idealism. You can
also surrender it by hating others more than you love truth. In pre-totalitarian states, Arendt
writes, hating "respectable society" was so narcotic, that elites were willing to accept
"monstrous forgeries in historiography" for the sake of striking back at those who, in their
view, had "excluded the underprivileged and oppressed from the memory of mankind."
For example, many who didn't really accept Marx's revisionist take on history -- that it is
a manifestation of class struggle -- were willing to affirm it because it was a useful tool to
punish those they despised. Consider the lavish praise with which elites have welcomed The
New York Times 's "1619 Project," a vigorously revisionist attempt to make slavery the
central fact of the American founding.
Despite the project's core claim (that the patriots fought the American Revolution to
preserve slavery) having been thoroughly debunked, journalism's elite saw fit to award the
project's director a Pulitzer Prize for her contribution.
Along those lines, propaganda helps change the world by creating a false impression of the
way the world is. Writes Arendt, "The force possessed by totalitarian propaganda lies in its
ability to shut the masses off from the real world."
In 2019, Zach Goldberg, a political science PhD student at Georgia Tech, found that over a
nine-year period, the rate of news stories using progressive jargon associated with left-wing
critical theory and social justice concepts shot into the stratosphere. The mainstream media is
framing the general public's understanding of news and events according to what was until very
recently a radical ideology confined to left-wing intellectual elites.
A Mania for Ideology
Why are people so willing to believe demonstrable lies? The desperation alienated people
have for a story that helps them make sense of their lives and tells them what to do explains
it. For a man desperate to believe, totalitarian ideology is more precious than life
itself. "He may even be willing to help in his own prosecution and frame his own death sentence if
only his status as a member of the movement is not touched," Arendt wrote. Indeed, the files of
the 1930s Stalinist show trials are full of false confessions by devout communists who were
prepared to die rather than admit that communism was a lie.
Similarly, under the guise of antiracism training, U.S. corporations, institutions, and even
churches are frog-marching their employees through courses in which whites and other
ideologically disfavored people are compelled to confess their "privilege." Some do,
eagerly.
One of contemporary progressivism's commonly used phrases -- the personal is political --
captures the totalitarian spirit, which seeks to infuse all aspects of life with political
consciousness. Indeed, the Left today pushes its ideology ever deeper into the private realm,
leaving fewer and fewer areas of daily life uncontested. This, warned Arendt, is a sign that a
society is ripening for totalitarianism, because that is what totalitarianism essentially is:
the politicization of everything.
Early in the Stalin era, N. V. Krylenko, a Soviet commissar (political officer), steamrolled
over chess players who wanted to keep politics out of the game.
"We must finish once and for all with the neutrality of chess," he said. "We must condemn
once and for all the formula 'chess for the sake of chess,' like the formula 'art for art's
sake.' We must organize shockbrigades of chess-players, and begin immediate realization of a
Five-Year Plan for chess."
A Society That Values Loyalty More Than Expertise
"Totalitarianism in power invariably replaces all first-rate talents, regardless of their
sympathies, with those crackpots and fools whose lack of intellect and creativity is still the
best guarantee of their loyalty," wrote Arendt.
All politicians prize loyalty, but few would regard it as the most important quality in
government, and even fewer would admit it. But President Donald Trump is a rule-breaker in many
ways. He once said, "I value loyalty above everything else -- more than brains, more than
drive, and more than energy."
Trump's exaltation of personal loyalty over expertise is discreditable and corrupting. But
how can liberals complain? Loyalty to the group or the tribe is at the core of leftist identity
politics. This is at the root of "cancel culture," in which transgressors, however minor their
infractions, find themselves cast into outer darkness.
Beyond cancel culture, which is reactive, institutions are embedding within their systems
ideological tests to weed out dissenters. At universities within the University of California
system, for example, teachers who want to apply for tenure-track positions have to affirm their
commitment to "equity, diversity, and inclusion" -- and to have demonstrated it, even if it has
nothing to do with their field.
De facto loyalty tests to diversity ideology are common in corporate America, and have now
found their way into STEM faculties and publications, as well as into medical science.
A Soviet-born U.S. physician told me -- after I agreed not to use his name -- that social
justice ideology is forcing physicians like him to ignore their medical training and judgment
when it comes to transgender health. He said it is not permissible within his institution to
advise gender dysphoric patients against treatments they desire, even when a physician believes
it is not in that particular patient's health interest.
Intellectuals Are the Revolutionary Class
In our populist era, politicians and talk-radio polemicists can rile up a crowd by
denouncing elites. Nevertheless, in most societies, intellectual and cultural elites determine
its long-term direction.
"[T]he key actor in history is not individual genius but rather the network and the new
institutions that are created out of those networks," writes sociologist James Davison Hunter.
Though a revolutionary idea might emerge from the masses, says Hunter, "it does not gain
traction until it is embraced and propagated by elites" working through their "well-developed
networks and powerful institutions."
This is why it is critically important to keep an eye on intellectual discourse. Arendt
warns that the twentieth-century totalitarian experience shows how a determined and skillful
minority can come to rule over an indifferent and disengaged majority. In our time, most people
regard the politically correct insanity of campus radicals as not worthy of attention. They
mock them as "snowflakes" and "social justice warriors."
This is a serious mistake. In radicalizing the broader class of elites, social justice
warriors (SJWs) are playing a similar historic role to the Bolsheviks in prerevolutionary
Russia. SJW ranks are full of middle-class, secular, educated young people wracked by guilt and
anxiety over their own privilege, alienated from their own traditions, and desperate to
identify with something, or someone, to give them a sense of wholeness and purpose.
For them, the ideology of social justice -- as defined not by church teaching but by
critical theorists in the academy -- functions as a pseudo-religion. Far from being confined to
campuses and dry intellectual journals, SJW ideals are transforming elite institutions and
networks of power and influence. They are marching through the institutions of bourgeois
society, conquering them, and using them to transform the world. For example, when the LGBT
cause was adopted by corporate America, its ultimate victory was assured.
Futuristic Fatalism
To be sure, none of this means that totalitarianism is inevitable. But they do signify that
the weaknesses in contemporary American society are consonant with a pre-totalitarian state.
Like the imperial Russians, we Americans may well be living in a fog of self-deception about
our own country's stability. It only takes a catalyst like war, economic depression, plague, or
some other severe and prolonged crisis that brings the legitimacy of the liberal democratic
order into question.
As Arendt warned more than half a century ago:
There is a great temptation to explain away the intrinsically incredible by means of
liberal rationalizations. In each one of us, there lurks such a liberal, wheedling us with
the voice of common sense. The road to totalitarian domination leads through many
intermediate stages for which we can find numerous analogues and precedents. . . . What
common sense and "normal people" refuse to believe is that everything is possible.
If totalitarianism comes, it will almost certainly not be Stalinism 2.0, with gulags, secret
police, and an all-powerful central state. That would not be necessary. The power of
surveillance technology, woke capitalism, and fear of losing bourgeois comfort and status will
probably be enough to compel conformity by most.
At least at first, it will be a soft
totalitarianism, more on the Brave New World model than the Nineteen Eighty-Four
one -- but totalitarianism all the same.
A Czech immigrant to the U.S. who works in academia told me that this "is not supposed to be
happening here" -- but it is.
"Any time I try to explain current events and their meaning to my friends or acquaintances,
I am met with blank stares or downright nonsense," he says. His own young adult children, born
in America and indoctrinated into identity-politics ideology by public schooling, think their
father is an alarmist kook. Can anyone blame a man like this for concluding that Americans are
going to have to learn about the evils of totalitarianism the hard way?
I grew up under a socialist authoritarian state and I recognized it in the US 20 years
ago. In the Patriot Act, to be more precise. It was the very same kind of law that I saw
enacted in the early 70s back home that turned the tide of the regime to full out repression.
You're noticing it just now because authoritarianism became bipartisan, though you have been
quite comfortable since your tribe started it.
The week after 9/11, I wrote President Bush asking him not to let something like the
Patriot Act happen. I never got a reply and wondered ever since if it went astray (it was via
email) or if anyone even read it.
<sigh> There are credible arguments to be made against the drug war, for sure, but
how exactly did the Bill of Rights get "dumped"? OK I'm willing to concede that the Fourth
Amendment got stretched beyond recognition to accommodate no-knock warrants and the like.
Which of the rest of the Bill of Rights got dumped by the drug war?
If only liberals actually understood and believed in the 9th and 10th amendments, OTOH, we
might be able to restore federal governance to something resembling sanity.
Both the 9th and 10th Amendments were finally destroyed due to the drug war. The 2nd is
collateral damage due to the increased use of home invasion raids by law enforcement see the
"firearm enhancements". It can easily be argued that the increased militarization of law
enforcement due to the drug war is a violation of the 3rd Amendment. The long sentences due
given to people for possessing or selling a plant are a violation of the 8th Amendment. The
right to a jury trial has been gutted via voir dire and the refusal of courts to recognize
the natural right of all citizens to nullify unjust laws.
I am a liberal in the sense Patrick Henry was a liberal. We should have stuck with the
Articles of Confederation.
It can't be easily argued that the drug war runs into the 3rd amendment, that is
ridiculous. Nor is the 8th amendment really a great argument, although I do get where you're
coming from.
It's obviously completely contemptuous of the idea of enumerated powers like you said
before though. Why would you not mention the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments, which had to be
gutted for it, or the ways it runs afoul of the 14th, or basically ignores the precedent set
by the 18th and 21st amendments.
I too see where you're coming from, though I think the 9th and 10th amendments were
already in tatters long before the drug war began. For that blame the now 100 year plus build
up of the administrative state (particularly under FDR and LBJ) and the Court's enabling of
it through imaginative readings of the Commerce Clause, delegation of powers, etc. Also blame
Congress's total dereliction of duty per the above.
Add on the scheme by which the Federal govt takes everyone's money, shuffles it around and
then hands it back to the states, but only under the condition that they do what the Federal
govt tells them to do. Thus no state actually gets to build/maintain roads, develop housing
programs, expand educational access or testing, and essentially anything else without
following a million federal edicts.
The very fact that a website like this exists, and we comment on it, suggests that.. No,
we are nit under Totalitarian oppression or even an authoritarian regime. Would Stalin or
even Brezhnev have tolerated a TAC critical of the ruling party? How about Hitler, Mussolini
or Franco?
Excellent point. There are, however, concepts such as "controlled opposition" and "soft
totalitarianism" as outlined recently in Rod Dreher's piece. The latter concerns me more.
As long as Americans believe that they are getting the carrot they will not notice the
slow encroachment of the stick, particulary if it's in the hands of large
mega-corporations.
You, sir, are correct. The totalitarianism rampaging toward us is going to be a
paradoxical mix of Sexual Revolution, Cultural Marxism, and Globalist Vampire Capitalism. It
will feature elements that seem to have been predicted in Zamyatin's We , Huxley's
Brave New World , and Orwell's 1984 . It also has been foretold in Robert Hugh
Benson's Lord of the World .
I'm sure you are well aware that Rod is not suggesting such a regime is here or coming. He
has described how censorship will work / is working in painfully repetitive detail (because
obviously people need to hear it over and over again).
Under soft totalitarianism, you will make the wrong response or refuse to affirm or refuse
to attend the required re-education workshop and your job and livelihood will be gone. Don't
pretend you don't understand Rod's argument.
Jonf is for the woke soft totalitarianism, a dangerous element in the church, we Orthodox
Christian's need to be on guard with Catechumens , and their motives for joining the Church,
as well as Cradle liberals who dominate institutions in jurisdictions like GOARCH
It had bipartisan support in Congress. Do you understand how the US legislative system
works? Presidents don't unilaterally introduce and approve legislation.
It wasn't introduced by Bush, but by a nobody Republican in Congress. The act has the paw
marks of Republicans through and through. Just 3 Republican congressmen voted against.
There's no point hiding behind the bipartisan curtain.
There is much yet to be answered for in the Patriot Act origins and how it came to be
passed before anyone voting on it had a chance to read it once much less review it with
propper staffing.
That Act was sitting on a shelf, like a time bomb, waiting for its chance. I suspect it
was part of the preparations for an apocalyptic, dystopian America after a nuclear war.
It was pulled off that shelf because it was what they had on the shelf, it was there so
they used it.
"Can anyone blame a man like this for concluding that Americans are going to have to learn
about the evils of totalitarianism the hard way?"
Americans have never learned anything the easy way. They don't learn the hard way
either.
"Among the social and intellectual elite, sexual adventurism, celebrations of perversion,
and all manner of sensuality was common."
Let no future commisar say that I didn't do my part for the revolution! I stand ready to
humbly serve the people in the creation of an appropriate ministry for perversion.
Those who will have less than five sexual partners a year and do not switch gender in over
two years will be chastised for the term of 10 years by legislation.
When you remove God from your life, the inner desire implanted by God to look for the true
meaning in life, & the desire to do good instead of evil remain strong. For most people,
the "obvious" path is to give meaning to one's life is to follow the feel-good "social
justice" road, a form of false humanism (for man & by man alone), ie, social justice
without God that tries to create a paradise on earth (same way that communism tried to create
a utopia without God).
Many young Americans no longer believe in God's relevance & His authority over their
lives. This normally starts with the loss of respect for the authority of parents who
represent God in the home (even Jesus was obedient to his mortal parents). The gradual
destruction of the "domestic church", the family, in American homes is one of the immediate
goals of radical agenda (eg, gender conflicts & confusion, gender id, gender choice,
abortion, contraception, women liberation, etc) that results in increasing number of divorce
& single-parent homes.
The only way to correct the path to a radical secular future is for people, esp the young,
to regain their faith in God. The question is how. Evangelization is one. One can evangelize
by words &or by acts. St Franscis of Assisi is often quoted to have said: When you
evangelize, sometimes you need to use words. I think Rod is doing both through his books.
If God isn't implanted in a child's mind at a young age, it most likely never will.
People, in there 20's, who never went to church are unlikely to ever become Christians. If
you don't believe Heaven and Hell exist, why do you need a Savior? Look at the number of
young families with young children at Church, and consider how many aren't there. That's the
future.
The idea of God doesn't need to be implanted in a child's mind. A child (and every person
for that matter) intuitively knows that there has to be a Creator, an afterlife, and Divine
Justice. As proof, I offer the fact that every civilization that has ever existed has had a
religion with the aforementioned elements. Atheism did not appear until Marxism, and even
then, in the Soviet Union / Russia, it did not succeed in eradicating faith and religion,
which are as innate as love and sex.
Unfortunately for you atheism long predates Marxism. Look to the early Greeks for the
first recorded instances of non-believers. Try
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi... for a overview.
>"The only way to correct the path to a radical secular future is for people, esp the
young, to regain their faith in God."
Exactly the thinking powering Daesh. What is wrong with people being able to decide for
themselves what religion if any they want? Why is a secular state a radical idea? The US is a
secular state and it has served the US well.
So Revolution or Civil War?
I keep hearing about one or the other, but only on the Internet.
I am of the opinion that we Americans are far too comfortable and have no stomach for
privation.
We will continue to lurch along as always.
Does it really matter what "Americans" want? The very thesis of the article is that 'we'
will do the bidding of the influential elites, regardless of whether we a) approve of their
objectives, or b) are even aware of them. Like the article says, the vast majority of
Americans mistakenly think that, so long as they have their routine, their job, their kids,
their personal little patch of America complete with white picket fence, then, hey, how can
things go wrong? "We" won't, wouldn't, couldn't, allow such a revolution or civil war to
happen---why, there isn't even enough time to worry about it!
When a riotous mob of crazed BLM/ANTIFA soldiers comes marching up your peaceful street,
you will become part of the 'revolution', like it or not.
Totalitarian Romanov Russia united with secular pluralist France against Germany in the
lead-up to WWI. Similarly in WWII, totalitarian Marxist Russia united with the Western
democracies to defeat Nazi Germany. The pattern is common place in history. Alliances reveal
countries' motivations for war. And all are motivated by power.
https://www.ghostsofhistory...
I'll ask again (serious question): for conservatives who think we live in "Weimar
America", isn't one of the major lessons for conservatives from Weimar Germany that when
you're faced with the distasteful option of allying yourselves with liberals and the
center-left, or allying yourselves with fascists and their street militias, it's important
not to make the decision that German Nationalists did in the early 1930s?
We were allied with one of the biggest mass murderers in history during World War 2.
Joseph Stalin. Facts are facts and the facts are fascism is a leftist ideology.
To be fair, you can 'love' someone's ruling style and still go to war with them. Politics
and warfare are about seizing power, not expressing admiration for the qualities of
rivals.
To clarify, I didn't mean "love" in a personal or an emotional sense. In the case of World
War II, democratic nations were opponents of fascist nations.
I don't know what histories you have been reading but Adolph Hitler had no use for FDR as
like many other European politicians of the day, they saw FDR as a relatively ignorant
man.
The Nazis were basically 1848 (leftist) revolutionaries, who supported egalitarianism for
German men and ethnonationalism (which was a very leftist idea when it was new). True
reactionaries, like the King of Prussia in 1848, definitely did not share those values.
Can someone explain to me what the point of these arguments are? I always see people
saying the Nazis were leftists, but even if I agreed with the claim what difference does it
make to massappeal's point?
Most commentators put the Nazis on the far right. They themselves considered Nazism to be
a "third way" between Capitalism and Communism. It's clear that the defining traits of Nazism
are totalitarianism, nationalism, social darwinism, and virulent anti-semitism. Like
communism and other forms of Facism, it is a revolutionary political movement. They also
supported massive government spending and social welfare programs for "aryans", in a kind of
state-dominated capitalism. It is also true that Ernst Rohm and the SA wanted a socialist
revolution to follow the Nazi's national revolution, but they were betrayed and Rohm was
executed for being too radical.
There's the truth. Facts are Facts. So what if they are leftist or rightist? I really
don't understand the value of this argument. Is this a way to link Democrats to Nazis? Seems
as ridiculous as trying to link Republicans to them.
The point is obfuscation of reality from the US right, which has increasingly become
enmeshed in world divorced from reality. Of course no respected historian places the Nazis as
a Left ideology. There is some argument as to whether fascism/Nazism was Right, or neither
left or right. But as an ideology, fascism and Nazism are illiberal, nationalist, and
concerned with "natural hierarchies" which are anathema to "left" thought.
Anyone stating otherwise is either exceedingly stupid or not arguing in good faith. Either
way, there is no point in engaging them or in giving them any platform to spout their
nonsense. Shut them down, block them, mock them, and move on.
And conservatives wonder why they've "unwelcome" in academia...If you want to be taken
seriously, you need to think seriously.
Penetrating insight. Of course, I am sure you are right. I want to give people a chance to
defend themselves though, because I would truly love to be proved wrong and shown something
of which I am ignorant.
I really appreciate the response. I read the synopsis and gather that the argument is
somewhat similar to one which I have heard before, which is that all modern political
movements are borne of the enlightenment, which is something I certainly agree with. There
are certainly underpinnings under every modern party that find their root in the
enlightenment.
The book you provided seems to be not quite that exact theory though, and of course I
haven't read the whole thing...yet. But I honestly will, and I really appreciate the
recommendation! Truth is truth, and it has no ideology. I will read it with an open mind.
The history of right and left, nationalist and internationalist, liberal and conservative
is very complex and confusing. And it is different in America than it is in Europe. America
started out mostly Protestant and Liberal (in the classical sense), so any right wing or
conservative movement in the US would have these foundations. In Europe, conservatives were
Catholic and Monarchist.
But Monarchy gets a bad rap in American public schools and universities, dominated as they
were by Protestant and Liberal thinking at their founding and by Progressive and Socialist
thinking now.
Here is a definition of the Right by EvKL (in the book):
"The true rightist is not a man who wants to go back to this or that institution for the
sake of a return; he wants first to find out what is eternally true, eternally valid, and
then either to restore or reinstall it, regardless of whether it seems obsolete, whether it
is ancient, contemporary, or even without precedent, brand new, "ultramodern." Old truths
can be rediscovered, entirely new ones found. The Man of the Right does not have a
time-bound, but a sovereign mind. In case he is a Christian he is, in the words of the
Apostle Peter, the steward of a Basileion Hierateuma, a Royal Priesthood"
And here the difference between Right and Left:
"The right stands for liberty, a free, unprejudiced form of thinking, a readiness to
preserve traditional values (provided they are true values), a balanced view of the nature
of man, seeing in him neither beast nor angel, insisting also on the uniqueness of human
beings who cannot be transformed into or treated as mere numbers or ciphers; but the left
is the advocate of the opposite principles. It is the enemy of diversity and the fanatical
promoter of identity. Uniformity is stressed in all leftist utopias, a paradise in which
everybody should be the "same," where envy is dead, where the "enemy" either no longer
exists, lives outside the gates, or is utterly humiliated. Leftism loathes differences,
deviation, stratifications. Any hierarchy it accepts is only "functional." The term "one"
is the keynote: There should be only one language, one race, one class, one ideology, one
religion, one type of school, one law for everybody, one flag, one coat of arms and one
centralized world state"
"The rightists are "federalists" (in the European sense), "states' righters" since they
believe in local rights and privileges, they stand for the principle of subsidiarity."
Beautiful quotes, my friend, I especially appreciate the latter one. I have not gotten far
in the book, only 60 pages or so but I already find it fascinating, and I have gotten to that
quote exactly, actually.
As a passing note, I will say that I doubt WilliamRD meant what you mean, though I could
be mistaken. And I think defining Nazism as a leftist philosophy requires a semantic
argument, which redefines "right" and "left" into something different than popular American
political discourse defines it. And in fact, under these definitions, the Republican Party is
at least partially leftist.
However, EvKL is clear that this is what he is doing, and you were clear yourself that we
need to break out of these definitions. I couldn't agree more with you on that. Thanks for
sending me the link, you've made me wiser.
You are a rare and beautiful soul! I can't believe you've already read that far into the
book. I will try and learn from your example, the next time someone sends me a link.
And yes, the Republican party has been infiltrated by Leftism. I'm going to give you a
book link on this too, but you don't have to read it right away! Just download it, and put it
away in your files for later. It's a true story that is important to know and it gets to the
heart of the American Conservative / Neoconservative divide.
Fair enough. To me it's analogous to listening to someone try and argue that 1+1=7. I'm
just not sure that someone attempting such a calculation has the rational faculties to
provide anything worth hearing, and I don't like lending legitimacy to every silly position
that a person can take. Life is short, and I prefer to hear from people who demonstrate that
they're playing with a full deck and arguing in good faith. The "Leftists are the Real
Racists" crowd is certainly neither of those.
Edit: And hilariously, there is an actual RW goofball on this article's comment section,
posting Nazi/Fascist sympathies (@Raskolnik) . So, the proof is in the TAC comments I
guess...
The genetic fallacy definition can be found many places. If you read it, you might sound a
little less dumb in public. And the AAIHS is not a racist journal. I know anything with
"African American" in it seems to set off a very fragile segment of aggrieved whites, but I'm
sure you could judge the article based on its content. I'd link to some others, but given
what you've said so far, it seems unlikely you have access to JSTOR or any other legitimate
academic resources. At this point all you're really accomplishing is offering more evidence
that Right Wingers are almost allergic to information that contradicts their indoctrination.
There's a reason your numbers are falling in legitimate academic institutions, and it isn't
due to the secret cabal of communists that seem to haunt your daydreams. It's that your
positions are asinine and you're incapable of arguing effectively and supporting your
positions with evidence.
I'm just applying the same rules to blacks as get applied to whites. Imagine what the ADL
or SPLC would say of an online journal called "White Perspectives" that teaches "white
history."
I have not committed the genetic fallacy. I not only attack the source of Leftism. I
attack it's present manifestation and the false Left / Right paradigm those in its service
have constructed in order to lead us ever leftward.
Leftism's founding principle is equality. Stated synonymously, and with much historical
affirmation, this means uniformity.
The modern Left supposedly prides itself on diversity but this diversity is only skin
deep. It still craves uniformity. It has just learned that it needs brown skin in positions
of power to supplant white nonconformance, it's main opponent. The Left cannot even tolerate
the opinions of those it disagrees with. This is why it labels everyone who disagrees with
it's radical social engineering program a deplorable or a racist or an outright Nazi.
An actual theocratic monarchist reactionary would consider Nazism to be leftist, and ideas
of 'racial superiority' or 'racial guilt' or whatever to be very modern ideas.
Please expurgate your naïve realism - it's all a matter of perspective. To someone
with current mores, the Nazis, a rehash of the ethno-nationalist 1848 Revolutions in Germany,
are unspeakably reactionary. To someone with pre-Enlightenment values, they're beyond far
left. Please read something written by someone who was a 'leftist' in his own day, and it
will almost always be unspeakably reactionary by the contemporary standards of even those
'white supremacists' that you so hate. Here's some anti-immigrant racist Benjamin Franklin
for you:
"Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will
shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never
adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.
24. Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World
is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America
(exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French,
Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans
also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People
on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I
may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of
our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we
in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by
Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and
Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion
of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind. "
This block of text is nothing but another incoherent rambling from a markedly unserious
thinker. You've outed yourself repeatedly as an idiot or an ideologue. Either way, you're not
worth another breath of response.
Yes, if you simply throw out all logic and available evidence, Hitler and Mussolini were
on the political left. And if you simply redefine the entire color spectrum, the sky is green
and the sea is orange.
This is like History 101 people, get with the damn program.
Jack, if there is a nail and a head---you HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!
People do seem to try to put all of this in a left-right mindset which is more "tribal
identity" than reality.
Broadly speaking ...repeat....broadly speaking----Russia and Stalin were an economic
system-philosophy while Hitler carried on the German culture model of Martin Luther, which
was much more GERMAN NATIONALISM -with a well documented anti-Semitism on steroids.
One was economic systems and the other one was nationalism. To put either into a
leftist-rightist camp doesn't work with today's terminology.
The same way that it is not possible to call Trumpicans either conservative or liberal.
The economic policies put in by Trump are reckless and certainly not conservative.
The 'point' is to establish stigma by association. History is only useful in politics when
it can used against one's enemies, either by associating with something valued or associating
stigmatized history with one's enemies. It's also possible for history to be stigmatized due
to its use by political enemies.
The point is to score points for your tribe. I find the terms "left" and "right"
increasingly useless. If they ever had value, that value is largely lost. This is especially
true in the US, where left and right seem determined to degenerate into each's caricature of
the other.
The point is to break out of the Left / Right paradigm as it's been presented to us by
those who mean to rule us. Anybody who seriously opposes the Leftwing's steady march towards
Communism, is labeled a far-right winger, and is put in the company of Nazis. They then
become untouchable by normal people who have not devoted any time into historical or
ideological inquiry.
This game forces normal people into the middle, and in the middle they pose no meaningful
threat to the Leftward march of the establishment, because the middle cannot find the
leverage to arrest its progress. The middle's only hope is to slow it down somewhat.
Fascism has perhaps not been 'on the Left' because, historically it has always arisen to
fight communism, which is the farthest Left you can get (so anything opposed to it seems, by
comparison, Right), but it is fully a child of the radical Left nationalism born of the
French Jacobins. It's certainly not a grandchild of the European monarchies, though
conservatives have at times had to ally with it as the lesser of two evils when confronted by
communism.
In the end it was a catastrophic economic meltdown--in their case taking the form of
metastatic inflation--which sent Germany off the edge of the cliff and into the abyss. So it
will be with the US. Pray we don't have a recurrence of 2007. Or worse!
There was a thing called the Great Depression that started in America but spread to Europe
quickly in 1929. Hitler came to power when millions of German workers lost their jobs and had
no way of supporting themselves and their families.
Yep. And Hitler came to power because German Nationalists (the conservative party) formed
an alliance with him, rather than with the center-left and liberal parties.
Nationalism, German or otherwise, is not particularly conservative. The most intelligent
conservative since Burke was Prince Metternich, who regarded nationalism as his greatest
enemy, especially German nationalism.
Yes, the actual hyperinflation did indeed end around that time but by then the economic
die had already been cast. The cumulative effect upon the German middle and, especially, the
working class, farmers, "petite bourgeoisie" etc.,would devastate the country through the
remainder of the 20s and into the 30s (my father and his parents, who were working class
Social Democrats, had to get out by 1928 and were lucky to gain admittance into the US as the
doors were being closed on immigration at the time). As to 2007 I totally agree that
inflation was not a factor. I was evidently unclear but--that really wasn't my point. The
absence of inflation notwithstanding, we know that the economy went into the soup in 2007--so
much so that, to date, we have not fully recovered. My main point is to express the fear that
if it were to happen again for whatever reason, if you factor in the "Kulturkampf" within
which American society is currently embroiled we are going to have one HELL of a mess on our
hands.
And given that, isn't it all the more important to try to avoid the political mistakes
German conservatives made in the early 1930s when they chose to ally themselves with the
Nazis?
Yes, it is. As we see here, conservatives like Rod think they can control the extremists.
No snark this time, they really believe that.
They couldn't even control Trump.
I think the bigger concern is the alliance of the center left with two marxist movements
especially considering the right cannot ally with nazis as there are no comparable nazi
organizations available
One of the three co-founders of BLM stated in an 2015 interview that she, Patrice Collers,
and one other cofounder, Alizia Garza, are trained marxists. If the leadership claims they
are marxist, then what is the BLM movement?
Anarchists and Marxists simply have different methods of achieving the same goal. For an
example of anarchist goals, see the collectivist actions of the Catalonian anarchists during
the Spanish Civil War.
These are both anti-democratic and dangerous movements which the center left is happy to
work with.
It was the ruinous inflation of 1923 COMBINED with the high unemployment in 1932 that
encouraged millions of ordinary Germans to vote for the Nazis twice in 1932. Some wealthy
Republicans seem to forget this as they lobby for more tax cuts and foreign aid to Israel.
They also appear to forget that the period 1871-1914 was something of a "Golden Age" for
German Jews. Germany's defeat in WWI AND the harsh peace treaty imposed on it by the other
side were more than enough to offset the benefits of a new democratic constitution adopted in
Weimar in 1919.
It is hard to believe that two decades ago, the US budget actually turned positive for a
brief period of time, that the national debt was expected to be paid off in a decade or so
and that some economists were wondering how the Fed would conduct monetary policy if there
were no Treasury securities to buy and sell. They need not have worried. These days, the
national debt is out of control. Instead of worrying about the future, I can take consolation
in the fact that I have outlived (by more than a decade) all of my father's relatives who
were still living in Poland in 1939. For them, the end of the line was an extermination camp
called Belzec.
It wasn't just the 1929 Depression that caused so much hardship in Germany. In 1933 after
Adolph Hitler came to power and Germany was just beginning to crawl out of the shock of their
own depression, the international Jewish Community (Zionists) launched its economic war on
Germany, which native, German Jews pleaded with their western brethren to not do. Ignoring
the German Jews requests, the economic war against Germany persisted, causing massive
economic disruptions as the popularity of this endeavor was picked up around the world...
The first anti-Jewish measure put in place by Nazi Germany started on April 1, 1933 when
Aryan Germans were encouraged by the government to boycott Jewish businesses in Germany. The
boycott was the first of many anti-Jewish measures taken by the Nazis over the next 12 years.
This boycott was followed on April 7, 1933 with the forced retirement of most non-Aryan (i.e.
Jewish) civil servants in the country and a book burning of books by Jewish authors on May
10. There is a whole list of anti-Jewish measures taken by Nazi Germany in the museum catalog
"Jews in German under Prussian Rule". Used copies are available at Amazon.
The economic response by Jews living outside Germany was a failure. It was the Battle of
Stalingrad and the brutal Russian winter of 1942-43 that turned the tide of WWII in
Europe
Bit off topic but not long ago I read that of all the major industrial countries the one
that supposedly suffered the least from the effects of the Depression-- was England!
The conservatives (right-liberals) have done nothing but ally with the left-liberals
against the "fascists" (actual right wing) since 1945. Their entire raison d'etre is to lose
gracefully while preventing the actual right wing from ever coming anywhere near power.
I would call that "overfitting," expecting to find exact matches among the parties
involved. My lessons:
- people can be given scapegoats in lieu of hope. "Yes, we've gutted manufacturing and
flooded the country with low-skill illegal labour, but what's keeping you down is systemic
racism. There is a secret hatred for the colour of the skin inside all white people. They
can't even see it themselves, but it's there. Just look at all these stories from the Jim
Crow era and get angry about them again, and you'll find that if you don't for me you're not
really black."
- nothing's more dangerous than a well-meaning good person convinced they're better than
everyone else, led about by skilled propagandists with total control of news and
entertainment.
- projection and false flag operations are at the top of the propagandist's toolbox. If
you're "fighting racism," you can see race everywhere and treat it as the defining aspect of
every person you meet and the source of all their opinions. If you're "fighting fascism" you
can dress in black and run around starting fires, attacking Senators, and shooting people for
their political beliefs. If you convince everyone "white supremacist terror groups" are the
biggest threat to the country you can unleash rioters on every major city to fight one rather
well-behaved seventeen-year-old in one city. You can unleash a steady stream of hoaxes:
Russiagate, a short clip of the longer George Floyd video that obscures why he died, the
Covington Catholic Smirk of Supremacy, bleach and "This is MAGA country." It doesn't matter.
The bigger the better: people will always believe the big lie.
You should think about your own role in all this. What part of Weimar are you playing?
Thanks for your thoughtful response. To answer your question, I play a
small-to-the-point-of-insignificance role these days, trying to lower the political
temperature in this time of pandemic, and trying to make the case for small 'd' democracy as
the best (and highly imperfect) method for dealing with the challenges we face.
It's in that context that I find hope in the growing number of conservatives (most
recently, former Montana governor and RNC chair Marc Racicot) who are placing "country over
party" and stating their support for Biden, not because they agree with his policies but
despite their disagreement with them.
These folks are not putting "country over party". They are tied into the Uniparty ruled by
the oligarchs doing the bidding of their masters.
Putting "country over party" would require them calling for the arrest of all those who
were involved in the Russian collusion hoax, Spygate, and everything else, from Obama on
down.
Putting "country over party" would require them to put the well-being of the citizens
first and support an end to endless war and to support enforcing immigration law and fixing
trade.
No, these every alleged Republican or conservative supporting Biden is showing that they
are and have always been a fraud who doesn't believe what they preached and would rather
continue in the good graces of the rich and powerful that really rule the country.
Support for country over politics and personal gain. Going back to the "normalcy" of the
pre-Trump political order. Pick one. You don't get both.
Anyone who tells you how important it is for "the good of the nation" to go back to the
long list of careerist politicians, hacks, and establishment elite who have governed it
towards its ruination must first make the case that the "norms" of American political culture
were good and righteous or (even from a strictly amoral view) practically useful. They never
do, though.
It's always asserted as if it is a self-evident fact that we need to go back to the days
of Bushes, Clintons, and Bidens, but nobody can really explain why.
Leftists don't want us as allies, and the 'street militias' are almost entirely leftist.
Institutional elites in Germany supported National Socialism, while in the US today they
support leftists.
Thanks for your response. Sure, there are those on the left who want nothing to do with
centrists and conservatives. (Heck, some of them barely tolerate liberals.) But the
Democratic party chose its most moderate candidate as its standard-bearer in this election,
and Biden has made clear he welcomes the support of centrists and conservatives and
Republicans.
(As for militias, per the FBI (not known as a bastion of liberalism) right-wing militias
are by far the largest domestic terrorism threat.)
Like the Republican party in the Trump era, there is no longer such a thing as the
Democratic party in its traditional sense. As the GOP is an empty vessel now filled with
Trumpism, the Democratic party is an empty vessel being filled with progressivism (an ongoing
process). The traditional Democrats (like old-school moderate African-Americans) who put
Biden over the top in the primary are otherwise powerless in the party.
Biden has made it clear that he will not push back against the far Left in any way - in
his refusal to comment on packing SCOTUS, ending the Senate filibuster, ending the electoral
college (the lack of an answer to these being itself an answer), in his absorption of much of
Bernie's platform into his own, in his silence on urban riots and looting until campaign
people told him it was affecting polling (and his response since has been tepid at best).
He lied gleefully (Trumpily?) during the debate about the prog platform - his own campaign
website lists support for GND and an expanded "reimagining" of the suburbs among many other
progressive goals which Trump is too inarticulate and ignorant to frame sensible arguments
against.
The Democrats are planning to govern on the basis of vengeance and revolution. The mood of
the base could not be more clear.
Thanks for your response. Unlike the Republican party, the Democratic party still has a
party platform that extends beyond (far beyond, 90 pages beyond) fealty to its party leader.
As Biden won a majority of the delegates, the platform those delegates adopted reflects the
views of the factions that chose Biden more than it does any other faction in the party.
Biden has pointedly and repeatedly distanced himself from the policy wishes (e.g.,
Medicare for All, Green New Deal, defund the police) of the left-wing of the Democratic
party.
Vice President Biden knows there is no greater challenge facing our country and our world.
Today, he is outlining a bold plan – a Clean Energy Revolution – to address
this grave threat and lead the world in addressing the climate emergency.
Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate
challenges we face. It powerfully captures two basic truths, which are at the core of his
plan: (1) the United States urgently needs to embrace greater ambition on an epic scale to
meet the scope of this challenge, and (2) our environment and our economy are completely
and totally connected.
Biden will implement the Obama-Biden Administration's Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Rule requiring communities receiving certain federal funding to proactively examine housing
patterns and identify and address policies that have a discriminatory effect. The Trump
Administration suspended this rule in 2018.
Giving Americans a new choice, a public health insurance option like Medicare. If your
insurance company isn't doing right by you, you should have another, better choice. Whether
you're covered through your employer, buying your insurance on your own, or going without
coverage altogether, the Biden Plan will give you the choice to purchase a public health
insurance option like Medicare. As in Medicare, the Biden public option will reduce costs
for patients by negotiating lower prices from hospitals and other health care providers. It
also will better coordinate among all of a patient's doctors to improve the efficacy and
quality of their care, and cover primary care without any co-payments. And it will bring
relief to small businesses struggling to afford coverage for their employees.
I don't deserve your thanks, kind sir. You're vastly overestimating the social importance
of presidential elections, imo. And I don't believe the FBI. Every other institution in
American society is virtue signaling support for the woke left, so why not them? They know
who is going to run the country next year. Do you believe that the rioting and destruction
this summer was caused by right-wingers? I have heard that conspiracy theory before, and I
suppose it's the closest thing we'd ever get from leftists to an admission that the events
were negative.
I think that there is definitely a strong double standard when it comes to media reporting
and institutional acknowledgment of violence based on the demographics and politics of the
perpetrator. There was a huge mass shooting in the city I live in last year, but the shooter
(DeWayne Craddock) was black and had a stereotypically black given name. There was very
little reporting on it as compared with the Texas church shooter that occurred at about the
same time.
No, because we on the Left are always the greater evil.
Always.
The (few) bad tendencies of (some, very few) people on the Right can be contained and
governed by the other conservatives.
/SNARK
In Germany, the national socialists and communists were battling for totalitarian control.
Both of them were on the left. Dictatorship either way.
The real question today in the US is whether old fashioned liberals [belief in free
speech, political discourse without threats or actual violence, natural American patriotism,
etc] will disavow the violence and intimidation from the leftist totalitarianism that is the
democrat party today.
The rioting, the burning, the street violence, the death threats of lining people against the
wall, etc., etc., is pretty much all from the totalitarian left. I could give you hundreds of
examples, the most recent the former CEO of Twitter wanting to shoot political opponents.
This hate-filled rhetoric from the totalitarian left is an attempt to dehumanize people
they disagree with, to hate them. This is simply preparing for the stage that those the
totalitarian left disagrees with should be sent to gulags at a minimum, or killed.
This is all with the approval and help of the "mainstream' democrat party. Denying this
just makes you not credible.
p.s. Biden, at best, is a partial senile figurehead, whose function is to mask what the
totalitarian left really wants to do.
Oh what Jonah Goldberg has wraught with this "NAZI's we're leftists" horseshit. I guess
when you be been absolved of the notion that right wing thought had anything to do with the
rise of fascism in Europe, you can say any horrible thing you'd like about people of another
race, ethnicity, or religion ruining your pretty Lilly white country.
From Wikipedia:
"As the eldest son of Bertha Krupp,
Alfried was destined by family tradition to become the sole heir of the
Krupp concern. An amateur photographer and Olympic sailor, he was an
early supporter of Nazism among German industrialists, joining the SS in
1931, and never disavowing his allegiance to Hitler."
Thanks for your response. In case anyone else still isn't clear, and just for the record,
the Nazis were not "on the left".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
The national socialists were on the left. You may lie about it, I can't stop you.
But what is definitely clear is the national socialists were brutal evil totalitarianists
[new word?]. Just like the communist dictatorships in russia, china, cambodia, cuba, etc.
This is the leftists/wokesters blm antifa [the brownshirts of today] in the US, with the
tacit/explicit approval of democrat leadership.
They would not have been better off aligned with Stalin, which was the other side in their
domestic political extremes. It too was rioting in the streets.
The middle got too narrow to survive. That does not mean the other extreme was an
acceptable choice, much less a better choice.
No. For example, the Nazis and the Communists *combined* only accounted for 40% of the
parliamentary seats after the 1930 election. If the center-right, centrist, and center-left
parties had formed an alliance, they could have governed the country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
I'm not really a conservative, but I share many concerns and values with conservatives. I
do agree that it's better to ally with liberals and the center-left than to join right-wing
authoritarians, and for that reason I have, however reluctantly, cast my mail-in vote for Joe
Biden.
That said, I think you misinterpret the choice that ultimately faced German nationalists
in 1932. By that time, the liberals and center-left had shrunk to powerlessness at the
national level, and the republic itself was dead in all but name. The choice as the German
nationalists saw it, and very likely as it actually was, was to join the communist KPD or the
fascist National Socialists, both of whom were determined to kill the republic. Even a
friggin' restoration of the Kaiser would have found more support at that point than the
continuation of a liberal center-left republic which had been thoroughly repudiated by all
the strongest players.
In retrospect, we know that even the KPD might have been less bad than the National
Socialists, because the KPD probably wouldn't have blundered into another world war
like the National Socialists did (Stalin, after all, avoided war with the USA and UK). But
that would have been hard for German nationalists to foresee in 1932. The obvious question
for them in making their choice was "Whose death list am I on?" If you were a business owner,
independent farmer, or churchman, your chance of survival seemed better under the National
Socialists; if you were nonwhite, or gay, or Jewish (always remember many German Jews were
fervently nationalist; some of the men murdered in the camps had won Iron Crosses in World
War I), you would have a better chance of survival under the KPD. If the businessmen, farmers
and churchmen could have foreseen that the National Socialists were going to throw away their
lives in another pointless war, they might have taken their chances with the communists
instead.
Switching now to modern America, it seems as hard to predict now as it was for the Germans
in 1932 which party will get us into a massive bloodbath overseas. Trump talks the
nonintervention talk sometimes, but he never withdraws troops, twice came within a micron of
getting us into a war with Iran, and consistently behaves bellicosely with foreign powers.
Biden's record in supporting the Iraq War and the Libya intervention show that a vote for
Democrats is no sure vote for peace either. In any case, dying in a conventional war is a
very remote risk for most Americans; our forces are too strong and technologically advanced.
Nazi Germany lost seven times more dead just invading Poland than America lost in the whole
Afghanistan war. The true nightmare scenario for America is nuclear war with Russia, and
there's no dispute about which party is more hostile to Russia.
My point is, if we've truly reached 1932 Weimar, it's already too late to ally with
liberals and the center-left. The far right and the far left were their only options, and
both led to disaster.
My fervent hope is that we're still closer to 1929 Weimar than 1932. The republic is sick,
perhaps dying, but not everyone has lost faith in it; below the level of the political and
media elites, confidence in the republic is still strong. The US military still supports the
republic to an extent the Reichswehr never did. Biden is no fire-breathing radical; he's an
establishment man to his bones. He has no idea how to cure the republic, and his policies
helped bring it to this low ebb, but at least he isn't out to murder it. That's why I was
willing to vote for him. But it's merely a stopgap measure. The far left is busily taking
over Biden's party, and far from resisting it, he sees it as a useful ally against the right.
The far right, of course, has long been doing the same to the Republican Party. We may not
have arrived yet at 1932's dreadful choice between cutthroats, but we are speeding down that
road, and it is crazy to imagine that a mere presidential vote for either of these two clowns
is going to change our course.
What will change our course? I have only the haziest idea, and I'm eagerly looking forward
to Rod's book for suggestions.
This is the best answer, but radicals will just look at your "whose death list am I in"
argument and say "yep the bourgeoisie should die, and so should anyone who supports
them".
Agreed that this is a thoughtful response. While I may even more reluctantly cast my
ballot for a despicable lunatic instead, I relate to much of the above.
In the 1928 German elections, 15 political parties won seats in the Reichstag
(parliament), with the Nazi party winning fewer than 3% of the seats. Germany's proportional
system of allocating seats meant that even small parties could end up with a small number
seats. Two years later, 15 parties again won seats in Reichstag elections. The Nazi party
made the biggest gain in seats at the expense of more centrist parties. In both national
elections held in 1932, 14 political parties won seats, with the Nazi party winning the most
seats. The popularity of the Nazi party grew as economic conditions in the country
worsened.
In 2020, the Covid-19 virus may have merely accelerated trends which were already in place
in the US.
That's a stupid false equivalency and a scarecrow argument in one, maybe even a no true
scotsman to go with that. You're aware that there were several conservatives opposing Hitler,
right? Opposition wasn't just carried out by the far-left, some of which were in the
SA/The Nazi party themselves . See: strasserism.
Rod, I agree with you about Arendt and her classic work, the best work in political
history/theory of the 20th Century imo. But there is a reason why no one quotes it today. You
mention only the last chapter of TOoT, but in Part II she goes into great detail about how
capitalism led to imperialism which used racism as a means to that end. The "mob" originates
with those displaced by The Great Transformation (Polyani's term) brought about by capitalism
and the rise of bourgeois society . . . it is this mob that later forms the basis for
totalitarian movements. Arendt's analysis covers a period of about 400 years, not simply the
aftermath of World War I which was a result of the crisis that had already begun, that is the
dissolution of the nation state . . .
But that would be uncomfortable to point out, as it is the rise of right wing economics
that was destroyed the middle class in this country, and lead us to this parlous state.
For a long time, the right has happily embraced the culture wars to hide the destruction
of the libertarian economic policies, that as always are looking for a way to crush labor
power.
An anaylsis of the Communist takeover of Eastern Europe and East Asia that leaves out the
World Wars is like an American history text that leaves out the Civil War. In every single
Eurasian country from Hungary east to North Korea where the Communists came to power WWI
and/or WWII was a key factor. No war, no Communist takeover. (And it regards to the Nazis in
Germany WWI is also a crucial factor on their coming power)
What would play the role of those wars in our future if some manner of totalitarian
government of the Left or Right junked the Constitution and seized power by force?
To be sure, none of this means that totalitarianism is inevitable. But they do signify that
the weaknesses in contemporary American society are consonant with a pre-totalitarian
state. Like the imperial Russians, we Americans may well be living in a fog of
self-deception about our own country's stability. It only takes a catalyst like war,
economic depression, plague, or some other severe and prolonged crisis that brings the
legitimacy of the liberal democratic order into question.
Again, why are you responding to an argument that Rod is not making? He didn't write The
Handmaid's Tale,
What were the catalysts for Cuba or Venezuela? Or the many socialist regimes in Africa,
the Middle East and Latin America during the postwar decades?
Revolutions against outside imposed dictatorships left over from a soft imperialism.
Platt Amendment, Banana Wars, School of the Americas and coups for days set up the
conditions for people to not trust there near neighbor oppose to its distant enemies during
the Cold War and the legacies from it created the social conditions for. We as a state
literally supported death squads in Central America. Leading to the weak states and strong
gangs in the region. The seeds of any empire bear bitter fruits. It is also where the police
state we now see was created and imported home.
As is so often the case, there are various partial truths in what you say but they don't
add up to the simplistic conclusion. BTW Venezuela was a relatively wealthy and successful
country when Chavez took over; the factors you list were long before and not involved. Rather
what happened was existing inequities and problems were utilized to enable a power grab. In
the same way that poor blacks and other minorities are being used to enable the current power
grab, divide and conquer as always - in the end, they will be just as removed from power as
they are now. Like all the woke white chicks, they are just considered useful idiots for the
progressives seeking power.
We as a state literally supported death squads in Central America. Leading to the weak
states and strong gangs in the region. The seeds of any empire bear bitter fruits.
Not that simple. The weak states and strong gangs came first. The weak states and corrupt
governments and deep inequities created the instabilities that motivated insurgencies. Lack
of a rule of law and the inability of the state to protect you forces people to turn to (and
form) gangs for protection. All of this played out against a backdrop of a global conflict
between two empires, two ideologies which further fueled all the conflicts.
There were death squads and all sorts of other abuses on all sides. There are no clean
hands in such a conflict. It was not possible to remain neutral unless you were Swiss.
All of the problems you cite concerning central america are an outgrowth of the
"governments" the US government/business imposed on those countries. The societies of central
and south america were and are highly stratified with "Europeans"--ancestry--occupying the
highest rung and receiving the lions share of the wealth. That's the reason Castro and Chavez
had such an easy time overthrowing the governments and why there is so much resistance to a
return of the previous conditions.
International relations and history are a lot more complicated than you think they are.
The endless desire for Americans to find quick and dirty feel-good good vs bad answers to
everything goes a long ways towards explaining the degrading of this society and its
governance.
I note again that Venezuela was in a rather different state than pre-Castro Cuba. But yes
having a large underclass that feels disconnected and deprived of what the rest of a society
has goes provide fertile fuel for revolution.
MS13 and Barrio 18 were born in the US from refugees fleeing our dirty wars in Central
America. Poor wealth distribution leads to it. So glad you realize wealth focus is bad. Also
oligarchs are bad. We supported those corrupted governments leading to the revolutions
leading to the net result. Ever hear of United Fruit and the banana men? Imperial Companies
support weak government because they can influence it.
Well the catalyst for Cuba was Batista staging a coup, seizing power, and destroying the
democratic process (with full US support) in 1952. Less than 10 years later, a popular
revolution overthrew him. That revolution has proven a much tougher nut to crack. It's almost
as if overthrowing democracy and giving into a strongman's appetite for power has
consequences down the road.
One could also say that trying to jump start / leap frog your way into equality and
"justice" also has consequences down the road. A lesson that humans absolutely refuse to
learn, thus condemning generation after generation into misery.
No one "gives into a strongman's appetite for power". People make choices based on
incentives and possible outcomes. Rod uses the Franco example often. People often have to
choose between two terrible outcomes - in which case they choose the one that has a better
chance of their own survival or the survival of what they care about.
I can't comment about east Asia because I don't now enough about it, but as the great
historian John Lukacs never tired of saying, the only country in Europe where the Bolsheviks
triumphed politically was Russia. The Spartacists and the Bela Kun horror fizzled out. After
the second war the Communists needed the Red Army to set up puppets. There was no
"revolution" in Poland, Czech, Hungary or anywhere because nobody wanted it. Yugoslavia may
be a partial exception, but look what happened to Yugoslavia.
Good point. I guess we could make the argument that the Red Army sweep over Eastern Europe
and absorption of all those countries into the Soviet empire required WW2 to occur, but that
seems like not the argument that Jon is making in response to Rod's thesis.
I was agreeing with him. But "what would play the role of those wars in our future" would
be...a war. Which Biden (or, the Pentagon) has up his sleeve ("America is Back"). Experto
crede. Do you not believe that the Kagan/Rubin/Boot crowd would shy from a shooting war with
Russia? Because I don't.
Thankfully empty-headed blabbers like Rubin and Boot are well removed from actual power
(and even, I would say, influence - in fact it is unclear to me why anyone publishes their
rantings). The people with influence in a Biden administration will be people like Harris,
Warner, AOC, etc. I don't think they're really aching for a war.
But the point is that you don't need a war - the catalyst can be another major event like
economic depression, a global pandemic, etc, etc.
Well, we're asking the who/whom question only one way, it seems to me. Everybody is
rightly convinced that on social and economic issues AOC and Princess Tiger Lily will have
the wheel in a Biden administration. But who's to say that in foreign policy Gersonism won't
prevail? All these never Trumpers are going to be looking for their rewards. Remember,
Hillary destroyed Libya as a resume enhancer. And the Army has gone left. One of the things
Trump mideast deal has done is set up a Sunni/Shia showdown. Why not follow through?
Fair enough. I suppose that's possible, and the young AOC type progs barely know where
anything on the globe is outside the US so they might be happy to let the old "experts" take
back over foreign policy. Not where their interests lie, for sure.
I disagree about the mideast deals, though - a Sunni vs Shia conflict has been baked into
the cake from the beginning (see: Iran Iraq war), and it was Obama's crazy Iran deal that
started everyone back on that path by strengthening Iran and trying to push it into place as
a regional hegemon. That was never going to go down with the Sunni countries.
The apparently not actually so naive Kushner was able to take advantage of new incentives
that Obama's machinations created. I see this as quite positive.
We'll agree to disagree about the mideast, which I really just brought up e.g. The one
they're really lusting for is a shooting war with Putin. Have you read Gerson on that
subject? What's the outcome of Mrs. Sikorsky's bellicosity but that? What else has all this
NATO expansion been for, anyway?
Haven't read Gerson in a while. I see your point, though I don't really think any of these
people are quite reckless enough to lust for a war with a nuclear power.
Partially correct. Czechoslovakia was an exception: Communists came to power as a result
of a free election in 1946. But it was something of an outlier, probably the most left-wing
country in Europe.
It was Bush 43's costly Middle East adventures at a time when he was cutting income taxes
that set the US economy on the terrible path it is on now. Our national debt is out of
control. Many young people will leave college with massive student loan debt, poor job
prospects and, in many areas, very expensive housing. We have paid and will continue to pay a
very high price for trying to be the world's policeman.
Obama, the wild eyed leftist spender, cut the 1.2 trillion dollar deficit that W ran up
with his tax cuts and catastrophic war down to 585 billion. By the end of '19, before any
Covid-19 spending took place, Trump had run it back up to 984 billion. Growth has been a
meager two tenths of one percent higher in the first three years of Trump's presidency than
it was during the last three years of Obama and it has come at a high cost.
"...which seeks to infuse all aspects of life with political Consciousness."
Which explains the absurd phenomenon of polically-correct stand-up comics. Guess what?
They're not funny. 'Whimsy' won't get you belly laughs. Trump still gets the belly laughs.
Even from me, and I hate his rotten stinking guts with the white hot fury of a thousand
suns.
A hundred years ago, Newtonian physics got nuked. Goodbye ordered universe, hello entropy
and chaos. And we've been mopping up the fallout ever since. Ironically, years before, The
Enlightenment had already started this dissolution process. So can you blame Picasso and
Joyce for just trying to see things as they really are(?)
Griel Marcus traces this process in his great book Lipstick Traces. From The Brethren of
the Free Spirit to the Cathars to St. Just to the Paris Commune to Duchamp and right up to
The Sex Pistols, we are either fallen, or trying to achieve the colliding energy of a mere
collection of atoms. The Lettrists even took a cue from Finnegans Wake and carved up the damn
language, for Chr--sakes. And they've been doing it ever since.
So can you blame the great Stockard Channing, in Six Degrees of Seperation, 1993, for
meditating on a Kandinsky and then coming to the same conclusion that many of us poor
benighted souls have in these absurd times: 'I am all random.'
Arendt's fine. But I'll go with Carville's "It's the economy stupid".
When a young man who isn't "college material" has no economic future, he's going to find a
way to make one. If it requires totalitarianism, so be it. Indeed, totalitarian ideologies
can only flourish in an environment when bored, penniless young men have the time to read up
on them.
Imagine all of those black guys rioting or white skinheads having to get up early in the
morning for 10 hours of hard-work at the factory or on someone's roof. A couple of beers
after work and your ready for bed, not revolution. Hence the great America of the '50's - the
'80's.
I have no idea what's coming, but we are trying to reduce our exposure by moving out of
the city, as far as we can reasonably go for now until retirement. We are frantically trying
to get our house on the market and hoping that thanks to the magic of "gentrification"
(hopefully prospective buyers won't notice the giant "F*** Gentrifiers" spray painted on a
nearby wall) we can trade our overvalued home into two properties - one in a distant town
past the outer suburbs and another somewhere overseas where we can run to when things get
really bad. That's the dream, at least. But the city we have already left and won't be going
back.
I'm sure the overseas locations will be absolutely overjoyed to have a couple of US
refugees, with no ties to the country or area, who don't speak the language or have any
cultural understanding or background, and expect to instantly be fully integrated into the
economic and social fabric, showing up.
Have you considered that you'll be akin to a Central American family moving into the outer
suburb neighborhood you desire to live in, albeit one with more resources and legal
status?
"Trump's exaltation of personal loyalty over expertise is discreditable and corrupting.
But how can liberals complain? Loyalty to the group or the tribe is at the core of leftist
identity politics."
Just when you thought the hypocrisy and the double-standard had reached the limits of what
is humanly possible, Biden takes it up a notch.
After spending the last few months tearing up cities and threatening to burn down the country
if they don't win in November, the Democrats now accuse Trump of putting the Proud Boys on
stand-by???
Even my dog is laughing at this.
[How do these kooky communists even get elected to dog-catcher???]
Just saying both sides are playing this game. One is just doing it with more guns and
state security support. The left has greater cultural focus cause those are the positions
that interest them. This is the creation of capitalism.
If Rod paid more attention to all the data and not just those that feed his hysteria, he'd
learn that there are all kinds of backlash within liberal and far left circles to the
excesses he rightly decries. In fact, I think there is more self-correction and
self-regulation going on within "the left" than on Rod's side of the spectrum
Do you have any examples of this self correction? I've been living in a far left
neighborhood in a permanent liberal Democratic city for decades, and I don't see it (well now
we fled so I can't speak for what happens next).
There are occasionally people who will whisper something in my ear or my wife's ear that
suggests they recognize some lunacy that's going on. But they would never admit that
publicly. And all evidence suggests there are still very few of such people.
The whole point of Rod's thesis is that the vast majority of people will go along with the
tide even if they don't believe it - they will live their lives by lies. Very few people have
the courage to take a stand in such circumstances, as history makes all too clear. The
progressive left, again as has been made clear over and over, now owns all the institutions
that matter in the US - with woke capitalism being the final crown. What Rod says is coming,
is coming.
Without the '65 "immigration reform" act none of this would be happening. This isn't the
result of personal loneliness, it's the inevitable result of becoming, in Eugene McCarthy's
phrase, a colony of the world. The radical turn to the left is a direct result of anti-white
bloc voting by immigrants. (Indeed you have to be willfully blind not to notice the high
percentage of spokesmen for the extreme left who are immigrants or the children of
immigrants.) This is a race war against white America, in which the cultural establishment
and the government they shape are the leading protagonists. Classic racist colonialism, with
the bizarre twist that perhaps a third of the white population supports the annihilation of
their own peoples and cultures. For the others it's simply a Scramble For America, a rush to
get money, territory, and power with the natives footing the bill.
Irrelevant. It's the immigrant vote that puts them over. The vast majority of immigration
is non-white. It's immigration that has California not electing a Republican to statewide
office in 15 years, and nothing else. Don't take my word for it, the left itself has been
telling Republicans for decades that the demographics are against them. It's an
acknowledgement of the reality of identity bloc voting and the reason they support open
borders. In any case, I mentioned you when I wrote about that mentally ill third of whites
that supports self-annihilation.
"""It is probably as true that violence breeds fanaticism as that fanaticism begets
violence. Fanatical orthodoxy is in all movements a late development. There is hardly an
example of a mass movement achieving vast proportions and a durable organization solely by
persuasion. It was a temporal sword that made Christianity a world religion. Conquest and
conversion were hand in hand. Reformation made headways only where it gained the backing of
the ruling prince or local government. The missionary zeal seems rather an expression of some
deep misgivings. Proselytizing is more a passionate search for something not yet found than
to bestow upon the world something we already have. The proselytizing fanatic strengthens his
own faith by converting others.
A true believer is eternally incomplete and eternally insecure.
Mass movements do not usually rise until the prevailing order has been discredited. A full
blown mass movement is a ruthless affair, and its management is in the hands of ruthless
fanatics. A Luther who when first defying the established church, spoke feelingly of "the
poor, simple, common folk," proclaimed later when he allied with the German princelings, that
"God would prefer to suffer to government to exist no matter how evil, rather than allow the
rabble to riot, not matter how justified they are in doing so."
"Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all the unifying agents. Mass
movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a
devil."
However, the freedom the masses crave is not freedom of self-expression and
self-realization, but the freedom from the intolerable burden of an autonomous existence.
They want freedom from the arduous responsibility of realizing their ineffectual selves and
shouldering the blame for the blemished product. They do not want freedom of conscience, but
faith -- blind, authoritarian faith. """"""
Biden of course is scarcely a totalitarian figure--Trump is more suited to that role. But
Biden would fit nicely as a von Hindenburg for the Loony Left.
How in the hell is Trump a totalitarian figure? I hear this calumny hurled at him time and
time again, but without any specifics. Tell me, what specific totalitarian actions has he
actually taken?
Support for violent white supremacist groups. Using the Dept. of Justice to target
political enemies. Adopting a Republican platform that consists solely of fealty to the party
leader.
Over the past 6 months or so, my husband has been listening to a lot of Jordan Peterson
and I have definitely noticed a shift in his thinking. A good one! I, myself, just finished
listening to his book, 12 Rules For Life and am now going through his Podcast episodes. It's
quite fascinating! Rogan has also received a lot of flak for having Peterson on his show
several times.
I went and listened to the episodes with Abigail Shrier and Douglas Murray (at your
suggestion) and now have their books (as well as your's) sitting in my audible library.
Most of what you say is true, save for the usefulness of the "experts", the credentialed
ones who have shown themselves to be absolute morons, incompetents and political hacks.
(Think, Fauci.)
Imagine if one hundred years ago you told the founding stock of this nation that every
American institution would be weaponized against their own history and heritage. Imagine if
you told them our universities, media, churches and immigration system were all being used to
demonize and demographically displace their own posterity. They must be rolling over in their
graves because that is exactly what is happening.
In 1920? Large numbers of them absolutely would have believed it. In fact, millions of
them *did* believe it. The country was being overrun by Italians, Poles, Greeks, Serbs,
Russians. A frightening number of them were Jews and Catholics. They smelled funny, spoke
weird languages, had bizarre beliefs and customs, cooked and ate strange foods. They were
lazy bums who were taking all our jobs. At a rally in Rhode Island, the Grand Imperial Wizard
proclaimed to thousands that the KKK stood for undying opposition to "Koons, Kikes, &
Katholics".
And it's come true! Look, for example, who's on the Supreme Court.
Not to mention that the Jews were over-running colleges. Keeping them out required changes
to admissions practices to make things other than pure academic ability deciding factors.
Hence the emphasis on "the whole person", where a good background, good family, athletic
ability, and being someone you'd want to associate with in your club began to over-ride
performance on the academic tests that had previously been used to determine admissions.
Just soft totalitarianism? That seems incredibly pollyann-ish - delusionally
optimistic.
If Biden wins, the USA, the EU and Red China will move swiftly to exterminate the remnants of
Christian Civilisation - and anybody associated with it.
Bishop Vigano seems to share this view. (
https://www.lifesitenews.co...
[Anyway, we ALREADY have "soft totalitarianism". Need proof? Just go down to your HR
department and tell them that you believe homosexual activity is immoral.]
As much as somebody may dislike Trump's personality, Biden is just not an option.
Biden = ethno-cultural extinction
As adults, we don't get to indulge our own childish sensitivities. We don't get to
participate in this political fantasy-land alt-universe - where monstrous evil is praised as
virtuous, and goodness is labelled as vice.
Just go down to your HR department and tell them that you believe homosexual activity
is immoral.
I imagine you'll get a reaction similar to that if you went down to HR and ranted about
how sex outside of marriage is immoral, or lectured how sodomy is a crime against nature and
its practitioners deserve to burn in Hell.
I used to have a Ukrainian woman on my staff. When my younger staff all started in 2016
expressing support for Sanders she freaked. Then she freaked over Trump.
We are screwed. My decision to vote for Biden is predicated upon the hope that a boring
gaff prone Biden presidency will allow a return to normalcy.
A vote for Biden is a vote for the radical totalitarian left. Packing the supreme court.
Ending the Senate Filibuster and open borders. The country as we know it will be over.
Certain end of the First and Second amendments. I don't find you credible at all
No one claims to be an isolationist, but foreign policy analysts keep imagining and fearing
a "resurgence" of isolationism around every corner. This fear was on display in a recent
Atlanticarticle
by Charles Kupchan, who tries to rehabilitate the label in order to oppose the substance of a
policy of nonintervention and non-entanglement. Kupchan allows that a policy of avoiding
entangling alliances and staying out of European wars was important for the growth and
prosperity of the United States, but then rehearses the same old and misleading story about the
terrible "isolationist" interwar years that we have heard countless times before. This
misrepresents the history of that period and compromises our ability to rethink our foreign
policy today.
Kupchan's article is not just an exercise in beating a dead horse, since he fears that the
same thing that happened between the world wars is happening again: "If the 19th century was
isolationism's finest hour, the interwar era was surely its darkest and most deluded. The
conditions that led to this misguided run for cover are making a comeback." Kupchan wants to
borrow a little from the people he calls "isolationists" so that the U.S. will remain
thoroughly ensnared in most of its global commitments.
At the same time that he warns that "U.S. statecraft has become divorced from popular will,"
he seems to want to keep it this way by rejecting what he calls the "isolationist temptation."
If "a majority of the country favors either America First or global disengagement," as he says,
the goal seems to be to ignore what the majority wants in favor of making a few tweaks to the
same old strategy of U.S. primacy. Those tweaks aren't going to lessen popular support for a
reduced U.S. role in the world, and they will likely make the public even more disillusioned
with the remaining costs and demands of U.S. "leadership."
The key thing to remember in all this is that the U.S. has never been isolationist in its
foreign relations. The thing that Kupchan calls America's "default setting" is not real.
Isolationism is the pejorative term that expansionists and interventionists have used over the
last century to ridicule and dismiss opposition to unnecessary wars. Isolationism as U.S.
policy in the 1920s and 1930s is a myth , and the myth is
deployed whenever there has been a serious challenge to the status quo in post-1945 U.S.
foreign policy. Bear Braumoeller summed it up very well in his article , "The
Myth of American Isolationism," this way: "the characterization of America as isolationist in
the interwar period is simply wrong." We can't learn from the past if we insist on distorting
it. As William Appleman Williams put it in The Tragedy of American Diplomacy , "It not
only deforms the history of the decade from 1919 to 1930, but it also twists the story of
American entry into World War II and warps the record of the cold war." Williams also remarked
in a note that the use of the term isolationist "has thus crippled American thought about
foreign policy for 50 years." Today we can say that it has done so for a century.
Our government eschewed permanent alliances for most of its history, and it refrained from
taking sides in the European Great Power conflicts of the nineteenth century, but it never
sought to cut itself from the world and could not have done that even if it had wished to do
so. The U.S. was a commercial republic from the start, and it cultivated economic and
diplomatic ties with as many states as possible. You can call the steady expansion of the U.S.
across North America and into the Pacific and Caribbean "isolationism," but that just shows how
misleading and inaccurate the label has always been.
Post-WWI America was a rising power and increasingly involved in the affairs of the world.
Its economic and diplomatic engagement with the world increased during these years. If it
wasn't involved in the way that later internationalists would have liked, that didn't make the
U.S. isolationist. Braumoeller makes this point explicitly: "America was not isolationist in
affairs relating to international security in Europe for the bulk of the period: in fact, it
was perhaps more internationalist than it had ever been." The U.S. was behaving as a great
power, but one that strove to maintain its neutrality. That was neither deluded nor disastrous,
and we need to stop pretending that it was if we are ever going to be able to make the needed
changes to our foreign policy today.
00:13 / 00:59 00:00 Next Video × Next Video
J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker, Pro-family Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019
Cancel Autoplay is paused
Kupchan acknowledges that there has to be an "adjustment" after the last several decades of
overreach, but he casts this as a way of preventing more significant retrenchment: "The
paramount question is whether that adjustment takes the form of a judicious pullback or a more
dangerous retreat." No one objects to the desire for a responsible reduction in U.S.
commitments, but one person's "judicious pullback" will often be denounced as a "dangerous
retreat" by others. Just consider how many times we have been warned about a U.S. "retreat"
from the Middle East over the last 11 years. Even now, the U.S. is still taking part in
multiple wars across the region, and the "retreat" we have been told has happened several times
never seems to take place. Warning about the perils of an "isolationist comeback" hardly makes
it more likely that these withdrawals will ever happen.
He recommends that "judicious retrenchment should entail shedding U.S. entanglements in the
periphery, not in the strategic heartlands of Europe and Asia." Certainly, any reduction in
unnecessary U.S. commitments is welcome, but a thorough rethinking of U.S. foreign policy has
to include every region. Kupchan is right to criticize slapdash, incompetent withdrawals, but
one gets the impression that he thinks there shouldn't be any withdrawals except from the
Middle East. He cites "Russian and Chinese threats" as the main reasons not to pull back at all
in Europe or Asia, but this seems like an uncritical endorsement of the status quo.
It is in East Asia where the U.S. might be fighting a war against a major, nuclear-armed
power in the future, and it is also there where the U.S. has some of the wealthiest and most
capable allies. If the U.S. can't reduce its exposure to the risk of a major war where that
risk is the greatest and its allies are strongest, when will it ever be able to do that?
Reducing the U.S. military presence in East Asia will make it easier to manage U.S.-Chinese
tensions, and it will give allies an additional incentive to assume more responsibility for
their own security.
The U.S. has far more security commitments than it can afford and far more than can possibly
be justified by our own security interests. That includes, but is not limited to, our
overcommitment to the Middle East. Our foreign entanglements have been allowed to grow and
spread to such an extent over the last seventy-five years that modest pruning won't be good
enough to put U.S. foreign policy on a sound footing that will have reliable public support.
There needs to be a much more comprehensive review of all U.S. commitments to determine which
ones are truly necessary for our security and which ones are not. Ruling out the bulk of those
commitments as untouchable in advance is a mistake.
There is
broad public support for constructive international engagement, but there is remarkably
little backing for preserving U.S. hegemony in its current form. In order to have a more
sustainable foreign policy, the U.S. needs to scale back its ambitions in most parts of the
world, and it needs to shift more of the security burdens for different regions to the
countries that have the most at stake. That should be done deliberately and carefully, but it
does need to happen if we are to realign our foreign policy with protecting the vital interests
of the United States. ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in
the New York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics
Review , Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The
American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in
history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter .
Richard Hofsteder is largely responsible for this falsehood, like he is for making
"populist" a by-word, as Thomas Frank points out in his new book.
I prefer the term "non-interventionist" or Washingtonian, myself. I continue to be stuck
by the amazing wisdom of Washington's Farewell Address (largely written by Hamilton). It
really should be our guide to this day.
Try a seance and tell this Augusto Cesar Sandino. Two American brothers who owned a gold
mine in his country had another brother at the State Department. That's how FP was
"successful."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
Europe would have been better off if the US had stayed out of WWI and let major
belligerents fight it out until they reached a cease fire on their own. The US entry into the
war, tipped the scales in favor of Britain and France and resulted in a very harsh peace
treaty being imposed on Germany in 1919. Four years later, Germany's currency collapsed,
wiping out the savings of millions of average Germans. The Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 made
economic conditions for people in central Europe very bad and conrtibuted to the rising
popularity of the Nazi party in Germany.
The world is so much smaller today than it was when this country was formed and organized
by the Founding Fathers. (Mothers were not allowed)
The idea of international associations and cooperation is required with today's world.
When some country like China sneezes, the whole world needs a face mask!
The Age of Daniel Boone is dead. America must be fully engaged in world matters. That does
not mean going into every country with our military. America needs to continue to give some
leadership in world affairs. It would be suicidal to close the windows to the rest of the
world.
I agree. The world is interconnected, engagement is a necessity. The problem with the US
FP at this point is to see every issue as an opportunity to throw around our military weight
and call it "engagement". Being fully engaged in the world is a state department issue -
smart and educated diplomats working the lines of communication and cooperation with every
nation to build a reputation for US leadership, to foment peace, and to build prosperity.
Obviously, under Trump and Pompeo this is a waste of breath.
Worth noting, a friend of mine, ex-CIA, has made an absolute fortune off of our military
preoccupations. And even he said (perhaps exaggerating) that you could get rid of 90% of the
traditional military with little or no loss in actual national security. Most of it is, as he
said, corporate welfare and window dressing.
(Of course he then said you should spend what you've saved entirely on cyber-security)
Using the 'I' Word for War and Profit
Column by Tim Hartnett, posted on April 03, 2013
in War and Peace
Column by Tim Hartnett.
Exclusive to STR
For about a century now, Humpty-Dumpty has been the go-to man for fans of elaborate
American foreign adventures. Unwelcome inquiries are put down with a one word incantation
that blesses and immunizes government-funded schemes that are always cash cows for somebody.
"Isolationist" means exactly what its users mean it to mean--no more and no less. Every entry
on the first page of my online search for the word "isolationism" provided the same
definition: "The national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with
other countries." Nobody on the furthest fringes of the political spectrum who gets ink or
air time comes close calling for a plan fitting that description.
The word remains in healthy circulation despite the total absence of public figures
advocating anything of the kind. Its real linguistic purpose is to obstruct examination of
extra-territorial programs that don't work and often do considerable harm.
Most of us first learned of the dreaded I-beast in grade school study of WWI. Back in that
good old day, the authorities had sense enough to put these naysayers in prisons after
allowing hostile crowds to have at 'em for an hour or so. If the folks at The Weekly
Standard, the Heritage Foundation, AEI, Fox News et al get their way, hoosegow entrepreneurs
will be back in that market before too long. How could anyone oppose US entry into The Great
War, anyway? It's what catapulted us to the top of the economic heap. We are probably only
one good war away from reclaiming that title.
The first people to stoke lynch mobs with the "I" word claimed we were fighting a war "to
make the world safe for democracy." The Irish, Indians, Algerians, Pacific Islanders, Russian
peasants, Filipinos, the Congolese and millions of other Africans were not educated well
enough to accept this as readily as freedom-loving Americans did. Without guys like J.P.
Morgan, J.D. Rockefeller, Charles Schwab and others who hired PR men to keep the country
thinking right thoughts, foreigners are often easily misled. Isolationists are as rare on
Wall Street as atheists are in foxholes.
To understand the perfidious way that isolationism works, try and visualize a typical
slice of American policy from say 1968. Some experts and officers in a room at the Pentagon
decide a spot on the map could use a good bombing, and the order is relayed via satellite to
South Vietnam. At five they leave work to fight rush hour traffic and get home in time for a
smoke with Walter Cronkite. Some Navy fliers get dispatched, and once the napalm is fixed to
the jets, they're airborne. Thirty-five minutes later, the right patch below them, it's bombs
away and a U-turn. An undernourished five year old girl foolishly lives nearby and an eight
ounce blob of gel burning at 1,800 degrees lands on her back. She is immediately screaming
and burns for six minutes until an adult manages to put the incinerating child out.
Meanwhile, the flyboys are on terra firma again with beers, joints, Steppenwolf on the
turntable and much lamenting of St. Louis' undeserved defeat at the hands of Detroit. The
little girl's screaming still pierces the tropical air. The engineers and the chemists who
designed the people-melting device are on the other side of the world asleep in their
suburban beds. And the tiny thing can't stop screaming. The next day at Harvard, William
Kristol is expounding on communism, the domino theory, social responsibility, moral courage
and careful reading. And the 32 lb. waif is still going through an endless agony that no man
of oxen strength should ever have to endure in a lifetime. Isolating on these kinds of
details misses the "big picture," I've been told. Only communists, terrorists and other
abominable -ists focus on this kind of inhumane minutiae.
Forty years later, John McCain was wittily singing the lyrics "bomb Iran" while doubtless
a child was on fire somewhere that US ordnance had exploded. The one certain outcome of such
events is a profit for weapons manufacturers. Isolationists are oddly skeptical of the many
benefits anti-isolationists find in all-purpose bombing campaigns. What's always clear is
that people who speak publicly about their love for humanitarian bombing expect to be paid
for it.
There are a lot of things that "isolationists" just don't know, and it must be for this
ignorance they are so despised by both mainstream media and Wall Street's favorite
politicians. They don't know why we have 50,000 soldiers in Germany or another 30,000 in
Japan. Why we paid to keep an incorrigible thug like Mubarak in business for 30 years. Why we
need missiles in Eastern Europe. Why we helped every bloodthirsty, misanthropic power monger
in Central America. Why we needed to help Turkey get Ocalan. Why South Ossetia's
nationalistic prerogatives are our business. Why foreign governments should be pressured by
our diplomats on Wall Street's behalf. Why our government takes some kind of stand in every
foreign war, election, national event or internal matter of almost any kind. How we can
indict one country for human rights violations while buddying up to worse offenders like
Saudi Arabia regularly. Why our foreign initiatives proceed based on fantastic ideologies in
contempt of facts. These are just a few of the quandaries that afflict the minds of people
who aren't buying the divine right of American altruist aristocracy to fine tune the rest of
the world. They aren't exactly keen on the hyper-interventionist tendencies that keep so many
beltway bandits in the chips, either.
What they also don't know is why the elite media, the experts and elected officials, if
they truly understand these things, can't be called upon to explain any of them to the rest
of us satisfactorily. On March 20, Dana Milbank called Rand Paul an "isolationist" in his
column without any explanation. In the future, he might want to right click on Microsoft Word
and choose the Look up option before deploying the term.
After American involvement in Vietnam ended, many proponents of the action claimed the
death toll there would have been even worse without our presence. Others go so far as to
maintain that fighting in such conflicts protects US citizens' privileges, like freedom of
speech, here at home. They expect us all to believe that "Isolationists," by any definition,
wouldn't get away with spouting their un-American propaganda in public places, or on
television if any were allowed there, but for a policy that napalms little girls.
While people smeared with the I-word persistently point out that they are merely against
policies that are misguided, immoral and often murderous, their detractors insist that what
they really oppose is America. In the "big picture" mindset of the interventionist, you can't
have one without the other.
Beat them over the head with a stick, that might do it.
As for the entanglements in east Asia, none of the countries under direct US vassalage
have major disputes with China and do not need US protection. And it is likely that without
the US Korea would be on a path to reunification. The US is trying to beat everyone in line
to show who's the boss... So it seems, this K guy, like all his ilk are presenting things in
a very Manichean way: either primacy or "isolationism". There is so much in between these
two...
"... Virtually every aspect of the Syrian opposition was cultivated and marketed by Western government-backed public relations firms, from their political narratives to their branding, from what they said to where they said it. ..."
"Western government-funded intelligence cutouts trained Syrian opposition leaders,
planted stories in media outlets from BBC to Al Jazeera, and ran a cadre of journalists. A
trove of leaked documents exposes the propaganda network."
"Leaked documents show how UK government contractors developed an advanced infrastructure of
propaganda to stimulate support in the West for Syria's political and armed opposition.
Virtually every aspect of the Syrian opposition was cultivated and marketed by Western
government-backed public relations firms, from their political narratives to their branding,
from what they said to where they said it.
The leaked files reveal how Western intelligence cutouts played the media like a fiddle,
carefully crafting English- and Arabic-language media coverage of the war on Syria to churn out
a constant stream of pro-opposition coverage.
US and European contractors trained and advised Syrian opposition leaders at all levels,
from young media activists to the heads of the parallel government-in-exile . These firms also
organized interviews for Syrian opposition leaders on mainstream outlets such as BBC and the
UK's Channel 4.
More than half of the stringers used by Al Jazeera in Syria were trained in a joint US-UK
government program called Basma, which produced hundreds of Syrian opposition media
activists.
Western government PR firms not only influenced the way the media covered Syria, but as the
leaked documents reveal, they produced their own propagandistic pseudo-news for broadcast on
major TV networks in the Middle East, including BBC Arabic, Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, and Orient
TV .
These UK-funded firms functioned as full-time PR flacks for the extremist-dominated Syrian
armed opposition. One contractor, called InCoStrat, said it was in constant contact with a
network of more than 1,600 international journalists and "influencers," and used them to push
pro-opposition talking points.
Another Western government contractor, ARK, crafted a strategy to "re-brand" Syria's
Salafi-jihadist armed opposition by "softening its image ." ARK boasted that it provided
opposition propaganda that "aired almost every day on" major Arabic-language TV networks."
"The Western contractor ARK was a central force in launching the White Helmets operation.
The leaked documents show ARK ran the Twitter and Facebook pages of Syria Civil Defense,
known more commonly as the White Helmets.
ARK also facilitated communications between the White Helmets and The Syria
Campaign , a PR firm run out of London and New York that helped popularize the White
Helmets in the United States.
It was apparently "following subsequent discussions with ARK and the teams" that The Syria
Campaign "selected civil defence to front its campaign to keep Syria in the news," the firm
wrote in a report for the UK Foreign Office." thegreyzone
--------------
Using really basic intelligence analytic tools; Occam's Razor, Walks like a duck,
Smileyesque back azimuth's, etc. it has been clear that the UK government has been deeply
involved in sponsoring and influencing the Syrian/ jihadi opposition in that miserable country.
The wide spread British Old Boys network of aspirants to the tradition of imperial manipulation
has been visible just below the surface if you had eyes to look and a brain to think.
A lot of the money for this folly came right out of USAID.
I object to the line in the article that they "played the media like a fiddle" - as it
implies the mainstream media is a victim as opposed to willing accomplice.
The American public very strongly told Obama they didn't want another invasion and war in
the middle east (red lines or not) so rather ineffective propaganda.
Moreover, I suspect that given the US public inattention to overseas events that do not
involve much US blood (in places they can not find on a map). Today's mess would be where
more or less the same if the entire IO had never happened - though maybe with less cynicism
of US/UK gov'ts and media.
OTH, it is curious how well the British Old Boys network (and US) aligns with Israeli
interests (and runs counter to US or British interests). Maybe grayzone will investigate that
(impressive) IO campaign. I think a small country in the middle east played US and UK elites
like a fiddle.
I've only given this article a cursory reading so far and it is clear that the Brits are
going balls to the wall on the PSYOPS/perception management front. This campaign flows
naturally from the strong material support for the Syrian "moderate rebels" provided by the
US, the Brits and probably others for years. We may still be blowing up IS jihadis, but we're
also supporting our own brand of jihadis around Al-Tanf, giving free hand to Erdogan's
jihadis along the Turkish-Syrian border and doing our best to stymie R+6 efforts to crush the
remaining jihadis and unite Syria.
The article focuses on the contractors role in PSYOP. I'm not sure if it mentions the
British government's role in this. The GCHQ's Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group
(JTRIG) probably manages most of those contractors. The British Army also has the 77th
Brigade. This brigade's slogan is: "behavioural change is our unique selling point". Gordon
MacMillan, a reserve officer with the 77th Brigade, is now Twitter's head of editorial
operations for the Middle East.
The 77th was formed in 2015 and subsumed the 15th Psychological Operations Group which was
headed by Steve Tathan, who went on to head the defence division of SCL, the now defunct
parent of Cambridge Analytica. I'm sure the 77th is capable of managing some of those
contractors, as well. I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few of contractors were also
reservists in the 77th.
I bet we're not letting the Brits have all the fun. The CIA Special Activities Center
(formerly SAD) includes the Political Action Group for PSYOP, economic warfare and
cyberwarfare. That dovetails nicely with what CENTCOM is doing in Syria. I knew some of those
guys a while back. I remember scaring them with some of my own anarchist hacker rantings when
I was penetrating those hackers.
Our Army has fours PSYOP groups brigade-sized), two active and 2 reserve. I would think
they have advanced their methodology since I took the course at Bragg. For a few years, they
were called military information support operations (MISO) groups rather than PSYOP groups.
They have since reverted to their PSYOP name although their activities are referred to as
MISO. I don't know what the difference is.
There is no such small country as you describe in the Near East.
There is an self-disciplined proxy force masquerading as a state which is mostly funded by
the United States to further the religious policies of the WASP Culture Continent.
It is no accident that in this context, the names of US and UK occur often in the same
sentences; one declared a crusade to wrestle control of Plastine from Muslims, and the otber
one carried out that crusade and escalated it.
That is also the reason that US cannot end the war over Palestine or leave Islamdom
(Oil, Geostrategic considerations, arms sales, Realpolitik are just pseudo-rationications
to obscure the real war.)
"WASP Culture" is into golfing, not crusading. Erik Prince and the religious
fundamentalists, maybe, but they don't drive US policy.
Russia and/or Chinese dominion over Eurasia cannot be permitted. Their means to achieve
that would be less ethical, not that the US or UK have been prince among men and salts of the
earth, as noted in the article.
The US has tried in vain to win over hearts and minds. It has been a mostly noble effort
to bring countries like Iraq and Afghanistan into the 21st century, but it was always more of
a losing game. The problem lies too much in Islam and tribal rivalries.
Recruiting for military is much easier if there is no jobs.
Notable quotes:
"... They want to eliminate the EPA, vacate the State Dept and many other Depts, except for a few high-placed cronies, wipe all financial, labour, consumer and environmental regulations off the books; eliminate or reduce to a bare minimum federal health insurance, medicaid, medicare and Social Security, crush public education, privatize everything they can sell, and so on. They are not in power to "govern" but to destroy government. This is all being done with a fairly unified agenda: to free "the market" from any restrictions whatsoever, so that they -- global elites -- can make as much money as possible. It's a cabal of global corporations, militarists, Christian sovereign white supremacists, fossil fuel giants and bankers ..."
I wonder if any of the commentators here have considered that the [neoliberal] cabal now
in power in the US (not elsewhere) are not in power to "take power" except for a temporary
period. They don't want to run the federal government, they want to destroy it, except for
the police state and the military.
They want to eliminate the EPA, vacate the State Dept and many other Depts, except for
a few high-placed cronies, wipe all financial, labour, consumer and environmental regulations
off the books; eliminate or reduce to a bare minimum federal health insurance, medicaid,
medicare and Social Security, crush public education, privatize everything they can sell, and
so on. They are not in power to "govern" but to destroy government. This is all being done
with a fairly unified agenda: to free "the market" from any restrictions whatsoever, so that
they -- global elites -- can make as much money as possible. It's a cabal of global
corporations, militarists, Christian sovereign white supremacists, fossil fuel giants and
bankers , and I think there's a high degree of cooperation for the agenda. The
revolution is the cabal run by Trump/Bannon who are more extreme and ideological than any
previous faction, who have no tolerance for compromise. They have an apocalyptic vision of
grinding it all down to a bare minimum police state.
The Washington Post , whose sole owner
is a CIA contractor , has published yet another anonymously sourced CIA press release
disguised as a news report which just so happens to facilitate longstanding CIA foreign
policy.
True to form ,
at no point does WaPo follow standard journalistic protocol and disclose its blatant financial
conflict of interest with the CIA when promoting an unproven CIA narrative which happens to
serve the consent-manufacturing agendas of the CIA for its new cold war with Russia.
And somehow in our crazy, propaganda-addled society, this is accepted as "news".
The CIA has had a hard-on for the collapse of the Russian Federation
for many years , and preventing the rise of another multipolar world at all cost has been
an open agenda of US imperialism since the fall of the Soviet Union. Indeed it is clear
that the escalations
we've been watching unfold against Russia were in fact
planned well in advance of 2016, and it is only by propaganda narratives like this one that
consent has been manufactured for a new cold war which imperils the life of every organism on
this planet.
There is no excuse for a prominent news outlet publishing a CIA press release disguised as
news in facilitation of these CIA agendas. It is still more inexcusable to merely publish
anonymous assertions about the contents of that CIA press release. It is especially inexcusable
to publish anonymous assertions about a CIA press release which merely says that something is
"probably" happening, meaning those making the claim don't even know.
None of this stopped The Washington Post from publishing this propaganda piece on behalf of
the CIA. None of it stopped this story from being widely shared by prominent voices on social
media and repeated by major news outlets like
CNN , The New
York Times , and
NBC . And none of it stopped all the usual liberal influencers from taking the claims and
exaggerating the certainty:
The CIA-to-pundit pipeline, wherein intelligence agencies "leak" information that is picked
up by news agencies and then wildly exaggerated by popular influencers, has always been an
important part of manufacturing establishment Russia hysteria. We saw it recently when the
now completely debunked claim that Russia paid bounties on US troops to Taliban-linked
fighters in Afghanistan first surfaced;
unverified anonymous intelligence claims were published by mass media news outlets, then by
the time it got to spinmeisters like Rachel
Maddow it was being treated not as an unconfirmed analysis but as an established fact:
If you've ever wondered how rank-and-file members of the public can be so certain of
completely unproven intelligence claims, the CIA-to-pundit pipeline is a big part of it. The
most influential voices who political partisans actually hear things from are often a few
clicks removed from the news report they're talking about, and by the time it gets to them it's
being waved around like a rock-solid truth when at the beginning it was just presented as a
tenuous speculation (the original aforementioned WaPo report appeared on the opinion page).
The CIA has a well-documented history of
infiltrating and manipulating the mass media for propaganda purposes, and to this day the
largest supplier of leaked information from the Central Intelligence Agency to the news media
is the CIA itself. They have a whole process for
leaking information to reporters they like (with an internal form that asks whether
the information is Accurate, Partially Accurate, or Inaccurate), as was
highlighted in a recent court case which found that the CIA can even leak documents to
select journalists while refusing to release them to others via Freedom of Information Act
requests.
The way mainstream media has become split along increasingly hostile ideological
lines means that all the manipulators need to do to advance a given narrative is set it up
to make one side look bad and then share it with a news outlet from the other side. The way
media is set up to masturbate people's confirmation bias instead of report objective facts will
then cause the narrative to go viral throughout that partisan faction, regardless of how true
or false it might be.
https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-4&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1291936114698153984&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fmsm-promotes-yet-another-cia-press-release-news&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=219d021%3A1598982042171&width=550px
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The coming US election and its aftermath is looking like it will be even more insane and
hysterical than the last one, and the enmity and outrage it creates will give manipulators
every opportunity to slide favorable narratives into the slipstream of people's hot-headed
abandonment of their own critical faculties.
And indeed they are clearly prepared to do exactly that. An
ODNI press release last month which was uncritically passed along by the most prominent US
media outlets reported that China and Iran are trying to help Biden win the November election
while Russia is trying to help Trump. So no matter which way these things go the US
intelligence cartel will be able to surf its own consent-manufacturing foreign policy agendas
upon the tide of outrage which ensues.
The propaganda machine is only getting louder and more aggressive. We're being prepped for
something.
* * *
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see
the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack , which will get you an email
notification for everything I publish. My work is
entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around,
liking me on Facebook
, following my antics on Twitter ,
throwing some money into my tip jar on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise ,
buying my books Rogue Nation:
Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone and
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and
what I'm trying to do with this platform,
click here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded,
has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else
I've written) in any way they like free of charge.
'It's Easier to Fool People Than to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled'
- Mark Twain
palmereldritch , 49 seconds ago
And prior to Bezos/CIA ownership the paper was managed by heirs whose ownership stake
was originally acquired through a bankruptcy sale by a board member/trustee of The Federal
Reserve.
So maybe it was just a share transfer...
Freeman of the City , 1 minute ago
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free"
"Life is hard, it's harder if your stupid" - John Wayne
Freeman of the City , 18 seconds ago
'It's Easier to Fool People Than to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled'
- Mark Twain
palmereldritch , 49 seconds ago
And prior to Bezos/CIA ownership the paper was managed by heirs whose ownership stake was
originally acquired through a bankruptcy sale by a board member/trustee of The Federal
Reserve.
So maybe it was just a share transfer...
Freeman of the City , 1 minute ago
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free"
Antifa and BLM are just shows with stunts designed to distract people from the level they are
fleeced by MIC and financial oligarchy. As well as restore the legitimacy of Clinton wing of
neoliberal oligarchy which was badly shaken during 2016 election, when their candidate was send
packing.
Nicholas Kristof is member of "Clinton gang of neoliberals" and a part of this effort to
distract people. The number of people who pay attention to Nicholas Kristof bloviations is
astounding. Few understand that we do not know the facts and the real issue if the tight grip of
MIC and financial oligarchy on the society. What is interesting is that s in California, there
are 8.5 million residents born outside the country and about 150,000 homeless. "The melting pot
burned over. It is now a ... salad.
For example, if money spend on wars were used to manage thoseforests with difficult terrain
and perioc drauts, would the outcome be different?
Can those fires and destruction be viewed as God punishment for war the USA unleashed? As
Thomas Jefferson said "I tremble for my country when I consider that God is just."
BTW, the number of commenters with Russian paranoia symptom is frightening. Of course NYT
attracts specific audience, but still. In this sense NYT columnists including Nickolas Kristof
are just warmongering bottom feeders of MIC crumps. It is pathetic how he tries to hide the lack
of money for forest management and mismanagement if this issue by Oregon Dem politician under the
broad banner of "climate change" Existence of climate change does not mean that fire should burn
uncontrollably.
MIC steals half trillion dollars and then financial oligarchy steals probably another half,
if not more. What is left is not enough for proper maintenance of land, water and environment in
general. Stupid situation, but this is neoliberalism my friend, where "greed is good". And people
chose this mousetrap themselves in 1970th by electing first Carter and then Reagan and then
Clinton , allowing financial oligarchy to dismantle New Deal Capitalism. Clinton presidency was
especially destructive, In a way he should be views as the top villain in this story, a real
criminal boss.
Below I selected only more or less sane comment (which constitute probably less 1% of the
total)
Notable quotes:
"... How about a judicious Forrest management? ..."
"... So much for our useless 750 Billion dollar military budget. ..."
"... Amazing how ,close minded people become when, for them, everything is political. ..."
Wouldn't the conspiracy theories and concerns about antifa be lessened if progresses were as
vitriolic about violence committed in the name of equity, diversity and inclusion as they are
about violence committed in support of MAGA? Would the right have anything to crow about if
the NYT was as critical of physical altercations caused by social justice warriors as they
are of white supremacists? Wouldn't we all have more trust in MSM if they investigated the
facts before accusing Nick Sandman of racism or claiming a garbage pull was a noose? One
sided reporting and editorials like these fan the flames rather than squelch them.
It's amazing. You can write a column in the NY Times full of conspiracy theories -- all fully
believed by the left -- and accuse the right of being prone to believing conspiracy theories.
From Russia - collusion to rubes in the red states --a majority of dems share a set of
beliefs that are as delusional as anything a small group on the right might believe. But,
that's Kristof and the Ny Times for you.
People seemed to have lost a sense of what is plausible. While few of us know the news first
hand, we have to both trust and evaluate what is reported. Nothing is absolute. Jurors are
asked to decide cases beyond a reasonable doubt. That is how I feel taking in the news. But
within that sliver of doubt, within the fact that nothing is absolute is where conspiracy
theories begin to fester. It is where some have found solace to confirm what they want to
choose to believe despite how much there might be to question that. Events like this create
an opportunism to demonize those you hate and in doing so the essence of what we should be
debating is lost. How to prevent these fires in the first place? We will probably continue to
debate it despite the evidence on climate change, whether there is a deep state trying to
discredit Trump, whether the seriousness of covid is a hoax. Yes there is no absolute
certainty but there is taking an educated guess as opposed to an emotional response. I'll go
with the educated guess. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, I
will say it is a duck and accept that sliver of possibility I might be wrong.
Why do people attach themselves to "conspiracy theories?" It's actually quite simple. Take
QAnon for example: it is functionally just another religion competing for adherents. As with
any religion, it offers its believers an explanation of what they deem is wrong while
offering a path to right those wrongs. Certainty and simplicity: those are the essential
elements of cults/religion/bumpersticker politics. And the internet guarantees that whatever
you believe will be "validated." "Conspiracy theories" are, for the most part, not theories,
merely assertions. A theory is subject to proof and disproof by evidence. In a world where
truth has no inherent monetary value, don't expect it. Why the rapid spread? To paraphrase
Bill Clinton, "It's the internet, Stupid!" Follow the money: Agenda + Clickbaitability =
Profit That is the business model of the internet, a medium where "news" is whatever will
produce the most clicks. As in profit. Unless and until the youngest generation developes a
means of communication that does not depend on megacorporations, nothing will change. In the
Sixties, a generation which disbelieved and had no honest access to the traditional media,
created its own, the "alternative press." Hopefully, today's teenagers will develope their
own way to communicate that is reliable. It is 100% guaranteed that if their "opposition"
becomes an actual threat to the profits of Facebook, Google, Apple, Twitter, and the rest of
their ilk, they will be cut off.
The antifa movement has grown since the 2016 United States presidential election. As of
August 2017, approximately 200 groups existed, of varying sizes and levels of activity.[73]
It is particularly present in the Pacific Northwest.[74] Wikipedia
In an age when the US Justice Department is anything but just, more closely resembling
something akin to "just us," I call to mind Thomas Jefferson, in a somewhat different
context: "I tremble for my country when I consider that God is just."
We spend hundred of billions of dollars every year on the types of weapons that won WWII,
while the real threat to our Republic and yes, our civilization, is ,,, It's funny and
tragic, simultaneously.
Antifa has done a lot of things. They have chosen to step into the arena. Whether they did it
or not, this is accusation is a result of wading into the fight. If Antifa doesnt like to be
accused of things and cant handle it, then Antifa should step off. Or does Antifa only want
praise? Because that isnt going to happen. Many people dont like Antifa nor trust Antifa. And
rightfully so. Ask any career criminal how many times they've been wrongfully accused of
something. If an individual or group doesnt want to be accused of things, then dont get
involved from the start.
Except that about a dozen people have been arrested and charged with starting the forest
fires. Shouting "without evidence!" doesn't make it so. Facts matter.
@JQGALT There are always people who are setting fires whether accidentally or intentionally.
Do you have any proof that these arsonists were politically motivated I any way ?
Yet the Almeda fire in Oregon that destroyed more than 2,300 homes was, according to NYT
reporting, caused by human activity and is subject of a "criminal investigation." Perhaps it
would be wise to reserve total judgment until that investigation is completed.
Who needs rumors? The organization showed what it is made of when it created its free zone in
downtown Seattle and had the highest crime and murder rate per capita in its short life in
the country.
Rational people know that Antifa is not staring forest fires. However, burning and looting
and using fireworks as weapons in the recent riots make even the dumbest claims of Trump
supporters more believable.
Leftwing activists have literally been arrested for starting some of these fires. There is
video of arsonists being caught, yet the media ignores this, and actively denies it. Gee, why
could that be?
@LV Do you have any proof that these people were were left wing activist or just the kind of
people who are always starting fires ad they have in the past ?
The [neoliberal] left spends 24/7 preaching to their choir about Trump fascists dictatorship,
an illegal government installed by a foreign power, destroying the constitution while
preparing to seize power and ignore coming election results. There is a zero factual evidence
for it, such as a refusal to follow judicial injunctions for example, but their well educated
audiences are buying it whole day long. So what is so baffling that a rural audience after
watching night after night Portland burning by arson and accompanied by "peaceful protest"
graphics on TV would buy into arson speculations and rumors and ignore your disclaimers?
Facebook needs to be regulated since it has effectively organ-harvested the critical thinking
skills of a significant portion of the population. It'd be better if thinking people simply
deleted Facebook and let Facebook shrink and become the right-wing agit-prop tool that it
truly is. Mark Zuckerberg is happy to to destabilize society with his little toy invention.
You'd think with all that money, he could afford a conscience. What a wrecking ball Facebook
is.
"All this rumormongering leaves me feeling that the social fabric is unraveling, as if the
shared understanding of reality that is the basis for any society is eroding." Ya think?
@California Scientist Amen. We are more like an international terminal at this point. A bunch
of people gathered by happenstance, heading in different directions, and often with very
little in common.
@California Scientist: It is even worse than when Adlai Stevenson noted that there aren't
enough educated people to elect a liberal government in the US.
@LV - The point is that "urbanites" aren't able to boss anyone around. It's the low
population rural areas that have outsize political power thanks to the unfortunate design of
our government. Every state gets two senators, regardless of population, and that also
factors into the allocation of Electoral College votes, so that an EC vote from WY is worth 4
times as much as an EC vote from CA, for example. In 2016, Senate Democrats got 20 million
more votes than Senate Republicans, yet Republicans kept control. In 2018, Senate Democrats
got "only" 11.5 million more votes, and consequently lost seats. We're being governed by a
minority in may areas of the country, and nationally, yet the "rural rubes" or whatever you
want to call them, insist that they don't have nearly enough power.
Strange that anyone living in or just knowing the west would NOT know that arsonists could
not burn down huge chunks of forest if they where not so very dry.
Augury Unhappy Bird Watcher, State of Grave Doubt
Sept. 20
The ugly truth of Oregon's political past is asserting itself...we aren't in "Portlandia"
anymore Nick.
Ominous! There are two information ecosystems in this country and Americans increasingly live
in different realities. Much of the media is in the business of massaging the egos of their
readers by feeding them stories that confirm their biases and make them feel clever. There is
less and less fact based news and more and more propaganda. A lot of people aren't really
interested in facts. They just want to be told how right they are and how stupid and evil the
people who disagree with them are. Media corporations are providing the market with what it
desires, and what it desires is poisonous.
There is a reptilian brain need to believe this nonsense and to propagate it- because the
believers are so terrified of the facts of the truth (and the lack of knowing what might be
done to address those facts). The people who are true believers are pointless to discuss.
They are too frightened. They need to believe this stuff. It is hopeless to address them.
Dark times, indeed.
With the natural buildup of combustible matter, combined with houses everywhere now and
little land management, these fires will happen and will cause problems. Lots of things can
start them and they will.
You left out "a century of zero-tolerance policies toward wildland fires (creating
precariously dense underbrush), and resistance to traditional controlled burning at the
human/wilderness interface". It's not the whole story, but neither is climate change which,
due to global technological leveling, is evermore the responsibility of China and India than
Western civilization. Signed, a moderate progressive endlessly frustrated with breathless
liberalism
If only there were no arsonists. Here is a video of a woman who found a man on her property
with matches in his hand (and no cigarettes, which was his excuse for having matches in his
hand). She made a citizen's arrest. This happened in peaceful Oregon. Don't listen if you
can't handle harsh language by a woman who is trying to save her property. Arson is real, and
it is no joke. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJW_M4pBCnY
A man was arrested for arson in Southern Oregon. His fire damaged or destroyed numerous
homes.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-charged-arson-connection-almeda-fire-southern-oregon/story?id=72960208
Rumors of antifa notwithstanding, people in Oregon were looking for arsonists because there
are arsonists.
"Conspiracy theories" are, for the most part, not theories, merely assertions. A theory is
subject to proof and disproof by evidence. In a world where truth has no inherent monetary
value, don't expect it. To paraphrase President Clinton, "It's the internet, Stupid!" Follow
the money: Agenda + Clickbaitability = Prominence That is the business model of the internet,
a medium where "news" is whatever will produce the most clicks. As in profit. Unless and
until the youngest generation developes a means of communication that does not depend on
megacorporations, nothing will change. In the Sixties, a generation which disbelieved and had
no honest access to the traditional media, created its own, the "alternative press."
Hopefully, today's teenagers will develope their own way to communicate that is reliable. It
is 100% guaranteed that if their "opposition" becomes an actual threat to the profits of
Facebook, Google, Apple, Twitter, and the rest of their ilk, they will be cut off. As to why
people attach themselves to "conspiracy theories", it's actually quite simple. Take QAnon for
example: it is functionally just another religion competing for adherents. As with any
religion, it offers its believers an explanation of what they deem is wrong while offering a
path to right those wrongs. Certainty and simplicity: those are the essential elements of
cults/religion/bumpersticker politics. And the internet guarantees that whatever you believe
will be "validated."
"Conspiracy theories" are, for the most part, not theories, merely assertions. A theory is
subject to proof and disproof by evidence. In a world where truth has no inherent monetary
value, don't expect it. To paraphrase President Clinton, "It's the internet, Stupid!" Follow
the money: Agenda + Clickbaitability = Prominence That is the business model of the internet,
a medium where "news" is whatever will produce the most clicks. As in profit. Unless and
until the youngest generation developes a means of communication that does not depend on
megacorporations, nothing will change. In the Sixties, a generation which disbelieved and had
no honest access to the traditional media, created its own, the "alternative press."
Hopefully, today's teenagers will develope their own way to communicate that is reliable. It
is 100% guaranteed that if their "opposition" becomes an actual threat to the profits of
Facebook, Google, Apple, Twitter, and the rest of their ilk, they will be cut off. As to why
people attach themselves to "conspiracy theories", it's actually quite simple. Take QAnon for
example: it is functionally just another religion competing for adherents. As with any
religion, it offers its believers an explanation of what they deem is wrong while offering a
path to right those wrongs. Certainty and simplicity: those are the essential elements of
cults/religion/bumpersticker politics. And the internet guarantees that whatever you believe
will be "validated."
" All this rumormongering leaves me feeling that the social fabric is unraveling, as if the
shared understanding of reality that is the basis for any society is eroding." You betcha.
(Palin doesn't look half bad compared to the current batch.) It's a simple formula: social
media driven disinformation + extreme capitalism which leaves us with no real will to address
it + legitimate grievances like racism and financial insecurity = craziness on all sides,
fanned by a president whose personal agenda takes precedence over absolutely everything. All
societies are constantly dealing with potentially destabilizing threats. Their institutions,
media, leadership, and understanding of a common good are their immune system. Ours is
compromised, we are destabilized.
How about a judicious Forrest management? We live in a period of global warming
because of our planet axis precision, aggravated by the presence of an unprecedented
population explosion needing more water, more food, the production of which needs more arable
land, cutting trees, displacing wild animals, exhausting the aquifer. Cutting trees increases
the CO2 in the atmosphere. More people in India, more cattle emitting methane, more old
fashioned way of cooking food and producing more CO2 ... Permanent frost melting also sends
more methane in the atmosphere ... The climate is extremely complex to permit exact modeling,
but it is clear that if we want to stay healthy, it is vital to regularly clear our western
forests of dead wood in order to prevent today's disaster of millions of people, particularly
children with asthma and old people breathing the heavily polluted air. It is time to move to
solar, wind power, electric trucks, cars etc. The technology is here. Let's hope that Biden
will support clean air as means to better health. If all these years instead of using
abstract terms like global warming or climate change, we have been appealing to people to
keep the air clean in order to have better health, perhaps they would have stopped buying the
behemoths cars, producing so much pollution?
As Nicholas and many readers on this page already know, this commentary is more evidence of
how needlessly and recklessly polarized our country has become. When tribal instincts push
people to look for anything - fact, fiction or fantasy - on social media or "rage commentary"
that supports and validates their identities they will glom onto it faster than maggots on
dead flesh. It is a sad state of affairs when so many people of all political persuasions
will not take the time - even a few minutes - to question and investigate the latest "truth"
being promoted. The new culture of low information consumers seems to be spreading as fast as
a pandemic despite the heroic efforts of honest journalism. I wonder if low information
consumption was so endemic to the citizens of Ancient Rome and Greece - long before Twitter,
Facebook and Rage TV? People, please take a moment to "click" one step further to see if the
latest conspiracy story is true. Why help propagate lies? It will only come back to haunt
you, or your children.
Antifa or not, at least some of the big fires have been started by arsonists. Of this fact we
have video proof. By downplaying or even denying it, the media are just as bad as the
conspiracy theorists in promoting disinformation.
This reminds me of a time when people saw "Reds" behind anything that was going wrong in the
country. Nothing new, but just as pathetically paranoid. I wonder how many people, or their
parents, fit into both groups?
Here's another urban myth. Ok, more a lefty myth. That we can just keep adding people to this
country (urban, suburban, rural, big city, anywhere and everywhere) and it won't have any
effect. With the corollary that it's just a matter of "green new deal" or everybody getting a
Prius or the dummies in the sticks realizing climate change is real and then we can just go
on like this forever. We can't. Not only is our much hated lifestyle, which from what I can
see, nobody really wants to give up, killing us, but believing 330 million Americans that add
2-3 million more a year is not a problem at all. Our entire way of life: endless population
and economic growth is unsustainable. We don't need to wait until 2050 to see it. Just step
outside.
It is very difficult to teach people that "research," doesn't mean you go to some TV show or
website you like and root around for stuff that tells you what you want to hear. One prob
seems to be really simple: it takes actual work to do it right. Another is that research,
done well, has an ugly habit of forcing you to think at least a little about whether your own
ideas make any sense. And a third is that people really, really don't like it when their
political views start getting contradicted by reality. It seems to be easier to change
reality than to change views, even a little. Oh, and another prob? Too few Americans really
read anything worth reading. I'm all for funsies (and I've probably read more crummy science
fiction than all y'all put together) but one of the joys of walking around in Paris is seeing
that the kiosks and bookstores still sell a ton of stuff on philosophy, lit, economics, and
that everywhere, people actually read them. Books teach thought. Newsmax don't.
@Beer Can Boyd: As a native-born American, I think the US fell down when the Congress put
"under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1953, ostensibly to preclude anyone thinking
about Godless communism, and gave itself a stroke.
The melting pot burned over. It is now a word salad. But appears there is a method to the
madness. It is hard for the world to tell the madness from the method
@Carolyn then there are the lies and the demonization of China and Russia by both parties to
top it off. How can voters believe anything and decide before they vote?
Supporting this atmosphere of potential violence are some of my republican friends. They are
mostly educated and not stupid. Yet they continue to support a man whom I think holds the
responsibility for most of the violence if it comes. Now I want to get down to my point about
these supporters. I believe they have succumbed to a cult-like dynamic. I say this because no
rational person could possibly support Trump. Religious cults create this same addiction and
irrationality. When my friends disagree with me, they try to put our friendship hostage to no
further discussion of politics. They are unwilling to even be confronted with objections to
their support of Trump. I have decided that I can always make new friends. What I do not want
to do is take on the task of building a new country because I stayed silent.
@Harcourt "They are mostly educated and not stupid." In my opinion, educated persons who
behave as you describe never benefited from their education. Even worse, to me it seems like
persons who behave like that are of the opinion that what they learnt in school is only for
the purpose of writing the exams they needed to pass to get out of school. It was all just
noise to them.
You nailed it. There is no longer "a shared reality" in America. So we have wildly different
views of who Joe Biden and Donald Trump are. And how serious climate change is. And whether
it's important to wear a mask. And if left-wing anarchists set forest fires. Thank you,
Internet. Thank you, social media barons who refuse to ban Russian propaganda and manipulated
videos. Thank you FCC that does not rein in Fox News and their promotion of lies. Who will
step in and stop this madness?
@CA I agree with you completely except for the refusal to stop Russian interference. We
can't. We can't unless we stop US interference in the process. The problem is that US
interference, and rumor mongering, are the business model of these platforms which happen to
be some of our largest companies. Extreme capitalism is preventing us from addressing any and
all issues propagated by these companies. Russia is just a speck.
Antifa adherents and wildfires ? Seems pretty far-fetched. Even ridiculous. But setting fire
to occupied apartment buildings in Portland ? Oh yes, definitely. It happened, and more is on
the menu, as well as municipal and federal buildings. Don't believe it ? Read the news
releases for yourself, on the Portland Police Bureau's website.
An excellent discussion of the perils of social media. Although newspapers, TV, radio,
magazines have a historical principal of "generally" telling the truth, social media has
opened up the world to every single Tom, Dick and Harry who with to spread their message. I
believe that how we, as a nation, as a species, handle social media will define what happens
over the next decade.
The state of this country is absolutely terrifying. While the shift to ever more
conservative, insular, xenophobic, coroporate-controlled government has been going on for
years, with the faux election of trump democracy is what has become fake, while common sense,
empathy, and both fiscal and environmental responsibility have virtually disappeared. The US
has gone off the deep end...
Years ago I read a science fiction short story that is unsettling in its analogy to this
situation. I starts with aliens visiting the Earth and accidently leaving behind a device
that can allow metal to be manipulated by softening it, then hardening it. The device gets
copied and mass produced. When they returned a year later, they come back and cannot fathom
how their device could have resulted in anarchy. THAT is the internet. 5 Recommend Share
Let me ask you all a question. If your neighbor told you the fire in a nearby Oregon town was
started by antifa, how would you disprove it? Since you cannot provide evidence for a
negative statement, it's difficult. There is actually some evidence that antifa did start the
fire: a voice said it on the radio, and tv showed them lighting fireworks in Portland. This
isn't very good evidence, but it is evidence, and you can't produce any evidence that antifa
did not do it (because there can't be any.) So you are in the position of asking your
neighbor to look at the quality of the evidence. This is something very few outside the legal
and scientific world are capable of. But that is all you have. Ultimately, it really does go
back to belief. How many of us could independently prove that the earth turns around the sun?
Those of us who aren't astronomers choose to accept this belief based on what we've been
told, and that's how it is with antifa starting the fires.
Kristof is afraid that fires in the West represent the new normal. The evidence suggests that
this fear is well-founded. He is concerned about the government's paralysis. That is partly
due to Trump, who stands a good chance of being reelected on November 3. He is worried about
ordinary citizens seeking oversimplified answers and finding them in the conspiracy theories
presenting the fire as the work of antifa. I am more worried about the breakdown in
credibility of news sources like the NY Times, which finds itself in competition with Fox
News and a host of online sources. Indeed, you-tube and facebook will select news stories for
you, confirming whatever bias you bring to your reading of the news. There is no guarantee
that democracy will survive. One of the things that keeps me up at night is the realization
that not only the right, but the left, is subject to oversimplified presentations of global
warming. Global warming is a consequence of too much population growth. But as we argue over
freedoms for LGBTQ minorities liberals have neglected the importance of freedom of speech.
And voices which have warned about population growth have been simply ignored by the left. It
isn't enough to shift from Fords using gasoline to Teslas running on electricity. We also
need to control population growth. The population of earth will double again by 2072 if
current rates continue. Population growth threatens to overwhelm the attempts to move to
clean energy. 2 Recommend
The scientific consensus will also conclude that not allowing wildfires to burn compounds the
problem. While what I am about to type is not science, continued development in fire prone
areas amplifies and compounds every aspect of the problem. From my perspective the system has
evolved to socializing cost and privatizing cost in every way. I don't see it getting better,
until such time as individuals are held accountable this should be considered normal.
@secular socialist dem PG&E just paid billions in fines and PLEADED GUILTY in starting
last year's Paradise fire. They also have already admitted fault in several fires started by
their faulty, untended grid. "Individuals" don't need to be held accountable unless there are
rules in place for them to follow regarding wildfire. There already are. Most already do. Why
do folks act so proud about their 'anti-science' opinion? It's not like this conversation
isn't ongoing; nobody argues that development in fire prone areas' carries risks. So does
rebuilding in Oklahoma, Florida and Louisiana..... You're right (although confused) about
socializing RISK and privatizing PROFIT. See PG&E above.
Unsure how people lighting fires directly indicates climate change is corroborated. The
fellow who was arrested in Tacoma, WA: https://thepostmillennial.com/antifa-activist-charged-for-fire-set-in-washington
Looking to past wildfires, like the one's in Montana & Idaho in 2008, 5.5 million acres
were burned and certain interest groups advocated for them to burn out because it's apart of
the natural cycle. Federal government shouldn't send assistance unless it's possibly to
communities in threat of burning, who are humans to say we ought to stop mother nature? It's
natural to let these fires burn, if you try to hinder it's course you are stopping the cycle.
Doug Terry Maryland, Washington DC metro
Sept. 20 Times Pick
Why do people believe wild stupid things more than actual facts? Partly it is because they
like the wild stupid thing more, it gives them some weird comfort. It is also because people
are busying with their lives and don't have time to gather enough information to counter the
wild rumor that flies around faster than the speed of sound. The most important aspect of
successful conspiracy theories is they impart to the person holding them the idea that they
are smarter than other people and have "cracked the code" that explains everything or a lot
of big things that people don't understand. Reading, thinking, considering and re-considering
can seem like hard work, particularly if it is foreign to one's experience and life training.
Why not just lock on to a cool idea that comes around, even if it is weird? .
This story highlights for me an equally growing problem, the "selective framing" by media
outlets on the left and right (NYT and Fox as just two examples). To read Mr Kristof's
version, you may believe that arsonists are wild figments of the unhinged radical right
imagination. To read the same story on Fox, Antifa arsonists are working their way up your
street.
"...the shared understanding of reality that is the basis for any society is eroding." And
yet reality still exist. Normally, if someone starts to exhibit the kind of behavior that
these "vigilantes" are - screaming about boogeymen, thinking people are out to get them,
engaging in aggressive behavior based on paranoid fantasies, creating self-reinforcing
delusions, becoming obsessed with baseless conspiracy theories - we would rightly diagnose
them as being mentally ill, and to the extent that they represent a danger to others, confine
them. I don't think we can afford to see this as just a time of extreme differences of
opinion. Facts, truth and reality are still actual, tangible things. And those who have
become so disassociated from them that they are stopping vehicles and hunting down their
fellow citizen need to be dealt with appropriately.
We have been witnessing the start of the Second Civil War in America. If we accept the
definition of a civil war as a conflict between factions of citizens for either secession or
control of the government--including organizations within the existing government--then we
are in the beginning stages of a Second Civil War. The question is what the level of violence
will be (not will there be violence, but how much violence). We are beginning to see
indications of that level. When naturally or accidentally caused wildfires are attributed to
one faction as a way to stoke the fires of civil violence, then physical violence between
factions is a heartbeat away simply because of the falsity and extremity of the accusations.
The era of peaceful protest has passed because of the intensity of feelings on both sides;
the anger produced when a government begins denying civil rights, e.g., Freedom of Speech and
the Right to Assemble, through legal actions where protest organizers could be charged with
sedition (see Barr's comments, 9/16/2020, NYT), which then suggests that all protests become
illegal, the fires of violence are stoked. With a heavily-armed populace on both sides,
gunfire is a hair-trigger pull away. If Trump and the Republican's intention was to remake
America in their image (I leave it to you to supply that image), they are succeeding. If
Putin's intention was to bring down America, he is succeeding. If Xi's intention was to
dominate the world, he is on that path. Vote 33 Recommend Share
... There's an old saying "Those who the gods would destroy they first make mad." I have come
to the conclusion that America has gone qute a long way down that road.
And yet, Mr. Kristoff, you never make mention of the real threat that groups like Antifa and
other radical left rioters pose to this country (forgetting about attacks on federal
buildings in Portland? Attempts to firebomb courthouses? Violence against law enforcement
officers?). No, instead it's always Trump, or Trump supporters who are your focus. I do not
know whether Antifa has been involved in any of these recent fires, but I do know that these
violent elements on the left pose a massive danger to our democracy. You are correct about
one thing, though: We should brace ourselves. It's just "what" we need to brace for that is
off mark in your article...
It's heartbreaking to watch these three West Coast states burned. For days, the sky was red
and the air was unbreathable. But the saddest part was the feeling of helplessness.
40 years ago, I hitchhiked around the Pacific Northwest during the summer after Mt. St.
Helens blew up. Mt. Rainier was ash-coated, as were the wild blueberries I often ate. Epic
and Biblical are words inadequate to describe that destruction near Mt. St. Helens, with
millions of huge, old trees blown down, piles of mud, and rivers diverted. Yet I and others
knew that eventually, that land would regrow, and it did.
I see a lot of egotism and self-love on both sides. The so-called progressives in our
community are breeding at baby boom levels, driving SUVs, and, before the pandemic, you'd see
a dozen school buses idling outside every school. Development is out of control as people
flee from the city, and people flee from here, or downsize, and breed and breed and breed.
Two years ago, we had a flash flood and our street was under water, and there was a lot of
damage all over town. Hurricane Irene in 2011 left many with over a foot of water in their
basements. And let's not even start on Sandy. My friend lives in Pensacola; their downtown
area is under three or four feet of water from Hurricane Sally. It's not just fire, it's
floods, and it's not just the GOP which is the problem...
I don't blame anyone for guarding their roads if they think arsonists are about. The
Tillamook Burn was larger and more devastating than these fires but are we to blame climate
change ? Environmentalists and Liberals who do not even live out West, who did not rely upon
Logging, placed their concerns about the Spotted Owl and Virgin Forests about the danger of
Forest Fires and the livelihood of Loggers and the Towns and Peoples who depended upon
Logging. Managed Logging of Forests is not an inherently evil act. Clearing the bush and dead
trees is not bad in and of itself. Let Logging companies responsibly manage sections of the
Forrests, let Towns clear fire breaks around their perimeters. Place large Water towers in
strategic points throughout the Forests, huge mounds of dirt/sand/gravel next to them so that
the Firefighters have what they need to fight the fires. Force developers to build houses 50
feet apart. Require fireproof roofs, require thinning of trees in housing developments.
Require volunteer Fire Departments in every neighborhood so that if they do nothing else,
they can cut a fire break, water down the grasses around their neighborhoods, chase and
extinguish embers, something/anything versus fleeing their homes without putting up a fight.
"... dry conditions exacerbated by climate change coupled with an unusual windstorm ..." May
I add that a couple of other things have also contributed to making the fires worse or making
them harder to manage? For a century or so, in California, Oregon and Washington we have not
been letting the normal, periodic fires burn. Consequently, a great deal of fuel has built up
on the forest floor. Second, folks have increasingly been building homes or even
neighborhoods in places which have historically seen such normal, periodic fires.
@Robert Yes. But now controlled burns are a bit problematic, given the droughts, the heat,
the massive fuel loads from all the dead trees. It's just so easy for the controlled burns to
get out of control.
Hi, I am from Clackamas County metro. Every time a FaceBook "Friend" (and I personally know
all of mine) posted a rumor, I tried to find the footage from any of our 4 local news
stations to depute their post but they just shared another one. One said she didn't trust KGW
8 the local NBC station and when I told her the same story was on KPTV 12, the local Fox
station. She said, "I'm just stressed"
@David Biesecker Remember that half the people are of below average intelligence. That may
answer the existence of the small percentage of conspiracy theorists. One problem is social
media provides free and outsized loudspeaker systems that enables them to find each other.
@M.i. Estner First, let me identify myself as a liberal Democrat who has a masters degree. I
find it more than disheartening when half of the country, or half of rural or not formally
educated folks are said to have low intelligent quotas, critical thinking skills or
analytical abilities. You better believe that when a highly trained Eastern Oregon
firefighter is assessing how to save peoples lives, homes and land, has to quickly act with
their many faceted skill set and are calling on abilities you or I would not be able to
fathom. Same with farmers of large pieces of complicated crops and land. Same with city
managers, librarians, and social workers for the elderly--all having low city budgets. What
about the veterinarians, doctors and nurses in rural areas? This is exactly the same as
calling Black or Hispanics people of lower intelligence. And, there are different types of
intelligence. I know a literary critic, a liberal Democrat, who doesn't have the critical
thinking skills to run her own home or raise her children. If you look, you can see these
same differences in any group. It has to do with the way people are raised, what they are
using their skill sets for, what information they are used to consuming, money, ideology,
etc...And it has to do with being devalued for growing your food, producing your meat,
chicken and eggs. I'm not excusing the violence, guns, racism and hatred. These divides have
been with us for ages. Please don't stoke the fires.
If we have a selfish federal government, then we will have selfish states and people.
Everyone is for himself or herself. No one will think about other people or public good. It
all started from the top
In 2017, 2018, and 2019 northern California's new phenomenon of forceful 40 to 60 miles per
hour winds - in Fall, no less - caused old and aging electrical equipment to malfunction. As
a consequence, too much of Santa Rosa burnt to the ground, and the entire town of Paradise
ceased to exist. This year during the heat of a hotter than usual summer following yet
another dry winter, we had dry lightning strikes from Sonoma County to Santa Clara County and
beyond.
Yes, the science is clear and you fail to mention it. The forest fires reach critical mass
and spread because of the surplus of dead or dying trees. They are there because the federal
government essentially no longer allows logging on its vast landholdings and also fails to
allow controlled burns to clean out the tinderbox. I won't bother attaching a link because
any Google search proves the point. Why focus on hysteria and rumermongering among the
Deplorables? Come on, Mr. Kristof, you were a Deplorable once (when you were a kid growing up
in the countryside) as was I. Please defend them sometimes, particularly when the actual
causes are so well documented.
@Stuck on a mountain Western States are working to clear the brush from forests where, due to
our previous incomplete understanding of forest ecology, fires were suppressed for a century.
However, the cost is astronomical and there are millions of acres left to clear. Spending
their entire forest management budgets fighting current wildfires doesn't help. We've been
doing controlled burns for decades but in many areas, they're now too dangerous. Dry forests
and a dense understory can quickly turn a "controlled burn" into a conflagration. Many
ranchers and timber companies who profit from our state and national forests seem unwilling
to pay to keep those forests healthy. People who live in or near forests mostly have incomes
too low to pay for forest management. The National Forest Service, Department of the Interior
and USDA have made some progress, but the problem is huge. Saying we can prevent forest fires
by allowing larger timber harvests is an oversimplification. No solution to this complex
issue will be simple, perfect or cheap.
Wacky conspiracy theories to explain seemingly bizarre and unusual occurrences have been
around since the dawn of human cognition. But in an electronic/social media age, these get
spread even faster than a wind-blown fire climbs a canyon hillside. Previously, they were
spread one set of ears at a time; now millions of eyes can read them every second. And that
is a major part of the problem.
As a grad student in sociology, having lived through the 60s and participated in the
counterculture, I was deeply intrigued by the social construction of reality - how we come to
share a taken-for-granted world. This is a long-standing concern within sociological social
psychology. We examined how language, interpersonal communications, media and social
structure shaped ones perception of one's self, what is real, what's important. At the time,
however, this was considered theoretical and academic. 40 years later, understanding how
Americans' realities have come to diverge is no longer armchair social science. It's urgent
and in our faces, as is the question of how can we heal this terrible fracturing of our
world?
@DeHypnotist Yes. When studying for the degree in and then teaching sociology in my early
years, I learned that, too. But, I have to admit, it's actually taken all the decades of life
since then, and now the obvious confirmation of it by this current 'reality' to actually
realize, deep down in my guts, that we 'make up' our so-called 'social reality' simply to
serve the most basic of biological requirements: the need to dominate in the deadly
completion with the other 'tribes' of our species just to survive. We are, after all, animals
like all the others, no matter how much we blab about how much 'smarter' we are.
@Alex B The primal driver, deep in the core of our brain, is usefully thought of as
"reptilian." Cold-blooded. Egoistic. Hedonistic. And, in extreme cases, narcissistic, and,
heaven forbid when all three are present...
I lived for a few years in Brazil when it was a dictatorship. The similarities between Brazil
and what is happening in the US is startling. The police were being used to quell peaceful
protesters and the justice system co-opted by authorities, fear mongering were present, just
as now in the US....
I didn't live in the US from 1977-1999, only visiting on short trips. That enabled me to see
changes in society that were slow and not seen by those residing here. And when I came back
permanently I could feel immediately a deep change....
Perhaps an apt metaphor for the "danger sign ahead" is the approach of a Category three
hurricane and it's increasing in intensity. One of the stark disconnects is between the
message in an article like this and the politicians and citizens who are little concerned
about tempering rhetoric and elevating the importance of eschewing misinformation. We are in
the Misinformation Age and the victims of a cyber war, evolving into a civil war.
@ML What is happening here? These are the beginnings of what happened in Germany in the 30s.
Over there the reason was the loss of WWI. Here, is the obvious decline of the American
lifestyle and we have not seen anything yet. The range of the economic decline is covered by
7 trillion dollars in phony money. I fervently hope and pray that is not too late to stop the
process. All men and women of goodwill have to rally to restore a sane, and one, country .
Stay safe! It is going to get worse before it gets better.
@FunkyIrishman Right on. Water is an enormous issue waiting to happen here -- and Wisconsin
is estimated to have between 10 and 20 percent of the world's fresh water (depending on how
it's calculated and whether that includes some of Lakes Michigan and Superior. A Dept. of
Climate, Weather and Water would be a logical cabinet department.
@FunkyIrishman And polluting the potable water continues sometimes by the most resolvable
modern approaches: sewers and water treatment plants. Reagan ended federal funding for sewers
leaving septic systems (and now ancient sewers) where sewers would lead to protected fresh
water. All the medicines, chemicals, and toxins seep unseen but very real into fresh and also
salt water. We are not a modern nation any more.
"... The blogger Caitlin Johnstone accurately states that these most of these mainstream corporate journalists are really *narrative managers* in that their primary role is to peddle the official narrative of the US corporate/political establishment for any given topic. ..."
"... I would add that the managing editors of these "journalists"/narrative managers would be more honestly described as "handlers," to use the parlance of spooks. ..."
"... Waste of time. They control the media. The Internet may have lots of influence, but it still does not set "consensus reality" - that remains with the MSM. The MSM issues one coordinated narrative. The Internet is all over the place. Without one coordinated narrative, you can't set "reality". ..."
"... In addition, those who issue the narrative and control the MSM have the power. People want to believe those in power, due to cognitive dissonance - otherwise they'd have to accept that everyone ruling their lives is a corrupt liar. The electorate may *say* they understand that their rulers are corrupt - but they can't act* on that realization without compromising their own internal belief systems. So again, waste of time to try ..."
snake , Sep 22 2020 0:59 utc | 22 can we not invent a method that can counter this tactic of using propaganda to control
the narrative?
1) Hack them. Release their planning documents, emails, phone calls, etc. showing how the scam was set up.
2) Waste of time. They control the media. The Internet may have lots of influence, but it still does not set "consensus reality"
- that remains with the MSM. The MSM issues one coordinated narrative. The Internet is all over the place. Without one coordinated
narrative, you can't set "reality".
3) In addition, those who issue the narrative and control the MSM have the power. People want to believe those in power, due to
cognitive dissonance - otherwise they'd have to accept that everyone ruling their lives is a corrupt liar. The electorate may *say*
they understand that their rulers are corrupt - but they can't act* on that realization without compromising their own internal belief
systems. So again, waste of time to try.
Well....as always, and especially if it involves anything even remotely relating to 'Russia', or Iran, or whatever adversarial
operational target of the day might be -- one can reliably count on our very own "Izvestia on the Hudson" to faithfully execute
their officially sanctioned nation security state propaganda mission by dutifully steno-graphing as much dis/mis-information as
their NSA/CIA/Pentagon handlers request (require) from them.
It was a shock on arriving at the New York Times in 2004, as the paper's movie editor, to realize that its editorial dynamic
was essentially the reverse. By and large, talented reporters scrambled to match stories with what internally was often called
"the narrative." We were occasionally asked to map a narrative for our various beats a year in advance, square the plan with
editors, then generate stories that fit the pre-designated line.
Reality usually had a way of intervening. But I knew one senior reporter who would play solitaire on his computer in the
mornings, waiting for his editors to come through with marching orders. Once, in the Los Angeles bureau, I listened to a visiting
National staff reporter tell a contact, more or less: "My editor needs someone to say such-and-such, could you say that?"
The bigger shock came on being told, at least twice, by Times editors who were describing the paper's daily Page One meeting:
"We set the agenda for the country in that room.
The blogger Caitlin Johnstone accurately states that these most of these mainstream corporate journalists are really *narrative
managers* in that their primary role is to peddle the official narrative of the US corporate/political establishment for any given
topic.
I would add that the managing editors of these "journalists"/narrative managers would be more honestly described as "handlers,"
to use the parlance of spooks.
In fact, it would be apt to described venerable institution of journalism itself as an intelligence operation.
@snake | Sep 22 2020 0:59 utc | 22 can we not invent a method that can counter this tactic of using propaganda to control the
narrative?
1) Hack them. Release their planning documents, emails, phone calls, etc. showing how the scam was set up.
2) Waste of time. They control the media. The Internet may have lots of influence, but it still does not set "consensus
reality" - that remains with the MSM. The MSM issues one coordinated narrative. The Internet is all over the place. Without one
coordinated narrative, you can't set "reality".
3) In addition, those who issue the narrative and control the MSM have the power. People want to believe those in power,
due to cognitive dissonance - otherwise they'd have to accept that everyone ruling their lives is a corrupt liar. The electorate
may *say* they understand that their rulers are corrupt - but they can't act* on that realization without compromising their own
internal belief systems. So again, waste of time to try.
Augury Unhappy Bird Watcher, State of Grave Doubt
Sept. 20
Oregon's racial demographics White alone, percent 86.7% Black or African American alone,
percent 2.2% Alabama's racial demographics White alone, percent 69.1% Black or African American
alone, percent26.8%
"... Yes, if was designed and supported as a tool of suppression of socialist movement. As an instrument of suppression of socialist ideas. Still it borrowed, at least on the program level, some elements of the programs of socialist parties. ..."
THX. Perhaps Nationalist Socialist was taken too literally there. In practice, Fascism was
actually devoutly anti-socialist.
Yes, if was designed and supported as a tool of suppression of socialist movement. As an
instrument of suppression of socialist ideas. Still it borrowed, at least on the program level,
some elements of the programs of socialist parties.
Hitler and Mussolini were important leaders, but their movements succeeded through gaining
the favor of the middle class masses and the ruling elites. They won that favor by their
basic program. Of course neither had a formal written platform (Nazism's "unalterable" 25
Points became a joke, while Mussolini boasted about the untheoretical nature of his movement
in its early years), but their basic intentions emerged clearly from their speeches and
even more so from the style and slogans of their movements.
They proposed to exalt national power by building a dictatorially integrated national
community on the model of methods and moods familiar from World War 1. They also benefited
from being in the right countries at the right time to advance a plausible alternative
political approach
But simultaneously it tried to attract some socialists into his ranks. BTW Mussolini was the
editor-in-chief of Avante, so he was the leading figure in Italian socialist movement before
his metamorphose into a fascist. From Wikipedia:
He had become one of Italy's most prominent socialists. In September 1911, Mussolini
participated in a riot, led by socialists, against the Italian war in Libya. He bitterly
denounced Italy's "imperialist war", an action that earned him a five-month jail term.[38]
After his release, he helped expel Ivanoe Bonomi and Leonida Bissolati from the Socialist
Party, as they were two "revisionists" who had supported the war.
He was rewarded the editorship of the Socialist Party newspaper Avanti! Under his
leadership, its circulation soon rose from 20,000 to 100,000.[39] John Gunther in 1940 called
him "one of the best journalists alive"; Mussolini was a working reporter while preparing for
the March on Rome, and wrote for the Hearst News Service until 1935.[26]
Mussolini was so familiar with Marxist literature that in his own writings he would not
only quote from well-known Marxist works but also from the relatively obscure works.[40]
During this period Mussolini considered himself a Marxist and he described Marx as "the
greatest of all theorists of socialism."[41]
While the world's attention is absorbed by tectonic shifts unfolding across America as "a
perfect storm of civil war, and military
coup threatens to undo both the elections and the very foundations of the republic itself ,
something very ominous has appeared "off of the radar" of most onlookers. This something is a
financial collapse of the trans-Atlantic banks that threatens to unleash chaos upon the world.
It is this collapse that underlies the desperate efforts being made by the neo-con drive for
total war with Russia, China and other members of the growing Mutlipolar Alliance today.
In recent articles, I have mentioned that the Bank of England-led "solution" to this
oncoming financial blowout of the $1.5 quadrillion derivatives bubble is being pushed under the
cover of a "Great Global Reset" which is an ugly and desperate effort to use COVID-19 as a
cover for the imposition of
a new post-covid world order operating system. Since the new "rules" of this new system are
very similar to the 1923 Bank of England "solution" to Germany's economic chaos which
eventually required a fascist governance mechanism to impose it onto the masses, I wish to take
a deeper look at the causes and effects of Weimar Germany's completely un-necessary collapse
into hyperinflation and chaos during the period of 1919-1923.
In this essay, I will go further to examine how those same architects of hyperfinflation
came close to establishing a global bankers' dictatorship in 1933 and how that early attempt at
a New World Order was fortunately derailed through a bold fight which has been written out of
popular history books.
We will investigate in depth how a major war broke out within America led by anti-imperial
patriots in opposition to the forces of Wall Street and London's Deep State and we will examine
how this clash of paradigms came to a head in 1943-1945.
This historical study is not being conducted for entertainment, nor should this be seen as a
purely academic exercise, but is being created for the simple fact that the world is coming to
a total systemic meltdown and unless certain suppressed facts of 20 th century
history are brought to light, then those forces who have destroyed our collective memory of
what we once were will remain in the drivers seat as society is carried into a new age of
fascism and world war.
Versailles and the Destruction of Germany
Britain had been the leading hand behind the orchestration of WWI and the destruction of
the potential German-Russian-American-Ottoman alliance that had begun to take form by the late
19 th century as foolish Kaiser Wilhelm discovered (though sadly too late) when he
said: "the world will be engulfed in the most terrible of wars, the ultimate aim of which is
the ruin of Germany. England, France and Russia have conspired for our annihilation that is the
naked truth of the situation which was slowly but surely created by Edward VII".
Just as the British oligarchy managed the war, so too did they organize the reparations
conference in France which, among other things, imposed impossible debt repayments upon a
defeated Germany and created the League of Nations which was meant to become the instrument for
a "post-nation state world order". Lloyd George led the British delegation alongside his
assistant Philip Kerr (Lord Lothian), Leo Amery, Lord Robert Cecil and Lord John Maynard Keynes
who have a long term agenda to bring about a global dictatorship. All of these figures were
members of the newly emerging Round Table Movement, that had taken full control of Britain
by ousting Asquith in 1916 , and which is at the heart of today's "deep state".
After the 1918 Armistice dismantled Germany's army and navy, the once powerful nation was
now forced to pay the impossible sum of 132 billion gold marks to the victors and had to give
up territories representing 10% of its population (Alsace-Loraine, Ruhr, and North Silesia)
which made up 15% of its arable land, 12% of its livestock, 74% of its iron ore, 63% of its
zinc production, and 26% of its coal. Germany also had to give up 8000 locomotives, 225 000
railcars and all of its colonies. It was a field day of modern pillage.
Germany was left with very few options. Taxes were increased and imports were cut entirely
while exports were increased. This policy (reminiscent of the IMF austerity techniques in use
today) failed entirely as both fell 60%. Germany gave up half of its gold supply and still
barely a dent was made in the debt payments. By June 1920 the decision was made to begin a new
strategy: increase the printing press . Rather than the "miracle cure" which desperate
monetarists foolishly believed it would be, this solution resulted in an asymptotic devaluation
of the currency into hyperinflation. From June 1920 to October 1923 the money supply in
circulation skyrocketed from 68.1 gold marks to 496.6 quintillion gold marks. In June 1922, 300
marks exchanged $1 US and in November 1923, it took 42 trillion marks to get $1 US! Images are
still available of Germans pushing wheelbarrows of cash down the street, just to buy a stick of
butter and bread (1Kg of Bread sold for $428 billion marks in 1923).
With the currency's loss of value, industrial output fell by 50%, unemployment rose to over
30% and food intake collapsed by over half of pre-war levels. German director Fritz Lang's 1922
film Dr. Mabuse (The Gambler) exposed the insanity of German population's collapse into
speculative insanity as those who had the means began betting against the German mark in order
to protect themselves thus only helping to collapse the mark from within. This is very
reminiscent of those Americans today short selling the US dollar rather than fighting for a
systemic solution.
The dark effects of Versailles were not unknown and Germany's Nazi-stained destiny was
anything but pre-determined. It is a provable fact often left out of history books that
patriotic forces from Russia, America and Germany attempted courageously to change the tragic
trajectory of hyperinflation and fascism which WOULD HAVE prevented the rise of Hitler and WWII
had their efforts not been sabotaged.
From America itself, a new Presidential team under the leadership of William Harding quickly
reversed the pro-League of Nations agenda of the rabidly anglophile President Woodrow Wilson. A
leading US industrialist named Washington Baker Vanderclip who had led in the world's largest
trade agreement in history with Russia to the tune of $3 billion in 1920 had called Wilson
"an autocrat at the inspiration of the British government." Unlike Wilson, President
Harding both supported the US-Russia trade deal and undermined the League of Nations by
re-enforcing America's sovereignty, declaring bi-lateral treaties with Russia, Hungary and
Austria outside of the league's control in 1921. The newly-formed British Roundtable Movement
in America (set up as the Council on Foreign Relations ) were not pleased.
Just as Harding was maneuvering to recognize the Soviet Union and establish an entente with
Lenin, the great president ate some "bad oysters" and died on August 2, 1923. While no autopsy
was ever conducted, his death brought a decade of Anglophile Wall Street control into America
and ended all opposition to World Government from the Presidency. This period resulted in the
speculation-driven bubble of the roaring 20s whose crash on black Friday in 1929 nearly
unleashed a fascist hell in America.
The Russia-Germany Rapallo Treaty is De-Railed
After months of organizing, leading representatives of Russia and Germany agreed to an
alternative solution to the Versailles Treaty which would have given new life to Germany's
patriots and established a powerful Russia-German friendship in Europe that would have upset
other nefarious agendas.
Under the leadership of German Industrialist and Foreign Minster Walter Rathenau, and his
counterpart Russian Foreign Minister Georgi Chicherin, the treaty was signed in Rapallo, Italy
on April 16, 1922 premised upon the forgiveness of all war debts and a renouncement of all
territorial claims from either side. The treaty said Russia and Germany would "co-operate in
a spirit of mutual goodwill in meeting the economic needs of both countries."
When Rathenau was assassinated by a terrorist cell called the Organization Consul on June
24, 1922 the success of the Rapallo Treaty lost its steam and the nation fell into a deeper
wave of chaos and money printing. The Organization Consul had taken the lead in the murder of
over 354 German political figures between 1919-1923, and when they were banned in 1922, the
group merely changed its name and morphed into other German paramilitary groups (such as the
Freikorps) becoming the military arm of the new National Socialist Party.
1923: City of London's Solution is imposed
When the hyperinflationary blowout of Germany resulted in total un-governability of the
state, a solution took the form of the Wall Street authored "Dawes Plan" which necessitated the
use of a London-trained golem by the name of Hjalmar Schacht. First introduced as Currency
Commissioner in November 1923 and soon President of the Reichsbank, Schacht's first act was to
visit Bank of England's governor Montagu Norman in London who provided Schacht a blueprint for
proceeding with Germany's restructuring. Schacht returned to "solve" the crisis with the very
same poison that caused it.
First announcing a new currency called the "rentenmark" set on a fixed value exchanging 1
trillion reichsmarks for 1 new rentenmark, Germans were robbed yet again. This new currency
would operate under "new rules" never before seen in Germany's history: Mass privatizations
resulted in Anglo-American conglomerates purchasing state enterprises. IG Farben, Thyssen,
Union Banking, Brown Brothers Harriman, Standard Oil, JP Morgan and Union Banking took control
Germany's finances, mining and industrial interests under the supervision of John Foster
Dulles, Montagu Norman, Averill Harriman and other deep state actors. This was famously exposed
in the 1961 film Judgement at Nuremburg by Stanley Kramer.
Schacht next cut credit to industries, raised taxes and imposed mass austerity on "useless
spending". 390 000 civil servants were fired, unions and collective bargaining was destroyed
and wages were slashed by 15%.
As one can imagine, this destruction of life after the hell of Versailles was intolerable
and civil unrest began to boil over in ways that even the powerful London-Wall Street bankers
(and their mercenaries) couldn't control. An enforcer was needed unhindered by the republic's
democratic institutions to force Schacht's economics onto the people. An up-and-coming rabble
rousing failed painter who had made waves in a Beerhall Putsch on November 8, 1923 was
perfect.
One Last Attempt to Save Germany
Though Hitler grew in power over the coming decade of Schachtian economics, one last
republican effort was made to prevent Germany from plunging into a fascist hell in the form of
the November 1932 election victory of
General Kurt von Schleicher as Chancellor of Germany . Schleicher had been a co-architect
of Rapallo alongside Rathenau a decade earlier and was a strong proponent of the Friedrich List
Society's program of public works and internal improvements promoted by industrialist Wilhelm
Lautenbach. The Nazi party's public support collapsed and it found itself bankrupt. Hitler had
fallen into depression and was even contemplating suicide when "a legal coup" was unleashed by
the Anglo-American elite resulting in Wall Street funds pouring into Nazi coffers.
By January 30, 1933 Hitler gained Chancellorship where he quickly took dictatorial powers
under the "state of emergency" caused by the burning of the Reichstag in March 1933. By 1934
the Night of the Long Knives saw General Schleicher and hundreds of other German patriots
assassinated and it was only a few years until the City of London-Wall Street Frankenstein
monster stormed across the world.
How the 1929 Crash was Manufactured
While everyone knows that the 1929 market crash unleashed four years of hell in America
which quickly spread across Europe under the great depression, not many people have realized
that this was not inevitable, but rather a controlled blowout.
The bubbles of the 1920s were unleashed with the early death of President William Harding in
1923 and grew under the careful guidance of JP Morgan's President Coolidge and financier Andrew
Mellon (Treasury Secretary) who de-regulated the banks, imposed austerity onto the country, and
cooked up a scheme for Broker loans allowing speculators to borrow 90% on their stock. Wall
Street was deregulated, investments into the real economy were halted during the 1920s and
insanity became the norm. In 1925 broker loans totalled $1.5 billion and grew to $2.6 billion
in 1926 and hit $5.7 billion by the end of 1927. By 1928, the stock market was overvalued
fourfold!
When the bubble was sufficiently inflated, a moment was decided upon to coordinate a mass
"calling in" of the broker loans. Predictably, no one could pay them resulting in a collapse of
the markets. Those "in the know" cleaned up with JP Morgan's "preferred clients", and other
financial behemoths selling before the crash and then buying up the physical assets of America
for pennies on the dollar. One notable person who made his fortune in this manner was Prescott
Bush of Brown Brothers Harriman, who went onto bailout a bankrupt Nazi party in 1932. These
financiers had a tight allegiance with the City of London and coordinated their operations
through the private central banking system of America's Federal Reserve and Bank of
International Settlements.
The Living Hell that was the Great Depression
Throughout the Great depression, the population was pushed to its limits making America
highly susceptible to fascism as unemployment skyrocketed to 25%, industrial capacity collapsed
by 70%, and agricultural prices collapsed far below the cost of production accelerating
foreclosures and suicide. Life savings were lost as 4000 banks failed.
This despair was replicated across Europe and Canada with eugenics-loving fascists gaining
popularity across the board. England saw the rise of Sir Oswald Mosley's British Union of
Fascists in 1932, English Canada had its own fascist solution with the Rhodes Scholar "Fabian
Society" League of Social Reconstruction (which later took over the Liberal Party) calling
for the "scientific management of society". Time magazine had featured Il Duce over 6 times by
1932 and people were being told by that corporate fascism was the economic solution to all of
America's economic woes.
In the midst of the crisis, the City of London removed itself from the gold standard in 1931
which was a crippling blow to the USA, as it resulted in a flight of gold from America causing
a deeper contraction of the money supply and thus inability to respond to the depression.
British goods simultaneously swamped the USA crushing what little production was left.
It was in this atmosphere that one of the least understood battles unfolded in 1933.
1932: A Bankers' Dictatorship is Attempted
In Germany, a surprise victory of Gen. Kurt Schleicher caused the defeat of the
London-directed Nazi party in December 1932 threatening to break Germany free of Central Bank
tyranny. A few weeks before Schleicher's victory, Franklin Roosevelt won the presidency in
America threatening to regulate the private banks and assert national sovereignty over
finance.
Seeing their plans for global fascism slipping away, the City of London announced that a new
global system controlled by Central Banks had to be created post haste. Their objective was to
use the economic crisis as an excuse to remove from nation states any power over monetary
policy, while enhancing the power of Independent Central Banks as enforcers of "balanced global
budgets". elaborate
In December 1932, an economic conference "to stabilize the world economy " was
organized by the League of Nations under the guidance of the Bank of International Settlements
(BIS) and Bank of England. The BIS was set up as "the Central Bank of Central Banks" in 1930 in
order to facilitate WWI debt repayments and was a vital instrument for funding Nazi Germany-
long after WWII began
. The London Economic Conference brought together 64 nations of the world under a controlled
environment chaired by the British Prime Minister and opened by the King himself.
"The conference considers it to be essential, in order to provide an international gold
standard with the necessary mechanism for satisfactory working, that independent Central Banks,
with requisite powers and freedom to carry out an appropriate currency and credit policy,
should be created in such developed countries as have not at present an adequate central
banking institution" and that "the conference wish to reaffirm the great utility of
close and continuous cooperation between Central Banks. The Bank of International Settlements
should play an increasingly important part not only by improving contact, but also as an
instrument for common action."
Echoing the Bank of England's modern fixation with "mathematical equilibrium", the
resolutions stated that the new global gold standard controlled by central banks was needed
"to maintain a fundamental equilibrium in the balance of payments" of countries. The
idea was to deprive nation states of their power to generate and direct credit for their own
development.
FDR Torpedoes the London Conference
Chancellor Schleicher's resistance to a bankers' dictatorship was resolved by a "soft
coup" ousting the patriotic leader in favor of Adolph Hitler (under the control of a Bank
of England toy named Hjalmar Schacht) in January 1933 with Schleicher assassinated the
following year. In America, an
assassination attempt on Roosevelt was thwarted on February 15, 1933 when a woman knocked
the gun out of the hand of an anarchist-freemason in Miami resulting in the death of Chicago's
Mayor Cermak.
Without FDR's dead body, the London conference met an insurmountable barrier, as FDR refused
to permit any American cooperation. Roosevelt recognized the necessity for a new international
system, but he also knew that it had to be organized by sovereign nation states subservient to
the general welfare of the people and not central banks dedicated to the welfare of the
oligarchy. Before any international changes could occur, nation states castrated from the
effects of the depression had to first recover economically in order to stay above the power of
the financiers.
By May 1933, the London Conference crumbled when FDR complained that the conference's
inability to address the real issues of the crisis is "a catastrophe amounting to a world
tragedy" and that fixation with short term stability were "old fetishes of so-called
international bankers". FDR continued "The United States seeks the kind of dollar which
a generation hence will have the same purchasing and debt paying power as the dollar value we
hope to attain in the near future. That objective means more to the good of other nations than
a fixed ratio for a month or two. Exchange rate fixing is not the true answer."
The British drafted an official statement saying "the American statement on stabilization
rendered it entirely useless to continue the conference."
FDR's War on Wall Street
The new president laid down the gauntlet in his inaugural speech on March 4 th
saying: "The money-changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our
civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the
restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary
profit".
FDR declared a war on Wall Street on several levels, beginning with his support of the
Pecorra
Commission which sent thousands of bankers to prison, and exposed the criminal activities
of the top tier of Wall Street's power structure who manipulated the depression, buying
political offices and pushing fascism. Ferdinand Pecorra who ran the commission called out the
deep state when he said "this small group of highly placed financiers, controlling the very
springs of economic activity, holds more real power than any similar group in the United
States."
Pecorra's highly publicized success empowered FDR to impose sweeping regulation in the form
of 1)
Glass-Steagall bank separation , 2) bankruptcy re-organization and 3) the creation of the
Security Exchange Commission to oversee Wall Street. Most importantly, FDR disempowered the
London-controlled Federal Reserve by installing his own man as Chair (Industrialist Mariner
Eccles) who forced it to obey national commands for the first time since 1913, while creating
an "alternative" lending mechanism outside of Fed control called the Reconstruction Finance
Corporation (RFC) which became the number one lender to infrastructure in America throughout
the 1930s.
One of the most controversial policies for which FDR is demonized today was his abolishment
of the gold standard. The gold standard itself constricted the money supply to a strict
exchange of gold per paper dollar, thus preventing the construction of internal improvements
needed to revive industrial capacity and put the millions of unemployed back to work for
which no financial resources existed . It's manipulation by international financiers made
it a weapon of destruction rather than creation at this time. Since commodity prices had fallen
lower than the costs of production, it was vital to increase the price of goods under a form of
"controlled inflation" so that factories and farms could become solvent and unfortunately the
gold standard held that back. FDR imposed protective tariffs to favor agro-industrial recovery
on all fronts ending years of rapacious free trade.
FDR stated his political-economic philosophy in 1934: "the old fallacious notion of the
bankers on the one side and the government on the other side, as being more or less equal and
independent units, has passed away. Government by the necessity of things must be the leader,
must be the judge, of the conflicting interests of all groups in the community, including
bankers."
The Real New Deal
Once liberated from the shackles of the central banks, FDR and his allies were able to start
a genuine recovery by restoring confidence in banking. Within 31 days of his bank holiday, 75%
of banks were operational and the FDIC was created to insure deposits. Four million people were
given immediate work, and hundreds of libraries, schools and hospitals were built and staffed-
All funded through the RFC. FDR's first fireside chat was vital in rebuilding confidence in the
government and banks, serving even today as a strong lesson in banking which central bankers
don't want you to learn about.
From 1933-1939, 45 000 infrastructure projects were built. The many "local" projects were
governed, like China's Belt and Road Initiative today, under a "grand design"
which FDR termed the "Four Quarters" featuring zones of megaprojects such as the Tennessee
Valley Authority area in the south east, the Columbia River Treaty zone on the northwest, the
St Laurence Seaway zone on the North east, and Hoover Dam/Colorado zone on the Southwest. These
projects were transformative in ways money could never measure as the Tennessee area's literacy
rose from 20% in 1932 to 80% in 1950, and racist backwater holes of the south became the
bedrock for America's aerospace industry due to the abundant and cheap hydropower. As
I had already reported on the Saker , FDR was not a Keynesian (although it cannot be argued
that hives of Rhodes Scholars and Fabians penetrating his administration certainly were).
Wall Street Sabotages the New Deal
Those who criticize the New Deal today ignore the fact that its failures have more to do
with Wall Street sabotage than anything intrinsic to the program. For example, JP Morgan tool
Lewis Douglass (U.S. Budget Director) forced the closure of the Civil Works Administration in
1934 resulting in the firing of all 4 million workers.
Wall Street did everything it could to choke the economy at every turn. In 1931, NY banks
loans to the real economy amounted to $38.1 billion which dropped to only $20.3 billion by
1935. Where NY banks had 29% of their funds in US bonds and securities in 1929, this had risen
to 58% which cut off the government from being able to issue productive credit to the real
economy.
When, in 1937, FDR's Treasury Secretary persuaded him to cancel public works to see if the
economy "could stand on its own two feet", Wall Street pulled credit out of the economy
collapsing the Industrial production index from 110 to 85 erasing seven years' worth of gain,
while steel fell from 80% capacity back to depression levels of 19%. Two million jobs were lost
and the Dow Jones lost 39% of its value. This was no different from kicking the crutches out
from a patient in rehabilitation and it was not lost on anyone that those doing the kicking
were openly supporting Fascism in Europe. Bush patriarch Prescott Bush, then representing Brown
Brothers Harriman was found guilty for trading with the enemy in 1942!
Coup Attempt in America Thwarted
The bankers didn't limit themselves to financial sabotage during this time, but also
attempted a fascist
military coup which was exposed by Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler in his congressional testimony
of November 20, 1934. Butler had testified that the plan was begun in the Summer of 1933 and
organized by Wall Street financiers who tried to use him as a puppet dictator leading 500 000
American Legion members to storm the White House. As Butler spoke, those same financiers had
just set up an anti-New Deal organization called the American Liberty League which fought to
keep America out of the war in defense of an Anglo-Nazi fascist global government which they
wished to partner with.
The American Liberty league only changed tune when it became evident that Hitler had become
a disobedient Frankenstein monster who wasn't content in a subservient position to Britain's
idea of a New World Order. In response to the Liberty League's agenda, FDR said "some speak of
a New World Order, but it is not new and it is not order".
FDR's Anti-Colonial Post-War Vision
One of the greatest living testimonies to FDR's anti-colonial vision is contained in a
little known 1946 book authored by his son Elliot Roosevelt who, as his father's confidante and
aide, was privy to some of the most sensitive meetings his father participated in throughout
the war. Seeing the collapse of the post-war vision upon FDR's April 12, 1945 death and the
emergence of a pro-Churchill presidency under Harry Truman, who lost no time in dropping
nuclear bombs on a defeated Japan, ushering in a Soviet witch hunt at home and launching a Cold
War abroad, Elliot authored 'As He Saw It' (1946) in order to create a
living testimony to the potential that was lost upon his father's passing.
As Elliot said of his motive to write his book:
"The decision to write this book was taken more recently and impelled by urgent events.
Winston Churchill's speech at Fulton, Missouri, had a hand in this decision, the growing
stockpile of American atom bombs is a compelling factor; all the signs of growing disunity
among the leading nations of the world, all the broken promises, all the renascent power
politics of greedy and desperate imperialism were my spurs in this undertaking And I have seen
the promises violated, and the conditions summarily and cynically disregarded, and the
structure of peace disavowed I am writing this, then, to you who agree with me that the path he
charted has been most grievously -- and deliberately -- forsaken."
The Four Freedoms
Even before America had entered the war, the principles of international harmony which FDR
enunciated in his January
6, 1941 Four Freedoms speech to the U.S. Congress served as the guiding light through every
battle for the next 4.5 years. In this speech FDR said:
"In future days, which we seek to secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four
essential human freedoms.
"The first is the freedom of speech and expression -- everywhere in the world.
"The second is the freedom of every person to worship God in his own way -- everywhere in
the world.
"The third is the freedom from want -- which, translated into world terms, means economic
understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants
-- everywhere in the world.
"The fourth is freedom from fear -- which, translated into world terms, means a worldwide
reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in
a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor -- anywhere in the
world.
"That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world
attainable in our time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the
so-called new order of tyranny which dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.
"To that new order, we oppose the greater conception -- the moral order. A good society
is able to face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutions alike without fear.
"Since the beginning of American history, we have been engaged in change -- in a
perpetual peaceful revolution -- a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly, adjusting itself
to changing conditions -- without the concentration camp or the quicklime in the ditch. The
world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly,
civilized society.
"This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of millions of free
men and women; and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the supremacy
of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights or to
keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose."
Upon hearing these Freedoms outlined, American painter
Norman Rockwell was inspired to paint four masterpieces that were displayed across America
and conveyed the beauty of FDR's spirit to all citizens.
FDR's patriotic Vice President (and the man who SHOULD have been president in 1948) Henry
Wallace outlined FDR's vision in a passionate video address to the people in 1942 which should
also be watched by all world citizens today:
Elliot's account of the 1941-1945 clash of paradigms between his father and Churchill are
invaluable both for their ability to shed light into the true noble constitutional character of
America personified in the person of Roosevelt but also in demonstrating the beautiful
potential of a world that SHOULD HAVE BEEN had certain unnatural events not intervened to
derail the evolution of our species into an age of win-win cooperation, creative reason and
harmony.
In As He Saw It, Elliot documents a conversation he had with his father at the beginning of
America's entry into WWII, who made his anti-colonial intentions clear as day saying:
"I'm talking about another war, Elliott. I'm talking about what will happen to our world, if
after this war we allow millions of people to slide back into the same semi-slavery!
"Don't think for a moment, Elliott, that Americans would be dying in the Pacific tonight, if
it hadn't been for the shortsighted greed of the French and the British and the Dutch. Shall we
allow them to do it all, all over again? Your son will be about the right age, fifteen or
twenty years from now.
"One sentence, Elliott. Then I'm going to kick you out of here. I'm tired. This is the
sentence: When we've won the war, I will work with all my might and main to see to it that the
United States is not wheedled into the position of accepting any plan that will further
France's imperialistic ambitions, or that will aid or abet the British Empire in its imperial
ambitions."
This clash came to a head during a major confrontation between FDR and Churchill during the
January 24, 1943 Casablanca Conference in Morocco. At this event, Elliot documents how his
father first confronted Churchill's belief in the maintenance of the British Empire's
preferential trade agreements upon which it's looting system was founded:
"Of course," he [FDR] remarked, with a sly sort of assurance, "of course, after the war, one
of the preconditions of any lasting peace will have to be the greatest possible freedom of
trade."
He paused. The P.M.'s head was lowered; he was watching Father steadily, from under one
eyebrow.
"No artificial barriers," Father pursued. "As few favored economic agreements as possible.
Opportunities for expansion. Markets open for healthy competition." His eye wandered innocently
around the room.
Churchill shifted in his armchair. "The British Empire trade agreements" he began heavily,
"are -- "
Father broke in. "Yes. Those Empire trade agreements are a case in point. It's because of
them that the people of India and Africa, of all the colonial Near East and Far East, are still
as backward as they are."
Churchill's neck reddened and he crouched forward. "Mr. President, England does not propose
for a moment to lose its favored position among the British Dominions. The trade that has made
England great shall continue, and under conditions prescribed by England's ministers."
"You see," said Father slowly, "it is along in here somewhere that there is likely to be
some disagreement between you, Winston, and me.
"I am firmly of the belief that if we are to arrive at a stable peace it must involve the
development of backward countries. Backward peoples. How can this be done? It can't be done,
obviously, by eighteenth-century methods. Now -- "
"Who's talking eighteenth-century methods?"
"Whichever of your ministers recommends a policy which takes wealth in raw materials out of
a colonial country, but which returns nothing to the people of that country in consideration.
Twentieth-century methods involve bringing industry to these colonies. Twentieth-century
methods include increasing the wealth of a people by increasing their standard of living, by
educating them, by bringing them sanitation -- by making sure that they get a return for the
raw wealth of their community."
Around the room, all of us were leaning forward attentively. Hopkins was grinning. Commander
Thompson, Churchill's aide, was looking glum and alarmed. The P.M. himself was beginning to
look apoplectic.
"You mentioned India," he growled.
"Yes. I can't believe that we can fight a war against fascist slavery, and at the same time
not work to free people all over the world from a backward colonial policy."
"What about the Philippines?"
"I'm glad you mentioned them. They get their independence, you know, in 1946. And they've
gotten modern sanitation, modern education; their rate of illiteracy has gone steadily down
"
"There can be no tampering with the Empire's economic agreements."
"They're artificial "
"They're the foundation of our greatness."
"The peace," said Father firmly, "cannot include any continued despotism. The structure of
the peace demands and will get equality of peoples. Equality of peoples involves the utmost
freedom of competitive trade. Will anyone suggest that Germany's attempt to dominate trade in
central Europe was not a major contributing factor to war?"
It was an argument that could have no resolution between these two men
The following day, Elliot describes how the conversation continued between the two men with
Churchill stating:
"Mr. President," he cried, "I believe you are trying to do away with the British Empire.
Every idea you entertain about the structure of the postwar world demonstrates it. But in spite
of that" -- and his forefinger waved -- "in spite of that, we know that you constitute our only
hope. And" -- his voice sank dramatically -- "you know that we know it. You know that we know
that without America, the Empire won't stand."
Churchill admitted, in that moment, that he knew the peace could only be won according to
precepts which the United States of America would lay down. And in saying what he did, he was
acknowledging that British colonial policy would be a dead duck, and British attempts to
dominate world trade would be a dead duck, and British ambitions to play off the U.S.S.R.
against the U.S.A. would be a dead duck. Or would have been, if Father had lived."
This story was delivered in full during an August 15 lecture by the author:
While FDR's struggle did change the course of history, his early death during the first
months of his fourth term resulted in a fascist perversion of his post-war vision.
Rather than see the IMF, World Bank or UN used as instruments for the internationalization
of the New Deal principles to promote long term, low interest loans for the industrial
development of former colonies, FDR's allies were ousted from power over his dead body, and
they were recaptured by the same forces who attempted to steer the world towards a Central
Banking Dictatorship in 1933.
The American Liberty League spawned into various "patriotic" anti-communist organizations
which took power with the FBI and McCarthyism under the fog of the Cold War. This is the
structure that Eisenhower warned about when he called out "the Military Industrial Complex" in
1960 and which John
Kennedy did battle with during his 900 days as president .
This is the structure which is out to destroy President Donald Trump and undo the November
elections under a military coup and Civil War out of fear that a new FDR impulse is beginning
to be revived in America which may align with the 21 st Century international New
Deal emerging from China's Belt and Road Initiative and Eurasian
alliance. French Finance Minister Bruno LeMaire and Marc Carney have stated their fear
that if the Green New Deal isn't imposed by the west , then the New Silk Road and yuan will
become the basis for the new world system.
The Bank of England-authored Green New Deal being pushed under the fog of COVID-19's
Great Green Global Reset which promise to impose draconian constraints on humanity's
carrying capacity in defense of saving nature from humanity have nothing to do with Franklin
Roosevelt's New Deal and they have less to do with the Bretton Woods conference of 1944. These
are merely central bankers' wet dreams for depopulation and fascism "with a democratic face"
which their 1923 and 1933 efforts failed to achieve and can only be imposed if people remain
blind to their own recent history.
Taras 77
Yes, a very interesting article, which explains much, but not everything. The question which
need’s to be asked is who was FDR and how did he become President, ie. why was he
permitted to become President. It should be taken into account that he was a 33 degree
freemason, just like Truman. So, what really happened during the 1930’s ? The
impression is that the US elite during that period was not united, being heterogeneous.
In 1917 Wall Street bankers finance the Russian “revolution”, when Lenin is
brought to Russia from Switzerland, where he was living the high life, and when he was given
20 million dollars in gold to start an insurrection known as a “revolution”. The
intent was to create a communist central government which would control Russian industry, raw
materials and finances, and present them on a silver platter to Western bankers. The
additional intent was the break up of Russia. The federal system was introduced, and
artificial states like Ukraine were created within that system. These banker aspirations
collapsed in 1924 when their puppet Lenin dies from syphilis and when Stalin assumes control,
introducing industrialization.
The bankers then turn to Germany, when in 1925 an obscure character by the name of Adolf
Hitler pops up. Before he is bestowed with power in 1933, the bankers in 1931 open the Bank
of International Settlements in Basel, right next to the German border. It was this Bank
which financed Hitler, his economic and banking “miracles”, as well as his
upcoming war. As for Wall Street corporations, they of course invested in Germany, like Henry
Ford, who built truck factories which provided the German Army with transport. Without
Anglo-American involvement, there is no way that Hitler could have started World War Two. And
what was the intention of Anglo-American bankers ? The break up and plundering of Russia,
something that Stalin prevented, and something that in our age Putin also prevented.
And the US ? The bankers were obviously impressed what their puppet Adolf Hitler achieved,
introducing dictatorship and at the same time placating the masses. They wanted the same
thing in the US. This of course had to be prevented, as had the bankers succeeded with their
planned fascist coup d’etat, then the game would have been up, as it would become
obvious who was financing and controlling Hitler. I think that over this issue the US elite
became divided. The group which backed FDR prevailed, as they wanted a covert modus
operandi.
And FDR ? When did he join World War Two ? In December of 1941, when Stalin brought more
than a million troops from Manchuria to Moscow, and when it became apparent that Hitler would
be defeated, as he was. The Anglo-American elites feared that Russian troops would end up in
Paris, as they did in 1814, when Napoleon was defeated. This, of course, had to be prevented.
Also Hitler, the banker puppet, needed to be saved. His suicide in 1945 was more than
suspicious, with historians “forgetting” to mention that his bunker had four
escape tunnels (Hitler ostensibly commits suicide, while all of his staff manage to escape,
with historians failing to explain how they did this. Did they, perhaps, use the four escape
tunnels ?).
And what do we have today ? Unfortunately we have more of the same. What began in 1917
with the Russian revolution is still active. The Anglo-American bankers cannot forget their
aim of breaking up and plundering Russia. Unfortunately for them, their little plan is taking
too long. Their Praetorian Guard, NATO, is costing them billions. In 1971 Nixon takes the
dollar off the gold standard, opening the way for mass printing and financial collapse, as
mentioned in this article. On the other hand, Russia and it’s ally China have been
stockpiling gold for years, preparing to introduce gold backed rubles and yuans, which of
course needs to be prevented. The latest political machinations with Belarus and with Navalny
in Russia are repeat performances of 1917, the West hoping for new insurrecions, ie.
“revolutions”, where “democratic” leaders would be installed, little
Guaidos. I think the West will see a financial crash first.
“This is the structure which is out to destroy President Donald Trump and undo the
November elections under a military coup and Civil War out of fear that a new FDR impulse is
beginning to be revived in America which may align with the 21st Century international New
Deal emerging from China’s Belt and Road Initiative and Eurasian alliance.”
I was with you until that sentence. Trump is in no way the new Franklin Roosevelt. He was
put into office by a cabal of Zionists and banksters, the very same “money
changers” that Roosevelt railed about in the 1930s, the very same that Jesus threw out
of the Temple. They never forgave him for that, to this very day.
With the likes of Sheldon Adelson throwing “thirty pieces of silver” at him in
the last days of the 2016 election and pulling strings with the Kosher Nostra to get him
elected, Trump reciprocated by cancelling the Iran nuclear deal. That has set the stage for
the war that will be the end of the USA as we know it. With the COVID-19 plandemic bearing
down on us as well, Heaven only knows how this will all turn out.
Agree with you 100%; Trump is part and parcel of the so called deep state and his actions
have verified his status, like you the article is very good until the second last paragraph
referring to Trump.
In fact it’s a rather Slippery Conceptual Slope and there are a great
many…especially Commonwealth Lefties that just can’t seem to keep their
footing….and slide right (or left, as the case may be) off The Path….so
reliably …as programmed by the Masters of Ideological Left/Right Mind Control.
But there’s HOPE:
Today’s Anti-Mask anti-Lockdown demonstration in London’s Trafalgar
Square:
You’re right, Bro, it is more complicated than that. It’s more complicated
than we could even begin to understand. But, understand this: We have troops in the Middle
East because Israel wants them there, pure and simple. Even Trump understands that. We are
threatening Iran because Israel wants us to. The Likudniks and Zionists who Trump has
surrounded himself with are driving the USA into a war with Iran and Russia that no one but
them really want. It’s all part of their crazy “end times” ideology. The
“synagogue of Satan” is prepared to march us all right over a cliff. Americans of
faith need to get their heads out their asses and put a stop to this madness.
Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer?
The bad guys are godless bastards and don’t want to die in a firestorm I
wouldn’t think.
They are practicing divide and rule to the extent that we let them.
I’m thinking the “bad guys” aren’t even human anymore, maybe some
AI profit algorithm like what controls the hedge funds these days. They certainly have no use
for most humans, although they may keep a few of us around as pets.
absolutely agree. i’m not sure why ehert believes trump is anything but a tool but
he’s put this idea forth in several essays now. i also do not fully agree with cabal
signing on with the bri, yes, undoubtedly they will have to but china (russia as well) are
well acquainted with the cabal & will have no illusions about their ends. if or rather
when the cabal realizes it has no choice but to join it will be as a very controlled minor
player never to be trusted. neither china nor russia has suffered this long journey to
recovery to then hand its control over to the cabal yet again. i read last week
(middleeastmonitor i believe) that egypt is about to teach chinese in its schools. the world
is indeed changing.
Regarding Trump; the Saker has covered this issue well in a recent post. It is not a
matter of what we think of Trump. It is a matter of what the banking Cabal thinks of him.
They make it pretty obvious that they regard him as insufficiently under their own control.
They fear his loyalty to America. He is not as totally bought as the democrats. This for them
is a threat. The cabal wants a President that is totally under their control. For them Trump
does not cut it. So they cleverly provide as much ammunition in their controlled media as
they can find to reinforce the people’s dislike of him. Not a difficult task obviously.
Divide and rule works. Particularly in America where politics is reduced to a personality
contest.
It’s complicated? No, the truth is just obscured by all the theater. It’s
something like this …
For the first time in decades we have a potus that is not directly serving the ptb. This
is intolerable for the ptb, hence the deep state revolt against him.
Trump got into office because he promised the likudniks things that the ptb denied to them
because they conflicted with their interests
But on the issue of “the great replacement”, Trump is an obstacle to the
ptb.
nearly every name ,company,movement, politician mentioned in the article is connected by
freemasonry and “the money changers” . When individually looked at its readily
available to see. but when asked to step back and see a bigger world view. it becomes tin
foil time cognitive palsy for most.
trump ? just look at his photo ops with satans sidekick himself kissinger.
Thank you. Matthew Ehret, for your scholarly detail, and your persistence in trying to
present this story, in a world that has whitewashed it out of the culture. This long piece
was to my mind one of your best presentations yet. We should all be very grateful.
I had watched Wallace’s speech before, but this time, in the context you provided,
it became stunningly clear that the FDR school of thought regarded the socialist revolution
as a real thing around the world, and as a very American thing, ongoing for a century and a
half here, and not yet completed, as the revolution of the worker towards freedom from want
continued – and was intended to continue.
And this all should have continued, except that those who love money do not hesitate for
one second to kill anyone whom they deem it expedient to kill – perhaps this is the
truest lesson of all that the people must always hold in their thinking.
What a different world we could be living in today but for the greed of a few people who
all along have regarded the rest of humanity as nothing. No wonder they hate China, for
continuing that revolution that they killed in the United States – IF, in fact, it has
been killed.
Our revolution continues – the President’s man told us so. And they will kill
anyone they have to in order to defeat this revolution – our best general told us
so.
Thank you for the continual reminders, Matthew Ehret.
The hatred of China is recent, and currently over-dramatized by Trump, mostly for own
reasons. And the neocons still think there are means to “contain” China’s
economic growth (they will fail’), while Russia’s sabotage of an increasing
number of their evil plots around the world is hard to prevent.
Consequently, Russia remains the greater threat for the empire, as Putin has been
increasingly frustrating their second biggest tool for control after the $ – regime
change. Belarus, Venezuela, Syria, to which should be added Turkey, and other less known
spanners in the wheels.
And of course, Crimea, which the regime-changers refuse to get over…
Worse of all: the new weapons.
And to add insult to injury, the vaccine with the nose-thumb name, Sputnik V.
The cumulative effect of these steps is proving so irritating that Matthew Ehret’s
warning about a neocon-driven “total war with Russia, China…” should be
taken seriously.
Certainly Putin does, if this statement is anything to go by:
“And since Dec. 2019, the first strategic missile regiment with the Avangard system has
been on full combat alert.” (See here for context: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/64058
)
Excellent historical link up of City of London + Wall st + JSOC/CIA/Deep state. At present
it seems to be the Left is Right and the Right is Left. Again like it was over 90+ years ago
the distraction of a DEM v GOP ensures we lose sight of the bigger picture.
the adverts are a bit annoying but it looks as though there is no other way to view this
film other than the link provided.
The info on how sovereign wealth (gold) was stolen is incredible. Just moved from one
vault to the other at either the BIS or the Bank of England!! And gold stolen from
Czechoslovakia, Austria, and POland was used by the Reich to make interest and dividend
payments to the Bank of England!
Really great film WW2 footage that I haven’t seen elsewhere, and interviews with
members of the Greatest Generation, many of them intelligent women who were on the scene.
A great companion film to The Spider’s Web: Britain’s Second Empire.
The takeaway: Don’t trust bankers! Especially not international bankers. The summary
at the end is: They like to have a quiet life, just keep making money regardless of who is in
power or who wins. They all fraternized throughout the war. Especially Chase. That is
Rockefeller, in case you forgot . . .
Thank you. Amazing text and great insights into original documents. I have learned a lot
from the text and the links. Many things mentioned in the text, I have heard before, by
reading Episodes on Oriental Review (it is on the list of news sources on the top of this
page), written by Nikolay Starikov. However, Starikov being a Russian, can hardly be used as
a reference in discussions with readers from US. Now I have another source to point to
– a fellow Canadian, eh :-)
History all very well, but I believe we have a situation in the world today unlike
anything mankind has experienced in the past. Thus, most unfortuneately there exists no
guidance, no lessons that could be learned from. In the course of the last century world
population has exponentially grown to a size that the planet cannot comfortably support.
Energy, nature, social, and economic systems are being stressed beyond their limits as
humankind is out to drown in its own guano. The problem is not in our ability to produce, but
in our inability to get rid of the excess, i.e. the byproducts. The West’s culture of
glutten provides no avail. Scientists know this, and have been warning for quite a long time,
but too few are listening. So yes, as Mr. Ehret points out we are in a slow motion world
order meltdown in many dimensions, but not because of political machinations (although the
political machinations certainly aid the quandary.) Rather, at the root, it is because of
technical-biological formations overwhelming the world’s natuaral orders, and these
formations also promise to overwhelm any world order that the planet’s oligarchies are
willing to accept . Our world leaders are totally lost. They do not know what to do as there
is no past history they can grasp on to even if they cared to do so. China’s belt and
road inititive is hardly a solution as it will only exasperate the basic problem of a world
seriously overpopulated wanting to live like one hundred million gluttonous Americans did
fifty years ago.
I only feel for the young people who will inherit this mess as the older generations have
become too decrepit to even acknowledge the situation.
In 1949 when Chairman Mao came to power, the population numbered about 1.0 billion, the
average life expectancy was 42 years, literacy was about 2%, opium addiction was about 25%.
Health care was non-existant except to a privileged few. Children had to look after their
elderly parents.
Today the population is 1.4 billion, average life expectancy is 78 years, literacy is
about 98% and opium addiction is almost irrelevant.
You will not read this from the priests at the Club of Rome. It is not in their
interest.
You should be celebrating one of the most extra-ordinary successes in history. Over 500
million people have been lifted from a life of abject poverty to a decent standard of living
with education, health care and a pension, in other words, a life worth living.
The world population will obviously have to rise as people live longer. This was one
reason for the one child policy that was persistently applied in China for decades. This does
create a burden on the care of elderly. Technology makes it less so.
China is converting its electricity plants from coal to gas and nuclear, greatly reducing
air and water pollution. China is not just a low wage country. It has learned over the last
decades to be the most efficient, high quality producer of goods and services.
Above all their belt and road initiative offers a great deal for its partners, a win-win
situation. No other developed nation offers so much hence the trade war.
”In June 1922, 300 marks exchanged $1 US and in November 1923, it took 42
trillion marks to get $1 US!”
Matthew Ehret doesn’t mention it, but what started the monstrous hyperinflation
instantly was the occupation of the Ruhr by French and Belgian troops (January 1923)
as ”due compensation” for Germany defaulting on war reparation payments. Germany
found herself asset-stripped of her own industry and, without any colonies to rob blind,
resorted to print money with no backing. This is something which ominously haunts the
collective West ever since: What will happen if and when the Oppressor Nations — now
deindustrialised and with abysmal birth stats (except in immigrant communities) —
can’t coerce other countries and peoples into upholding any of this
’post-industrial’ nonsense anymore? Fascism is a consummate expression of
militant parasitism, with or without any racist depravities pertaining to it.
Matthew Ehret is dead right about the remedy: Kick out rapacious speculative finance and
join the BRI project which will eradicate poverty, hunger, and war by creating durable
infrastructure. The neocon filth doesn’t even qualify as fascists. They are anti-Life,
pure and simple.
I remember reading years ago a sentence from Keynes about the disaster that was
Versailles:
“Men will not always die quietly…In their distress they may overturn the
remnants of organization, and submerge civilization itself.”
and further:
“but who can say… in what direction men will seek at last to escape their
misfortunes.”
Unbelievable, how bankers gamble with the worlds population and then came what? The
nuclear deterrent, “MAD” lol and the cry for a one world government.
and now O look their all pointing their ICBM’s at us?
Right, Con-911 was the 21st century Reichstagsbrand. And it has been followed as the night
follows the day by Con-19, the 21st century version of Gleich-Gestaltung (Uniform Viewpoint)
with Lockdown, Mass Incarceration of suspects, and biological Reprogramming with forcible
injection of genetic material.
Please would you link, point to any reference for this:
“A leading US industrialist named Washington Baker Vanderclip ….agreement in
history with Russia to the tune of $3 billion in 1920”
Washington Baker Vanderclip was seemingly president of the Elkhart Masonic Mutual Life
Association from Elkhart, Indiana ( https://tinyurl.com/y2vnjktc ).
I guess the guy in question is not Vanderclip but a business man named ‘Washington
Baker Vanderlip’.
Vanderlip was also known as ‘The Khan from Kamchatka’.
He was often confused by the Russians with the banker Frank Vanderlip from the First
National City Bank. Might well be the case they were under the impression dealing with the
banker when matter of fact they were talking to the business man.
W.B. Vanderlip acted as a kind of semi-official US ambassador before the US established
diplomatic relations with the back then Soviet Union in 1933.
You shall find numerous references by searching for ‘The Khan from Kamchatka’
in history books from the time of the Russian revolution.
Absolutely brilliant. To be read and reread. I will recommend it to my family and friends.
A must to understand the dangers and opportunities of the current situation. Thank You Mr
Ehret.
Is there any chance that someone put together in the same format of article, connection
between City and catholic Kuria in Vatikan. This would than cover everything.
Yeah sure, lots of details but also lots none factual details that have been randomly
connected to events at the author’s discretion without any references to back up the
claims, especially when it comes to National Socialistic Germany and Hitler. Usually, a topic
that has been willfully ignored academically as well as scientifically since its
destruction.
Hence, we always get to hear the same nonsense over and over
Reading this article one gets the impression it was exclusively foreign money that funded
the rise of Hitler.
Why is there no mention of prominent domestic funding?
For example:
Kurt von Schroeder a German banker from Cologne who participated in the financing of the Nazi
party and was a director of the Keppler Circle (together with Hjalmar Schacht ) which grouped
together German businessmen who were sympathetic to the Nazis.
August Thyssen the German industrialist bought the “Brown House” in Munich
which became the Nazi HQ. The imposing building basically functioned as “state within a
state” in the Weimar Republic.
Albert Voegler, the founder of Vereinigte Stahlwerk AG funded the Nazis and was one of the
main beneficiaries of re-armament.
Also, not sure how one can describe Kurt Von Schleicher, a Nazi who paved the way for
Hitler to become Chancellor, as a “patriot”?
It makes it hard for me to continue reading this. I’m sick to death of this total
refusal to take a tiny bit of trouble to examine what is meant by “Britain”. The
Island of Britain holds 3 people; the Cymraeg, the Gaelic and the AngloSaxon.
Since the AngloSaxon, more accurately designated from genetic studied as Franco-Germanic
hybrids – invaded the land before the turn of the millenia under the pretext of coming
to aid the Cymraeg who inhabited and owned the entire island up to the northern border with
Pictish and Gaelic tribes, and were under attack by the same Picts – but took and
relabeled stolen land “Angle-Land”, the Island has been dominated by the
AngloSaxons and a few aristocratic Normans, known after a few hundred years as
“English”.
To the Cymraeg they are still “Saxons”.
Every ruling power over the island since those days has been English. Few Gaels or Celts
have been in any position of power, since the concept of Aristocracy was absorbed by the
English by their Norman forbears and to this day is clung to like immovable glue. The
attitude of English aristocracy towards us has been one of utter contempt and loathing. Only
one Cymraeg was ever Prime Minister and that was the highly charismatic David Lloyd George,
for whom English was a second language. He fought and fought against all those moneyed powers
stop WWI, and when he failed because of the power of group action, did all he could to
prevent the worst excesses.
The people being talked of here are primarily the English Aristocracy and Landed
“Gentry” as they call themselves, which includes the Royal Family line [primarily
Germanic, brought in by that Aristocracy to make sure the Gaelic or Scottish in line for the
throne didn’t inherit it], and the City of London, a city and power unto itself.
It’s the entire unimaginably wealthy class, which is not subject to most of the Laws of
Britain, being a power unto itself; it is comprised of Jewish, English and other
power-brokers and oligarchs.
There are NO “oligarchs ” who are Celtic or Gaelic.
So – forget we exist if you want, but for Gods sake stop just grouping us with our
first and only real enemy, the English, under the title THEY invented —-
“Britain”.
Just watched a movie about the IRA from the mid 80’s. How is it that they were
lamenting about the ”British” and not the ”English” and that on the
walls of Belfast it read ”Beware Brits”?
The people of Northern Ireland are Protestant Christians, who split off from the Roman
Catholics of Eire in 1920.
This has been the major cause of the violence in Belfast ever since. The Catholics wish to
unite with Eire (Southern Ireland), but the Protestants want to remain part of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland having representation in Westminster.
That is partly correct.But the Catholic population is around 45% of the country.And the
Protestant around 55%.When the British kept the 6 counties they went too far. Fermanagh,and
Tyrone,were very majority Catholic.And Derry and Armagh,were close to half Catholic.Of the
other two,Down was around a third Catholic in its South region. And the industrial Antrim
with Belfast,had large workingclass Catholic ghetto’s in Belfast. Had they cut the
borders by a lot they could have had a mostly Protestant area.But to do so would leave only a
tiny area to them.And they wanted a bigger region.
I don’t think that Ehret has to undertake a genetic study of the British Isles
before he can write up this analysis of the role of the British ruling
class/oligarchy/monarchy in fomenting both WW1 and WW2.
I too would like to see more documentation of US-Russian cooperation between the wars.
From my recent reading I think Ehret does miss an important point regarding WW1, which is
the role of the hawk faction in Austro-Hungary and its failed plan to do a surgical
“cakewalk” type of punishment of Serbia for the assassination in Sarejevo (Franz
Ferdinand had actually been a “dove” re Serbia). But the fact was that
militarists in both Germany and Russia wanted war and put tremendous pressure on both Wilhelm
II and Tsar Nicholas, his cousin, to go to war. Possibly also in Britain. Britain certainly
did fear the growing clout of quickly industrializing Germany and wanted to nip it in the
bud. And Churchill was salivating over gaining territory and control for Britain from the
Ottoman Empire
Especially as Germany was already building the Berlin-Baghdad Railway, which would have
provided access to the newly discovered oil fields of the Ottoman Empire (now Iraq, Syria,
Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.). Germany certainly had the brainpower in chemistry, physics,
engineering, etc. to complete the railroad as far as the Persian Gulf and to develop the oil
fields and develop and manage all of the refinery infrastructure and processes.
Then there was that little issue of a Jewish homeland. Unfortunately David Lloyd George,
for all of his good deeds at home, can be practically be described as a militant Christian
Zionist. The Palestine idea was always there in the background as Britain teed up for the
Great One. Arguably the Balfour Declaration would have gone nowhere without the active
support of George to create a Jewish enclave, and British imperial toehold, in the Middle
East. Please, we should not assume that the imperialists were unable to read maps.
But back to Britain and the postwar era, a very relevant complement to Ehret’s
analysis is this excellent documentary film, about the creation of offshore tax havens by the
City of London:
The Spider’s Web: Britain’s Second Empire
Pamela, we seem to be “on same page” quite a few times and what is remarkable,
that is exactly what riles me when they say “British”, when the obvious evil
doers are the English! Plain and simple, but most people fail to make that distinction. By
the way, I have promised Saker another essay on that very subject – the global evil
that eminated and continues to eminate from that particular “race”, group or
whatever one can call them. That oppressive, domineering, imperialistic mindset that believes
only in subjugation and enslavement of others and that is why there is such deep,
all-consuming hatred towards Russia and Russians, who are radically opposite to them in their
understanding of living in this world. I want to address that and expand on it. Give me a
month or so. : )
If you truly want to understand the causes of Hyperinflation I can suggest no better
source than Mike Moloney’s “GoldSilver.com” site. He presents plenty of
graphs and economic history to show exactly how it is caused, what trends it is a part of ,
and why it is now totally unavoidable.
Regarding this piece, I have nothing to say for anyone who says that David Lloyd George,
the first and best true Socialist P.M. the people of the British Isle ever had, and who
formed what was the best Welfare state before it was ruined, was part of a drive for Global
domination. He was in a position of power as P.M. and therefor was a part of many
Committee’s but to suggest this ardent socialist and fighter for the rights of man was
a side kick to Globalism is just beyond discussion.
This article is an excellent narrative concerning international politics. However,
contrary to accepted financial wisdom, the rise of Germany from 1933 onwards under Hitler was
not financed by international bankers. Quite the opposite in fact,
The Treaty of Versailles in 1919 had imposed draconian war reparations on Germany, because
they had just lost the 1914-18 world war and had to be punished by the international bankers.
It was they who caused the hyperinflation of the German Mark that occurred in 1922 in order
to pay off the war loans incurred by France and England by printing more and more money that
Germany had to borrow at interest. This caused the breakdown of the German economy with
massive unemployment and the social discontent that led to the eventual rise of Adolf Hitler
as Chancellor of Germany.
In 1933 Hitler canceled Germany’s debts and created debt free money as Treasury
certificates that were paid to the German workforce for work done and/or materials supplied.
This enabled the rejuvenation of the German economy building railroads, autobahns and the
manufacture of war materiel resulting in full employment and prosperity to the nation.
The international bankers were aghast at this transformation and that is why Britain
declared war on Germany in 1939, since the rise of German power would threaten to destroy the
British Empire.
Kaprocorn, Hitler’s rise was fuelled by credit. Read up on MEFOBILLS. It was a
deferred payment system. He did not “create debt free money”. Credit will give
you an economic high for a while…Hitler milked it for what it was worth and then just
before the debts became due, he waged Blitzkrieg and stole his neighbors’ gold
reserves.
Jamshyd, since Hitler was financed by bankers how was he “against the
bankers”?? And, yes the Nazis were racist baby eaters.
Btw, Hitler also supported the cause of Zionism. Haavara agreement promoted the settlement
of Jews in the British Mandate of Palestine.
Until now, I have never heard of FDR’s Four Freedoms (freedom of speech; freedom of
worship; freedom from want; and freedom from fear (of war, e.g.)). My ignorance probably says
something about the overwhelming completeness of the Banksters’ Putsch that occurred
after FDR’s death.
Learning about the Four Freedoms reminds me of the soaring opening phrases of the United
Nations Charter:
We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the
scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind
….
This is completely consistent with the Four Freedoms. I see now that FDR must have been
one of the primary creators of the UN — an enormous achievement. The UN Charter, and
the Four Freedoms, should be celebrated throughout the USA. I wonder why they
aren’t?
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God
"... In a world that is increasingly confusing and awash with propaganda, Cohen's death is a
blow to humanity's desperate quest for clarity and understanding. ..."
Stephen F Cohen, the renowned American scholar on Russia and leading authority on US-Russian
relations, has died of lung cancer at the
age of 81.
As one of the precious few western voices of sanity on the subject
of Russia while everyone else has been frantically flushing their brains down the toilet,
this is a real loss. I myself have cited Cohen's expert analysis many times in my own work, and
his perspective has played a formative role in my understanding of what's really going on with
the monolithic cross-partisan manufacturing of consent for increased western aggressions
against Moscow.
In a world that is increasingly confusing and awash with propaganda, Cohen's death is a blow
to humanity's desperate quest for clarity and understanding.
I don't know how long Cohen had cancer. I don't know how long he was aware that he might not
have much time left on this earth. What I do know is he spent much of his energy in his final
years urgently trying to warn the world about the rapidly escalating danger of nuclear war,
which in our strange new reality he saw as in many ways completely unprecedented.
The last of the many books Cohen authored was 2019's
War
with Russia? , detailing his ideas on how the complex multi-front nature of the post-2016
cold
war escalations against Moscow combines with Russiagate and other factors to make it in
some ways more dangerous even than the most dangerous point of the previous cold war.
"You know it's easy to joke about this, except that we're at maybe the most dangerous moment
in US-Russian relations in my lifetime, and maybe ever," Cohen told The Young Turks in 2017. "And the reason is that we're
in a new cold war, by whatever name. We have three cold war fronts that are fraught with the
possibility of hot war, in the Baltic region where NATO is carrying out an unprecedented
military buildup on Russia's border, in Ukraine where there is a civil and proxy war between
Russia and the west, and of course in Syria, where Russian aircraft and American warplanes are
flying in the same territory. Anything could happen."
Cohen repeatedly points to the most likely cause of a future nuclear war: not one that is
planned but one which erupts in tense, complex situations where "anything could happen" in the
chaos and confusion as a result of misfire, miscommunication or technical malfunction, as
nearly
happened many times during the last cold war.
"I think this is the most dangerous moment in American-Russian relations, at least since the
Cuban missile crisis," Cohen told Democracy
Now in 2017. "And arguably, it's more dangerous, because it's more complex. Therefore, we
-- and then, meanwhile, we have in Washington these -- and, in my judgment, factless
accusations that Trump has somehow been compromised by the Kremlin. So, at this worst moment in
American-Russian relations, we have an American president who's being politically crippled by
the worst imaginable -- it's unprecedented. Let's stop and think. No American president has
ever been accused, essentially, of treason. This is what we're talking about here, or that his
associates have committed treason."
"Imagine, for example, John Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis," Cohen added. "Imagine
if Kennedy had been accused of being a secret Soviet Kremlin agent. He would have been
crippled. And the only way he could have proved he wasn't was to have launched a war against
the Soviet Union. And at that time, the option was nuclear war."
"A recurring theme of my recently published book War with Russia? is that the new Cold War
is more dangerous, more fraught with hot war, than the one we survived," Cohen wrote
last year . "Histories of the 40-year US-Soviet Cold War tell us that both sides came to
understand their mutual responsibility for the conflict, a recognition that created political
space for the constant peace-keeping negotiations, including nuclear arms control agreements,
often known as détente. But as I also chronicle in the book, today's American Cold
Warriors blame only Russia, specifically 'Putin's Russia,' leaving no room or incentive for
rethinking any US policy toward post-Soviet Russia since 1991."
"Finally, there continues to be no effective, organized American opposition to the new Cold
War," Cohen added. "This too is a major theme of my book and another reason why this Cold War
is more dangerous than was its predecessor. In the 1970s and 1980s, advocates of détente
were well-organized, well-funded, and well-represented, from grassroots politics and
universities to think tanks, mainstream media, Congress, the State Department, and even the
White House. Today there is no such opposition anywhere."
"A major factor is, of course, 'Russiagate'," Cohen continued. "As evidenced in the sources
I cite above, much of the extreme American Cold War advocacy we witness today is a mindless
response to President Trump's pledge to find ways to 'cooperate with Russia' and to the
still-unproven allegations generated by it. Certainly, the Democratic Party is not an
opposition party in regard to the new Cold War."
"Détente with Russia has always been a fiercely opposed, crisis-ridden policy
pursuit, but one manifestly in the interests of the United States and the world," Cohen
wrote in another
essay last year. "No American president can achieve it without substantial bipartisan
support at home, which Trump manifestly lacks. What kind of catastrophe will it take -- in
Ukraine, the Baltic region, Syria, or somewhere on Russia's electric grid -- to shock US
Democrats and others out of what has been called, not unreasonably, their Trump Derangement
Syndrome, particularly in the realm of American national security? Meanwhile, the Bulletin of
Atomic Scientists has recently reset its Doomsday Clock to two minutes before
midnight."
And now Stephen Cohen is dead, and that clock is inching ever closer to midnight. The
Russiagate psyop that he predicted would pressure Trump to advance dangerous cold war
escalations with no opposition from the supposed opposition party
has indeed done exactly that with nary a peep of criticism from either partisan faction of
the political/media class. Cohen has for years been correctly
predicting this chilling scenario which now threatens the life of every organism on earth,
even while his own life was nearing its end.
And now the complex cold war escalations he kept urgently warning us about have become even
more complex with the
addition of nuclear-armed China to the multiple fronts the US-centralized empire has been
plate-spinning its brinkmanship upon, and it is clear from the ramping
up of anti-China propaganda since last year that we are being prepped for those aggressions
to continue to increase.
We should heed the dire warnings that Cohen spent his last breaths issuing. We should demand
a walk-back of these insane imperialist aggressions which benefit nobody and call for
détente with Russia and China. We should begin creating an opposition to this
world-threatening flirtation with armageddon before it is too late. Every life on this planet
may well depend on our doing so.
Stephen Cohen is dead, and we are marching toward the death of everything. God help us
all.
People are just now starting to realize that possible alternate path. But the Demoncrats
in the USA must first be put down, politically euthanized, along with their neocon
never-Trump Republican partners. And that cleaning up is on the way. Trump's second term will
be the advancement of the USA-Russia initiative that is so long overdue.
PerilouseTimes , 48 minutes ago
Putin won't let western billionaires rape Russia's enormous natural resources and on top
of that Putin is against child molesters, that is what this Russia bashing is all about.
awesomepic4u , 1 hour ago
Sad to hear this.
What a good man. It is a real shame that we dont have others to stand up to this crazy pr
that is going on right now. Making peace with the world at this point is important. We dont need or
want another war and i am sure that both Europe and Russia dont want it on their turf but it
seems we keep sticking our finger in their eye. If there is another war it will be the last
war. As Einstein said, after the 3rd World War we will be using sticks and stones to fight
it.
Clint Liquor , 44 minutes ago
Cohen truly was an island of reason in a sea of insanity. Ironic that those panicked over
climate change are unconcerned about the increasing threat of Nuclear War.
thunderchief , 41 minutes ago
One of the very few level headed people on Russia.
All thats left are anti Russia-phobic nut jobs.
Send in the clowns.
Stephen Cohen isn't around to call them what they are anymore.
Eastern Whale , 55 minutes ago
cooperate with Russia
Has the US ever cooperated with anyone?
fucking truth , 3 minutes ago
That is the crux. All or nothing.
Mustafa Kemal , 49 minutes ago
Ive read several of his books. They are essential, imo, if you want to understand modern
russian history.
Normal , 1 hour ago
The bankers created the new CCP cold war.
evoila , 19 minutes ago
Max Boot is an effing idiot. Tucker wiped him clean too. It was an insult to Stephen to
even put them on the same panel.
RIP Stephen.
Gary Sick is the equivalent to Stephen, except for Iran. He too is of an era of competence
which is and will be missed as their voices are drowned out by neocon warmongers
thebigunit , 17 minutes ago
I heard Stephen Cohen a number of time in John Bachelor's podcasts.
He seemed very lucid and made a lot of sense.
He made it very clear that he thought the Democrat's "Trump - Russia collusion schtick"
was a bunch of crap.
He didn't sound like a leftie, but I'm sure he never told me the stuff he discussed with
his wife who was editor of the left wing "The Nation" magazine.
Boogity , 9 minutes ago
Cohen was a traditional old school anti-war Liberal. They're essentially extinct now with
the exception of a few such as Tulsi Gabbard and Dennis Kucinich who have both been
ostracized from the Democrat Party and the political system.
Allegations that a group or a political figure is neo-fascist are usually hotly contested,
especially when the term is used as a political epithet . The traits that provoke
such an epithet include usually includes ultranationalism, some kind of racial supremacy, extreme
authoritarianism, and xenophobia. Connection of the political movement or a politician to
intelligence service( in the USA to CIA) are more rarely used but Bush Senior was often called a
fascist.
From Fascism in North America -
Wikipedia "American intellectuals paid considerable attention to Mussolini, but few became
his supporters. He did have popular support in the Italian American community.[19][20]
In the so-called Business Plot in 1933, anti-war speaker Smedley Butler claimed that wealthy
businessmen were plotting to create a fascist veterans' organization and use it in a coup
d'état to overthrow American President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1934, Butler testified to
the Special Committee on Un-American Activities (the "McCormack-Dickstein Committee") on these
claims. Dickstein, however, was a paid Soviet spy, and historians have not identified any
business leaders as a plotter.[21]
During the 1930s Virgil Effinger led the paramilitary Black Legion, a violent offshoot of the
Ku Klux Klan that sought a revolution to establish fascism in the United States.[22] Although
responsible for a number of attacks, the Black Legion was very much a peripheral band of
militants. More important were the Silver Legion of America, founded in 1933 by William Dudley
Pelley, and the German American Bund, which emerged the same year from a number of older groups,
including the Friends of New Germany and the Free Society of Teutonia. Both of these groups
looked to Nazism for their inspiration.
While these groups enjoyed some support, they were largely peripheral. A more prominent
leader, Father Charles Coughlin, sparked concern among some on the left at the time. Coughlin,
who publicly endorsed fascism, was unable to become involved in active politics because of his
status as a priest.[23] Other fascists active in the US included the publisher Seward Collins,
the broadcaster Robert Henry Best, the inventor Joe McWilliams and the writer Ezra Pound.
I try to avoid these terms like "fascism," but it has become clear that Donald J. Trump
actively seeks to become an at least authoritarian leader of the US...
Bert Schlitz , September 20, 2020 3:49 pm
Fascism??? Nope. Zionism, yup. It's a form.
September 20, 2020 6:44 pm
We probably need to distinguish between fascism and neo-fascism. Those are two different
social models.
Fascism proper name is "national socialism." It is different from "national
neoliberalism" as advocated by Trump. In many ways, Classic Fascism strongly correlates
with the mental state of nation which is attacked by strong enemy, the enemy which has
supporters inside the country. It was also a revolt against financial oligarchy while
masking it with the particular national identity, due to historical for Europe
over-representation of Jews in financial industry. The distinct feature of fascism is its
strong aversion to the excessive financialization of economy and banking, which fascists
consider evil.
Often it is also connected with the attempt of modernization of the country "from
above."
The classic fascism involve charismatic leader, unhinged militarism, cult of the army,
unhinged nationalism and cult of personal scarifies in the name of the country, violence
against opponents and the rejection of parliamentary democracy.
National socialism model of the state was the first which emphasized the key role on
intelligence agencies in suppressing of the dissent and as a tool of infiltration into
opposition. Surveillance of the population became vital state function. It was fascism that
invented the role of intelligence agencies as the major part of oppressive apparatus of the
state. It re-invented "political police" on a new level in the form of Gestapo.
For the most part (and that's why many researchers do not consider Franco regime as a
proper fascist state) t also was defined by openly proclaimed goal of external expansion.
In this sense it is not unlike neoliberal states with the only difference in tools --
direct army occupation vs. indirect occupation via financial capital penetration and
subjugation of nation via debt and the control of its elite (debt slave mechanism)
Scapegoated ethnic minorities was typical only for selected national variants and first
of all for the German variant, (where it were Jews and Gypsies.)
BTW the formal program of NSDAP (not that they intended to implement it) was to the left
of the current Democratic Party Platform
.
The 25-point Program of the NSDAP
7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a
livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total
population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be
expelled from the Reich.
8. Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all
non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to
leave the Reich.
9.All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.
10.The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically.
The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but
must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all.
Consequently, we demand:
11.Abolition of unearned (work and labor) incomes. Breaking of debt
(interest)-slavery.
12.In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war
demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime
against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13.We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
14.We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
15.We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
16.We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate
communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small
firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or
municipality.
17.We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free
expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and
prevention of all speculation in land.
18.We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to
the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to
be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
21.The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and
child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of
the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all
organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
22. We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
Neo-fascism is something very different and less defined. It is unclear if Trump's
"national neoliberalism" can be classified as neo-fascism (which in a very simplified
meaning is fascism within the bounds of parliamentary democracy) . I am not an expert on
the topic. But clearly several things simply do not match. First of all is should strives,
at least on the level of program, to raise the standard of living of lower 80% of
population. This is not the case with Trump.
Terry , September 20, 2020 7:28 pm
...Mostly, I am concerned that SCOTUS will become a rubber stamp for the oligarchs...
I do not know whether it is fascism, neither whatever or just the " law of the jungle",
but it is bad.
Bert Schlitz , September 20, 2020 8:26 pm
Classical Fascism is just socialism, with violent tribalism. Soviet Russia went into this
as well by 1928, became known as social fascism as they starved nonrussian areas of the
Soviet to industrialize rapidly in roughly 10 years.
What's stupidly called neofascism now is just zionist/conservative authoritarianism.
Progressive authoritarianism is from Millsian liberalism, which many people do not get.
Fred C. Dobbs September 21, 2020 11:34 am
'Classical Fascism is just socialism, with violent tribalism.'
Fascism, as instituted by Benito Mussolini, is certainly NOT 'just socialism'. Wikipedia: Italian Fascism (Italian:
fascismo italiano), also known as Classical Fascism or simply Fascism, is the original fascist ideology as developed in Italy by
Giovanni Gentile and Benito Mussolini. The ideology is associated with a series of two political parties led by Benito Mussolini
…
Ron (RC) Weakley (A.K.A., Darryl For A While At EV) September 21, 2020 12:11 pm @Fred,
THX. Perhaps Nationalist Socialist was taken too literally there. In practice, Fascism was actually devoutly anti=socialist.
Also, congrats on your Boston Globe post given a thread.
That's naive take. Wary knows quite a bit about Antifa. Most probably the key people are
iether FBI agents or informants. The problem is that he find Antifa activities politically
useful. That's why he does not want to shut it down. This again put FBI in the role of kingmaker,
like under Comey.
Also don't forget that Brennan faction of CIA is still in power and that means the "deep
state" still is in control like was the case during Mueller investigation.
In May of 2017, President Trump did the right thing and fired FBI Director James Comey, the
individual at the center of the attempt to overturn the 2016 election results. Comey
orchestrated the spying efforts on President Trump and his campaign, which included the FBI
improperly applying for four separate Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court warrants to
eavesdrop on campaign aide Carter Page. He also authorized a politically motivated
investigation into Lt. General Michael Flynn and encouraged the entrapment of Flynn by his FBI
agents in an infamous White House interview.
Clearly, Comey was a disastrous FBI Director; however, the President made a terrible choice
when he replaced him with Christopher Wray, a bureaucrat who has not reformed the agency in any
meaningful way. He also seems to be incapable of identifying the real threats that are facing
the country.
In testimony on Thursday before the House Homeland Security Committee, Wray made a series of
remarkable claims. He stated that Antifa is not a group but is more of "an ideology or maybe a
movement." He also refused to identify Chinese efforts to interrupt the 2020 election and again
focused attention on activities from Russia.
With these remarks, Wray is doing the bidding of the Democrats and following their talking
points. Regarding Antifa violence, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY),
claimed it was a "myth."
Nadler has been in his congressional cocoon for too long. Antifa has been active for several
years, but since the death of George Floyd on May 25, it has intensified its activities around
the country. Millions of Americans have seen the frequent and disturbing video footage of
rioting and looting throughout the country. According to U.S. Congressman Dan Crenshaw (R-TX),
"there have been more than 550 declared riots, many stoked by extremists, Antifa and the BLM
(Black Lives Matter) organization."
In his comments to Wray at the committee meeting, Crenshaw also noted the rioters have done
an extensive amount of damage. He stated that "between one and two billion dollars of insurance
claims will be paid out. That doesn't come close to measuring the actual and true damage to
people's lives, not even close."
Crenshaw is right as many of our urban areas, such as New York, Washington D.C.,
Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland among others have been devastated by a series of violent
protests. In the past few months, scores of monuments have been destroyed, and significant
damage has been done to businesses and public buildings. The group has also attacked innocent
civilians and targeted police officers. As Crenshaw asserted in this rebuttal to Wray, Antifa
matches the definition of a domestic terrorist organization.
This article is dedicated to the memory of an activist, inspiration, and recent friend:
Kevin Zeese. Its scope, sweep, and ambition are meant to match that of Kevin's outsized
influence. At that, it must inevitably fail – and its shortfalls are mine alone. That
said, the piece's attempt at a holistic critique of 19 years worth of war and cultural
militarization would, I hope, earn an approving nod from Kevin – if only at the
attempt. He will be missed by so many; I count myself lucky to have gotten to know him.
– Danny Sjursen
The rubble was still smoldering at Ground Zero when the U.S. House of Representatives
voted to
essentially transform itself into the Israeli
Knesset , or parliament. It was 19 years ago, 11:17pm Washington D.C. time on September
14, 2001 when the People's Chamber approved House Joint Resolution 64, the Authorization for
the Use of Military Force (AUMF) "against those responsible for the recent attacks."
Naturally, that was before the precise identities, and full scope, of "those responsible"
were yet known – so the resolution's rubber-stamp was obscenely open-ended by
necessity, but also by design.
The Senate had passed their own version by roll call vote about 12
hours earlier. The combined congressional tally was 518 to one. Only Representative Barbara
Lee of California
cast a dissenting vote , and even delivered a brief, prescient speech on the House floor.
It's almost hard to watch and listen all these years later as her voice cracks with emotion
amidst all that truth-telling
:
I am convinced that military action will not prevent further acts of international
terrorism against the United States. This is a very complex and complicated matter
However difficult this vote may be, some of us must urge the use of restraint. Our country
is in a state of mourning. Some of us must say, let's step back for a moment and think
through the implications of our actions today, so that this does not spiral out of
control
Now I have agonized over this vote. But I came to grips with opposing this resolution
during the very painful, yet very beautiful memorial service. As a member of the clergy so
eloquently said, "As we act, let us not become the evil that we deplore."
For her lone stance – itself courageous, even had she not since been
vindicated – Rep. Lee suffered
insults and death threats so intense that she needed around-the-clock bodyguards for a
time. It's hard to be right in a room full of the wrong – especially angry, scared, and
jingoistic ones. Yet the tragedy is America has become many of the things we purport to
deplore: the US now boasts a one-trick-pony foreign policy and a militarized society to
boot.
Endless imperial interventions and perennial policing at home and abroad,
counterproductive military adventurism, governance by permanent "emergency" fiat, and an ever
more martial-society? We've seen this movie before; in fact it's still playing – in
Israel. Without implying that Israel, as an entity, is somehow "evil," theirs was simply not
a path the US need or ought to have gone down.
"A Republic, If You Can Keep It"
In the nearly two decades since its passing, the AUMF has been cited at least
41 times in some 17 countries and on the high seas . The
specified nations-states included Afghanistan, Cuba (Guantanamo Bay), Djibouti, Eritrea,
Ethiopia, Georgia, Iraq, Kenya, Libya, Philippines, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Jordan, Turkey,
Niger, Cameroon, and the broader African "Sahel Region" – which presumably also covers
the unnamed, but real, US troop presence in
Nigeria, Chad and Mali. That's a lot of unnecessary digressions – missions that
haven't, and couldn't, have been won. All of that aggression abroad predictably boomeranged
back home , in the
guise of freedoms constrained, privacy surveilled, plus cops and culture militarized.
Inevitably, just a few days ago, every publication, big and small, carried obligatory and
ubiquitous 9/11 commemoration pieces. Far fewer will even note the AUMF anniversary. Yet it
was the US government's response – not the attacks themselves – which most
altered American strategy and society. For in dutifully deciding on immediate military
retaliation, a "global war," even, on a tactic ("terror") and a concept ("evil") at that,
this republic fell prey to the Founders' great
obsession . Unable to agree on much else, they shared fears that the nascent American
experiment would suffer Rome's " ancestral curse " of ambition
– and its subsequent path to empire. Hence, Benjamin Franklin's supposed
retort to a crowd question upon exiting the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, on
just what they'd just framed: "A republic, if you can keep it!"
Yet perhaps a modern allegory is the more appropriate one: by signing on to an endless
cycle of tit-for-tat terror retaliation on 9/14, We the People's representatives chose the
Israeli path. Here was a state forged
by the sword that it's consequently lived by ever since,
and may well die by – though the cause of death, no doubt, would likely be
self-inflicted. The first statutory step towards Washington transforming into Tel Aviv was
that AUMF sanction 19 years ago tonight.
No doubt, some militarist fantasies came far closer on the heels of the September 11th
suicide strikes: According to notes taken by aides,
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld waited a whole five hours after Flight 77 impacted his
Pentagon to instruct subordinates to gather the "best info fast. Judge whether good enough to
hit [Saddam Hussein] at same time Not only [Osama Bin Laden]." As for the responsive strike
plans, "Go massive," the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and
not."
Nonetheless, it was Congress' dutiful AUMF-acquiescence that made America's
Israeli-metamorphosis official. The endgame that ain't even ended yet has been dreadful. It's
almost impossible to fathom, in retrospect, but remember that as of September 14, 2001,
7,052 American troops and,
very conservatively, at least 800,000 foreigners (335,000 of them
civilians) hadn't yet – and need not have – died in the ensuing AUMF-sanctioned
worldwide wars.
Now, US forces didn't directly kill all of them, but that's about 112 September
11ths-worth of dead civilians by the very lowest estimates – perishing in wars of
(American) choice. That's worth reckoning with; and needn't imply a dismissive attitude to
our 9/11 fallen. I, for one, certainly take that date rather seriously.
My 9/11s
There are more than a dozen t-shirts hanging in my closet right now that are each
emblazoned with the phrase "Annual Marty Egan 5K Memorial Run/Walk." This event is
held back in the old neighborhood, honoring a very close family friend – a New York
City fire captain killed
in the towers' collapse. As my Uncle Steve's best bud, he was in and out of my grandparents'
seemingly communal Midland Beach, Staten Island bungalow – before Hurricane Sandy
washed many of them away – throughout my childhood. When I was a teenager, just
before leaving for West Point, Marty would tease me for being "too skinny for a soldier" in
the local YMCA weight-room and broke-balls about my vague fear of heights as I shakily
climbed a ladder in Steve's backyard just weeks before I left for cadet basic training.
Always delivered with a smile, of course.
Marty was doing some in-service training on September 11th, and didn't have to head
towards the flames, but he hopped on a passing truck and rode to his death anyway. I doubt
anyone who knew him would've expected anything less. Mercifully, Marty's body was one of the
first – and at the time, only – recovered , just two days after Congress chose war in
his, and 2,976 others' name. He was found wearing borrowed gear from engine company he'd
jumped in with.
I was a freshman cadet at West Point when I heard all of this news – left feeling so
very distant from home, family, neighborhood, though I was just a 90 minute drive north.
Frankly, I couldn't wait to get in the fights that followed. It's no excuse, really: but I
was at that moment exactly 18 years and 41 days old. And indeed, I'd spend the next 18
training, prepping, and fighting the wars I then wanted – and, ( Apocalypse
Now-style )
"for my sins" – "they gave me."
Anyway, Marty's family – and more so his memory – along with the general 9/11
fallout back home, have swirled in and out of my life ever since. In the immediate term,
after the attacks my mother turned into a sort of wake&funeral-hopper, attending
literally dozens over that first year. As soon as Marty had a headstone in Moravian Cemetery
– where my Uncle Steve once dug graves – I draped a pair of my new dog tags over
it on a weekend trip home. It was probably a silly and indulgent gesture, but it felt
profound at the time. Then, soon enough, the local street signs started
changing to honor fallen first responders – including the intersection outside my
church, renamed "Martin J. Egan Jr. Corner." (Marty used to joke , after all, that he'd graduated
from UCLA – that is, the University, corner of Lincoln Avenue, in the
neighborhood.)
Five years later, while I was fighting a war in a country (Iraq) that had nothing to do
with the 9/11 attacks, Marty's mother Pat still worked at the post office from which my own
mom shipped me countless care packages. They'd chat; have a few nostalgic laughs; then Pat
would wish me well and pass on her regards. When some of my soldiers started getting killed,
I remember my mother telling me it was sometimes hard to look Pat in the eye on the post
office trips – perhaps she feared an impending kinship of lost sons. But it didn't go
that way.
So, suffice it to say, I don't take the 9/11 attacks, or the victims, lightly. That
doesn't mean the US responses, and their results, were felicitous or forgivable. They might
even dishonor the dead. I don't pretend to precisely know, or speak for, the Egan family's
feelings. Still, my own sense is that few among the lost or their loved ones left behind
would've imagined or desired their deaths be used to justify all of the madness, futility,
and liberties-suppression blowback that's ensued.
Nevertheless, my nineteen Septembers 11th have been experienced in oft-discomfiting ways,
and my assessment of the annual commemorations, rather quickly began to change. By the tenth
anniversary, a Reuters reporter spent a couple of days on the base I commanded in
Afghanistan. At the time the outpost sported a flag gifted by my uncle, which had previously
flown above a New York Fire Department house. I suppose headquarters sent the journalist my
way because I was the only combat officer from New York City – but the brass got more
than they'd bargained for. By then, amidst my second futile war "surge," and three more of
the lives and several more of the limbs of my soldiers lost on this deployment, I
wasn't feeling particularly sentimental. Besides, I'd already turned – ethically and
intellectually – against what seemed to me demonstrably hopeless and counterproductive
military exercises.
Much to the chagrin of my career-climbing lieutenant colonel, I
waxed a bit (un)poetic on the war I was then fighting – "against farm boys with
guns," I not-so-subtly styled it – and my hometown's late suffering that ostensibly
justified it. "When I see this place, I don't see the towers," I said, sitting inside my
sandbagged operations center near the Taliban's very birthplace in Kandahar province. Then
added: "My family sees it more than I do. They see it dead-on, direct. I'm a professional
soldier. It's not about writing the firehouse number on the bullet. I'm not one for
gimmicks." It was coarse and a bit petulant, sure, but what I meant – what I
felt – was that these wars, even this " good " Afghan
one (per President Obama), no longer, and may never have, had much to do with 9/11, Marty, or
all the other dead.
The global war on terrorism (GWOT, as it was once fashionable to say) was but a reflex for
a sick society pre-disposed to violence, symptomatic of a militarist system led by a
government absent other ideas or inclinations. Still, I flew that FDNY flag – even
skeptical soldiers can be a paradoxical lot.
Origin Myths: Big Lies and Long Cons
Although the final approved AUMF
declared that "such acts [as terrorism] continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat
to the national security and foreign policy of the United States," that wasn't then, and
isn't now, even true . The toppled towers, pummeled Pentagon, and flying suicide
machines of 9/11 were no doubt an absolute horror; and such visions understandably clouded
collective judgment. Still, more sober
statistics demonstrate, and sensible strategy demands, the prudence of perspective.
From 1995 to 2016, a total of 3,277 Americans have been killed in terrorist acts on US
soil. If we subtract the 9/11 anomaly, that's just 300 domestic deaths – or 14 per
year. Which raises the impolite question: why don't policymakers talk about terrorism the
same way they do shark attacks or lightning strikes? The latter, incidentally, kill an average of 49
Americans annually. Odd, then, that the US hasn't
expended $6.4 trillion, or more than 15,000 soldier and contractor lives ,
responding to bolts from the blue. Nor has it kicked off or catalyzed global wars that have
directly killed – by that conservative estimate – 335,000 civilians.
See, that's the thing: for Americans, like the Israelis, some
lives matter more than others. We can just about calculate the macabre life-value ratios
in each society. Take Israel's 2014 onslaught on the Gaza Strip. In its fifty-day onslaught
of Operation Protective Edge, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF)
killed 2,131 Palestinians – of whom 1,473 were identified as civilians, including
501 children. As for the wildly inaccurate and desperate Hamas rocket strikes that the IDF
"edge" ostensibly "protected" against: those killed a whopping four civilians. To review:
apparently one Israeli non-combatant is worth 368 Palestinian versions. Now, seeing as
everything – including death-dealing is "bigger in Texas" – consider the macro
American application. To wit, 3,277 US civilians versus 335,000 foreign innocents equals a
cool 102-to-1 quotient of the macabre.
Such formulas become banal realities when one believes the big lies undergirding the
entire enterprise. Here, Israel and America share origin myths that frame the long con of
forever wars. That is, that acts of terror with stateless origins are best responded to with
reflexive and aggressive military force. In my first ever published article
– timed for Independence Day 2014 – I argued that America's post-9/11 "original
sin" was framing its response as a war in the first place. As a result, I – then a
serving US Army captain – concluded, "In place of sound strategy, we've been handed our
own set of martyrs: more than 6,500 dead soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines." More than
500 American troopers have died since, along with who knows how many foreign civilians. It's
staggering how rare such discussions remain in mainstream discourse.
Within that mainstream, often the conjoined Israeli-American twins even share the same
cruelty cheerleaders. Take the man that author Belen Fernandez not inaccurately
dubs "Harvard Law School's resident psychopath:" Alan Dershowitz. During Israel's brutal
2006 assault on Lebanon, this armchair-murderer took to the pages of the Wall Street
Journal with a column titled " Arithmetic of Pain ."
Dershowitz argued for a collective "reassessment of the laws of war" in light of
increasingly blurred distinctions between combatants and civilians. Thus, offering official
"scholarly" sanction for the which-lives-matter calculus, he unveiled the concept of a
"continuum of 'civilianality." Consider some of his cold and callous language:
Near the most civilian end of this continuum are the pure innocents – babies,
hostages at the more combatant end are civilians who willingly harbor terrorists, provide
material resources and serve as human shields; in the middle are those who support the
terrorists politically, or spiritually.
Got that? Leaving aside Dershowitz's absurd assumption that there are loads of
Palestinians just itching to volunteer as "human shields," it's clear that when conflicts are
thus framed – all manner of cruelties become permissible.
In Israel, it begins with stated policies of internationally- prohibited
collective punishment. For example, during the 2006 Lebanon War that killed exponentially
more innocent Lebanese than Israelis, the IDF chief of staff's announced
intent was to deliver "a clear message to both greater Beirut and Lebanon that they've
swallowed a cancer [Hezbollah] and have to vomit it up, because if they don't their country
will pay a very high price." It ends with Tel Aviv's imposition of an abusive
calorie-calculus on Palestinians.
In 2008, Israeli authorities actually
drew up a document computing the minimum caloric intake necessary for Gaza's residents to
suffer (until they yield), but avoid outright starvation. Two years earlier, that wonderful
wordsmith Dov Weisglass, senior advisor to then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, explained that
Israeli policy was designed "to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of
hunger."
Lest that sound beyond the pale for we Americans, recall that it was the first female
secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, who ten years earlier said of 500,000 Iraqi
children's deaths under crippling U.S. sanctions: "we think, the price is worth it."
Furthermore, it's unclear how the Trump administration's current sanctions-
clampdown on Syrians unlucky enough to live in President Bashar al Assad-controlled
territory is altogether different from the "Palestinian diet."
After all, even one of the Middle East Institute's resident regime-change-enthusiasts,
Charles Lister, recently admitted
that America's criminally-euphemized "Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act" may induce a
"famine." In other words, according to two humanitarian experts
writing on the national security website War on the Rocks , "hurting the very
civilians it aims to protect while largely failing to affect the Syrian government
itself."
It is, and has long been, thus: Israeli prime ministers and American presidents, Bibi and
The Donald, Tel Aviv and Washington – are peas in a punishing pod.
Emergencies as Existences
In both Israel and America, frightened populations finagled by their uber-hawkish
governments acquiesce to militarized states of "emergencies" as a way of life. In seemingly
no time at all, the latest U.S. threshold got so low that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
matter-of-factly
declared one to override a congressional-freeze and permit the $8.1 billion sale of
munitions to Gulf Arab militaries. When some frustrated lawmakers asked the State
Department's inspector general to investigate, the resultant report
found that the agency failed to limit [Yemeni] civilian deaths from the sales –
most bombed by the Saudi's subsequent arsenal of largesse. (As for the inspector general
himself? He was "
bullied ," then fired, by Machiavelli Mike).
Per the standard, Israel is the more surface-overt partner. As the IDF-veteran author Haim
Bresheeth-Zabner writes in his new book , An Army Like
No Other: How the Israel Defense Forces Made a Nation , Israel is the "only country in
which Emergency Regulations have been in force for every minute of its existence."
Perhaps more worryingly, such emergency existences boomerang back to militarized
Minneapolis and Jerusalem streets alike. It's worth nothing that just five days after the
killing of George Floyd, an Israeli police officer
gunned down an unarmed, autistic, Palestinian man on his way to a school for the
disabled. Even the 19-year-old killer's 21-year-old commander (instructive, that)
admitted the cornered victim wasn't a threat. But here's the rub: when the scared and
confused Palestinian man ran from approaching police at 6 a.m. , initial officers
instinctually reported a potential "terrorist" on the loose.
Talk about global terror coming home to roost on local streets. And why not here in the
States? It wasn't but two months back that President Trump labeled peaceful
demonstrators in D.C., and nationwide protesters
tearing down Confederate statues, as "terrorists." That's more than a tad troubling,
since, as noted, almost anything is permissible against terrorists, thus tagged.
In other words, the Israeli-American, post-9/11 (or -9/14) militarized connections go
beyond the cosmetic and past sloganeering. Then again, the latter can be instructive. In the
wake of the latest Jerusalem police shooting, protesters in Israel's Occupied Territories
held up placards declaring solidarity with Black Lives Matter (BLM). One read:
"Palestinians support the black intifada." Yet the roots of shared systemic injustices run
far deeper.
Though it remains impolitic to say so here in the US,
both "BLM and the Palestinian rights movement are [by their own accounts] fighting
settler-colonial states and structures of domination and supremacy that value, respectively,
white and Jewish lives over black and Palestinian ones." They're hardly wrong.
All-but-official apartheid reigns in
Occupied Palestine, and a de-facto two-tier system
favoring Jewish citizens, prevails within Israel itself. Similarly, the US grapples with
chattel slavery's legacy, lingering effects institutional Jim Crow-apartheid, and its
persistent system of gross, if unofficial, socio-economic racial disparity.
Though there are hopeful rumblings in post-Floyd America, neither society has much
grappled with the immediacy and intransigency of their established and routine devaluation of
(internal and external) Arab and African lives. Instead, in another gross similarity,
Israelis and Americans prefer to laud any ruling elites who even pretend towards mildly
reformist rhetoric (rather than action) as brave peacemakers.
In fact, two have won the Nobel Peace Prize. In America, there was the untested Obama: he
the
king of drones and free-press-suppression – whose main qualification for the award
was not being named George W. Bush. In Israel, the prize went to late Prime Minister Shimon
Peres. According to Bresheeth-Zabner, Peres was the "mind behind the military-industrial
complex" in Israel, and also architect of the infamous
1996 massacre of 106 people sheltering at a United Nations compound in South Lebanon. In
such societies as ours and Israel's, and amidst interminable wars, too often politeness
passes for principle.
Military Mirrors
Predictably, social and cultural rot – and strategic delusions – first
manifest in a nation's military. Neither Israel's nor America's has a particularly impressive
record of late. The IDF won a few important wars in its first 25 years of existence, then
came back from a near catastrophic defeat to prevail in the 1973 Yom Kippur War; but since
then, it's at best muddled through near-permanent lower-intensity conflicts after invading
Southern Lebanon in 1978. In fact, its 22-year continuous counter-guerilla campaign there
– against Palestinian resistance groups and then Lebanese Hezbollah – slowly bled
the IDF dry in a quagmire often called " Israel's
Vietnam ." It was, in fact, proportionally more deadly
for its troops than America's Southeast Asian debacle – and ended (in 2000) with an
embarrassing unilateral withdrawal.
Additionally, Tel Aviv's perma-military-occupation of the Palestinian territories of the
West Bank and Gaza Strip hasn't just flagrantly violated
International law and several UN resolutions – but blown up in the IDF's face. Ever
since vast numbers of exasperated and largely abandoned (by Arab armies) Palestinians rose up
in the 1987 Intifada
– initially peaceful protests – and largely due to the IDF's counterproductively
vicious suppression, Israel has been trapped in endless imperial policing and
low-to-mid-level counterinsurgency.
None of its major named military operations in the West Bank and/or Gaza Strip –
Operations Defensive Shield (2002), Days of Penitence (2004), Summer Rains (2006), Cast Lead
(2008-09), Pillar of Defense (2012), Protective Edge (2014), among others – has
defeated or removed Hamas, nor have they halted the launch of inaccurate but persistent
Katyusha rockets.
In fact, the wildly disproportionate toll on Palestinian civilians in each and every
operation, and the intransigence of Israel's ironclad occupation has only earned Tel Aviv
increased international condemnation and fresh generations of resistors to combat. The IDF
counts minor tactical successes and suffers broader strategic failure. As even a fairly
sympathetic Rand report on the Gaza operations
noted, "Israel's grand strategy became 'mowing the grass' – accepting its inability to
permanently solve the problem and instead repeatedly targeting leadership of Palestinian
militant organizations to keep violence manageable."
The American experience has grown increasingly similar over the last three-quarters of a
century. Unless one counts modern trumped-up Banana
Wars like those in Grenada (1983) and Panama (1989), or the lopsided 100-hour First
Persian Gulf ground campaign (1991), the US military, too, hasn't won a meaningful victory
since 1945. Korea (1950-53) was a grinding and costly draw; Vietnam (1965-72) a quixotic
quagmire; Lebanon (1982-84) an unnecessary and muddled
mess ; Somalia (1992-94) a mission-creeping fiasco;
Bosnia/Kosovo (1992-) an over-hyped and unsatisfying diversion. Yet matters deteriorated
considerably, and the Israeli-parallels grew considerably, after Congress chose
endless war on September 14, 2001.
America's longest ever war, in Afghanistan, started as a seeming slam dunk but has turned
out to be an intractable operational defeat. That lost cause has been a
dead war walking for over a decade. Operations Iraqi Freedom (2003-11) and Inherent
Resolve (2014-) may prove, respectively, America's most counterproductive and aimless
missions ever. Operation Odyssey Dawn, the 2011 air campaign in pursuit of Libyan regime
change, was a debacle – the entire region still grapples with its
detritus of jihadi profusion, refugee dispersion, and ongoing proxy war.
US support for the Saudi-led terror war on Yemen hasn't made an iota of strategic sense,
but has left America criminally
complicit in immense civilian-suffering. Despite the hype, the relatively young US Africa
Command (AFRICOM) was never really "about Africans," and its dozen years worth of far-flung
campaigns have only further militarized a long-suffering continent and
generated more terrorists. Like Israel's post-1973 operations, America's post-2001 combat
missions have simply been needless, hopeless, and counterproductive.
Consider a few other regrettable U.S.-Israeli military connections over these last two
decades:
Both have set their loudly proclaimed principles aside and made devil's bargains
with the venal Saudis (many of whom really do hate our values), as well as with
the cynical military coup-artists in Egypt.
Both have increasingly engaged in " wars of choice
" and grown reliant on the snake oil of "magical" air power to [not] win them. In fact,
during the 2006 war there, the IDF's first-ever air force officer to serve as chief of
staff declared
his intent to use such sky power to "turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years." How's
that for the head of a force that still styles
itself "the most moral army in the world." It's hard to see much moral difference
between that and America's ever-secretive drone program (perhaps 14,000 total strikes) and
the US government's constant and purposeful underreporting of the thousands of civilians
they've killed.
Both vaunted militaries broke their supposedly unbreakable backs in ill-advised
invasions built on false pretenses. The Israeli historian Martin van Creveld has famously
called
Israel's 1982 Lebanon War – and the quagmire that resulted – his country's
"greatest folly." The mainstream US national security analyst Tom Ricks – hardly a
dove himself – went a step further: the 2003 "American military adventure in Iraq"
was nothing short of a Fiasco
.
Both armies have seen their conventional war competence and ethical standards
measurably deteriorate amidst lengthy militarized-policing campaigns. As van Creveld said
of the IDF during the 1982 Lebanon invasion (after it enabled
the vicious massacre of Palestinian refugees by Christian militiamen: it was reduced from
the superb fighting force of a "small but brave people" into a "high-tech, but soft,
bloated, strife-ridden, responsibility-shy and dishonest army."
The wear and tear from the South Lebanon occupation and from decades of beating up on
downtrodden and trapped Palestinians damaged Israel's vaunted military. According to an
after-action review, these operations"weakened the IDF's operational capabilities." Thus,
when Israel's nose was more than a bit bloodied in the 2006 war with Hezbollah, IDF analysts
and retired officers were quick – and not exactly incorrect – to blame the
decaying effect of endless low-intensity warfare.
At the time, two general staff members, Major Generals Yishai Bar and Yiftach Ron-Tal,
"warned that as a result of the preoccupation with missions in the territories, the IDF had
lost its maneuverability and capability to fight in mountainous terrain." Van Creveld added
that: "Among the commanders, the great majority can barely remember when they trained for and
engaged in anything more dangerous than police-type operations."
Similar voices have sounded the
alarm about the post-9/11 American military. Perhaps the loudest has been my fellow West
Point History faculty alum, retired Colonel Gian Gentile. This former tank battalion
commander and Iraq War vet described "America's deadly embrace of counterinsurgency" as a
Wrong
Turn . Specifically, he's
argued that "counterinsurgency has perverted [the way of] American war," pushed the
"defense establishment into fanciful thinking," and thus "atrophying [its] core fighting
competencies."
Instructively, Gentile
cited "The Israeli Defense Forces' recent [2006] experience in Lebanon There were many
reasons for its failure, but one of them, is that its army had done almost nothing but
[counterinsurgency] in the Palestinian territories, and its ability to fight against a
strident enemy had atrophied." Maybe more salient was Gentile's other
rejoinder that, historically, "nation-building operations conducted at gunpoint don't
turn out well" and tend to be as (or more) bloody and brutal as other wars.
Finally, and related to Gentile's last point, both militaries fell prey to the
brutality and cruelty so common in prolonged counterinsurgency and counter-guerilla combat.
Consider the resurrected utility of that infamous adage of
absurdity mouthed by a US Army major in Vietnam: "it became necessary to destroy the
town to save it." He supposedly meant the February 1968 decision to bomb and shell the city
of Ben Tre in the Mekong Delta, regardless of the risk to civilians therein.
Fast forward a decade, and B?n Tre's ghost was born again in the matter-of-fact admission
of the IDF's then chief of staff, General Mordecai Gur. Asked if, during its 1978 invasion of
South Lebanon, Israel had bombed civilians "without discrimination," he
fired back : "Since when has the population of South Lebanon been so sacred? They know
very well what the terrorists were doing. . . . I had four villages in South Lebanon
bombarded without discrimination." When pressed to confirm that he believed "the civilian
population should be punished," Gur's retort was "And how!" Should it surprise us then, that
33 years later the concept was
rebooted to flatten presumably (though this has been contested) booby-trapped villages in
my old stomping grounds of Kandahar, Afghanistan?
In sum, Israel and America are senseless strategy-simpatico. It's a demonstrably
disastrous two-way relationship. Our main exports have been guns – $142.3 billion
worth since 1949 (significantly more than any other recipient) – and twin umbrellas
of air defense and
bottomless diplomatic top-cover for Israel's abuses. As to the top-cover export, it's not for
nothing that after the U.S. House rubber-stamped – by a vote of 410-8 – a 2006
resolution (written by the Israel Lobby) justifying IDF attacks on Lebanese civilians, the
"maverick" Republican Patrick Buchanan labeled the legislative body as " our
Knesset ."
Naturally, Tel Aviv responds in kind by shipping America a how-to-guide for societal
militarization, a built-in foreign policy script to their benefit, and the unending ire of
most people in the Greater Middle East. It's a timeless and treasured trade – but it
benefits neither party in the long run.
"Armies With Countries"
It was once
said that Frederick the Great's 18th century Prussia, was "not a country with an army,
but an army with a country." Israel has long been thus. It's probably still truer of them
than us. The Israelis do, after all, have an immersive system of military conscription
– whereas Americans leave the
fighting, killing, and dying to a microscopic and
unrepresentative Praetorian Guard of professionals. Nevertheless, since 9/11 – or,
more accurately, 9/14/2001 – US politics, society, and culture have wildly militarized.
To say the least, the outcomes have been unsatisfying: American troops haven't "won" a
significant war 75 years. Now, the US has set appearances aside once and for all and "
jumped the shark "
towards the gimmick of full-throated imperialism.
There are, of course, real differences in scale and substance between America and Israel.
The latter is the size
of Massachusetts, with the population of New
York City. Its "Defense Force" requires most of its of-age population to wage its offensive
wars and perennial policing of illegally occupied Palestinians. Israeli society is more
plainly "
prussianized ." Yet in broader and bigger – if less blatant – ways, so is the
post-AUMF United States. America-the-exceptional leads the world in legalized
gunrunning and overseas military
basing . Rather than the globe's self-styled "
Arsenal of Democracy ," the US has become little more than the arsenal of arsenals. So,
given the sway of the behemoth military-industrial-complex and recent Israelification of its
political culture, perhaps it's more accurate to say America is a defense industry with a
country – and not the other way around.
As for 17 year-old me, I didn't think I'd signed up for the Israeli Defense Force on that
sunny West Point morning of July 2, 2001. And, for the first two months and 12 days of my
military career – maybe I hadn't. I sure did serve in its farcical facsimile, though:
fighting its wars for an ensuing 17 more years.
Yet everyone who entered the US military after September 14, 2001 signed up for just that.
Which is a true tragedy.
Danny Sjursen is a retired US Army officer and contributing editor atAntiwar.comHis work has appeared in
the NY Times, LA Times, The Nation, Huff Post, The Hill, Salon, Popular Resistance, and
Tom Dispatch, among other publications. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units
in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the
author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War,Ghostriders of
Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge. His forthcoming book,
Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War is now available forpre-order. Sjursen was recently selected as a 2019-20 Lannan FoundationCultural Freedom Fellow. Follow him on Twitter@SkepticalVet. Visit his
professionalwebsitefor contact info, to schedule speeches or media appearances, and access to his past
work.
By Caitlin Johnstone , an independent journalist based in Melbourne, Australia. Her
website is here and you can follow
her on Twitter @caitoz
...Amid all the pedantic squabbling over when it is and is not legal under US law for a
journalist to expose evidence of US war crimes, we must never lose sight of the fact that (A)
it should always be legal to expose war crimes, (B) it should always be illegal for governments
to hide evidence of their war crimes, (C) war crimes should always be punished, (D) people who
start criminal wars should always be punished, (E) governments should not be permitted to have
a level of secrecy that allows them to start criminal wars, and (F) power and secrecy should
always have an inverse relationship to one another.
The Assange case needs to be fought tooth and claw, but we must keep in mind that it is so
very, very many clicks back from where we need to be as a civilization. In an ideal situation,
governments should be too afraid of the public to keep secrets from them; instead, here we are
begging the most powerful government in the world to please not imprison a journalist because
he arguably did not break the rules that that government made for itself.
Do you see how far that point is from where we need to be?
It's important to remember this. It's important to remember that the amount of evil deeds
power structures will commit is directly proportional to the amount of information they are
permitted to hide from the public. We will not have a healthy world until power and secrecy
have an inverse relationship to each other: privacy for rank-and-file individuals, and
transparency for governments and their officials.
"But what about military secrets?" one might object. Yes, what about military
secrets? What about the fact that virtually all military violence perpetrated by the world's
largest power structures is initiated based on lies ? What about the utterly indisputable fact that the
more secrecy we allow the war machine, the more wars it deceives the public into allowing it to
initiate?
In a healthy world, the most powerful government on Earth wouldn't be trying to squint at
its own laws in such a way that permits the prosecution of a journalist for telling the
truth.
In a healthy world, the most powerful government on Earth wouldn't prosecute anyone for
telling the truth at all.
In a healthy world, governments would prosecute their own war crimes, instead of those who
expose them.
In a healthy world, governments wouldn't commit war crimes at all.
In a healthy world, governments wouldn't start wars at all.
In a healthy world, governments would see truth as something to be desired and actively
sought, not something to be repressed and punished.
In a healthy world, governments wouldn't keep secrets from the public, and wouldn't have any
cause to want to.
In a healthy world, if governments existed at all, they would exist solely as tools for the
people to serve themselves, with full transparency and accountability to those people.
We are obviously a very, very far cry from the kind of healthy world we would all like to
one day find ourselves in. But we should always keep in mind what a healthy world will look
like, and hold it as our true north for the direction that we are pushing in.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
By Caitlin Johnstone , an independent journalist based in Melbourne, Australia. Her
website is here and you can follow
her on Twitter @caitoz
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Reality007 3 hours ago 18 Sep, 2020 10:07 AM
Unfortunately, no criminals that have committed or covered up war crimes, decades ago to
present, will ever be indicted. They are all above the law while all innocents that revealed
the truths must pay highly. We can only pray and hope for the best for Julian Assange.
Fred Dozer Reality007 1 hour ago 18 Sep, 2020 12:16 PM
I see nothing wrong with robbing banks in criminal controlled countries. These governments,
murder, cheat, lie, & steal.
T. Agee Kaye 2 hours ago 18 Sep, 2020 11:10 AM
The right of a people to know what their government is doing, and the potential consequences
of those actions on the people, nation, and society, is inalienable. The exposure of war
crimes and any corruption is not illegal and cannot be made illegal. The trial of Assange is
not about the legality of Assange's actions. It is a display of the influence that criminal
interests have over the government and judiciary. It is an attempt to create legitimacy by
creating precedent. Murder has plenty of precedent. It will never be legitimate.
Jewel Gyn 3 hours ago 18 Sep, 2020 10:21 AM
Agreed but having said that, we are not living in a perfect world. Bully with big fists exist
and the lesser countries just stood by frustrated and sucking their thumbs, silent lest they
be targeted for voicing out. And you can see clearly why US is walking away from any form of
organised voice eg UN.
Odinsson 2 hours ago 18 Sep, 2020 10:51 AM
What we need in the case of Julian Assange is factual reporting. While the motivation to
prosecute Assange is most likely political, there would be no ability to prosecute him were
it not for his active support of PFC Manning's hacking of a DOD information system. It is not
unlawful to publish classified information which was provided to you, so long as you are not
involved in the criminal acts leading to the exfiltration of the data. Had Assange not aided
PFC Manning by looking up hash codes in spreadsheets of known password to hash code
translations then the grand jury would not have indicted him. FWIW, it is my opinion that the
statute of limitations expired long ago and this should be grounds for dismissal of all
charges against him.
jholf 1 hour ago 18 Sep, 2020 12:04 PM
These world leaders, claim to be Christians, ... their God 'commands', "Thou shalt not kill."
Yet, for more than 6 decades, that is exactly what each of these Christian Commanders in
Chief, have done for no reason, other than to fill the pockets of the elite. A man is known
by his deeds, Assange gave us truth, while these world leaders gave us war and destructi
I always assumed that Trump was the candidate of MIC in 2016 elections, while Hillary was the
candidate of "Intelligence community." But it looks like US military is infected with desperados
like Mattis and Trump was unable fully please them despite all his efforts.
But it looks like US military is infected with desperados like Mattis and Trump was unable
fully please them despite all his efforts. Military desperados are not interested in how many
American they deprived of decent standard of living due to outside military expenses. All they
want is to dominate the word and maintain the "Full Spectrum Dominance" whatever it costs.
It is Trump's tortured relationship with the military that stands out the most, especially
as told through the eyes of former Secretary of Defense Jim 'Mad Dog' Mattis, a retired marine
general. It is clear that Bob Woodward spent hours speaking with Mattis -- the insights,
emotions and internal voice captured in the book show a level of intimacy that could only be
reached through in-depth interviews, and Woodward has a well-earned reputation for getting
people to speak to him.
The book makes it clear that Mattis viewed Trump as a threat to the US' standing as the
defender of a rules-based order -- built on the back of decades-old alliances -- that had been
in place since the end of the Second World War.
It also makes it clear that Mattis and the military officers he oversaw placed defending
this order above implementing the will of the American people, as expressed through the free
and fair election that elevated Donald Trump to the position of commander-in-chief. In short,
Mattis and his coterie of generals knew best, and when the president dared issue an order or
instruction that conflicted with their vision of how the world should work, they would do their
best to undermine this order, all the while confirming to the president that it was being
followed.
This trend was on display in Woodward's telling of Trump's efforts to forge better relations
with North Korea. At every turn, Mattis and his military commanders sought to isolate the
president from the reality on the ground, briefing him only on what they thought he needed to
know, and keeping him in the dark about what was really going on.
In a telling passage, Woodward takes us into the mind of Jim Mattis as he contemplates the
horrors of a nuclear war with North Korea, and the responsibility he believed he shouldered
when it came to making the hard decision as to whether nuclear weapons should be used or not.
Constitutionally, the decision was the president's alone to make, something Mattis begrudgingly
acknowledges. But in Mattis' world, he, as secretary of defense, would be the one who
influenced that decision.
Mattis, along with the other general officers described by Woodward, is clearly gripped with
what can only be described as the 'Military Messiah Syndrome'.
What defines this 'syndrome' is perhaps best captured in the words of Emma Sky, the female
peace activist-turned adviser to General Ray Odierno, the one-time commander of US forces in
Iraq. In a frank give-and-take captured by Ms. Sky in her book 'The Unravelling', Odierno spoke
of the value he placed on the military's willingness to defend "freedom" anywhere in the world.
" There is, " he said, " no one who understands more the importance of liberty and
freedom in all its forms than those who travel the world to defend it ."
Ms. Sky responded in typically direct fashion: " One day, I will have you admit that the
[Iraq] war was a bad idea, that the administration was led by a radical neocon program, that
the US's standing in the world has gone down greatly, and that we are far less safe than we
were before 9/11. "
Odierno would have nothing of it. " It will never happen while I'm the commander of
soldiers in Iraq ."
" To lead soldiers in battle ," Ms. Sky noted, " a commander had to believe in the
cause. " Left unsaid was the obvious: even if the cause was morally and intellectually
unsound.
his, more than anything, is the most dangerous thing about the 'Military Messiah Syndrome'
as captured by Bob Woodward -- the fact that the military is trapped in an inherited reality
divorced from the present, driven by precepts which have nothing to with what is, but rather by
what the military commanders believe should be. The unyielding notion that the US military is a
force for good becomes little more than meaningless drivel when juxtaposed with the reality
that the mission being executed is inherently wrong.
The 'Military Messiah Syndrome' lends itself to dishonesty and, worse, to self-delusion. It
is one thing to lie; it is another altogether to believe the lie as truth.
No single
general had the courage to tell Trump allegations against Syria were a hoax
The cruise missile attack on Syria in early April 2017 stands out as a case in point. The
attack was ordered in response to allegations that Syria had dropped a bomb containing the
sarin nerve agent on a town -- Khan Shaykhun -- that was controlled by Al-Qaeda-affiliated
Islamic militants.
Trump was led to believe that the 59 cruise missiles launched against Shayrat Airbase --
where the Su-22 aircraft alleged to have dropped the bombs were based -- destroyed Syria's
capability to carry out a similar attack in the future. When shown post-strike imagery in which
the runways were clearly untouched, Trump was outraged, lashing out at Secretary of Defense
Mattis in a conference call. " I can't believe you didn't destroy the runway !",
Woodward reports the president shouting.
" Mr. President ," Mattis responds in the text, " they would rebuild the runway in
24 hours, and it would have little effect on their ability to deploy weapons. We destroyed the
capability to deploy weapons " for months, Mattis said.
" That was the mission the president had approved, " Woodward writes, clearly
channeling Mattis, " and they had succeeded ."
The problem with this passage is that it is a lie. There is no doubt that Bob Woodward has
the audio tape of Jim Mattis saying these things. But none of it is true. Mattis knew it when
he spoke to Woodward, and Woodward knew it when he wrote the book.
There was no confirmed use of chemical weapons by Syria at Khan Shaykhun. Indeed, the
forensic evidence available about the attack points to the incident being a false flag effort
-- a successful one, it turns out -- on the part of the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamists to
provoke a US military strike against Syria. No targets related to either the production,
storage or handling of chemical weapons were hit by the US cruise missiles, if for no other
reason than no such targets could exist if Syria did not possess and/or use a chemical weapon
against Khan Shaykhun.
Moreover, the US failed to produce a narrative of causality which provided some underlying
logic to the targets that were struck at Khan Shaykhun -- "Here is where the chemical weapons
were stored, here is where the chemical weapons were filled, here is where the chemical weapons
were loaded onto the aircraft." Instead, 59 cruise missiles struck empty aircraft hangars,
destroying derelict aircraft, and killing at least four Syrian soldiers and up to nine
civilians.
The next morning, the same Su-22 aircraft that were alleged to have bombed Khan Shaykhun
were once again taking off from Shayrat Air Base -- less than 24 hours after the US cruise
missiles struck that facility. President Trump had every reason to be outraged by the
results.
But the President should have been outraged by the processes behind the attack, where
military commanders, fully afflicted by 'Military Messiah Syndrome', offered up solutions that
solved nothing for problems that did not exist. Not a single general (or admiral) had the
courage to tell the president that the allegations against Syria were a hoax, and that a
military response was not only not needed, but would be singularly counterproductive.
But that's not how generals and admirals -- or colonels and lieutenant colonels -- are
wired. That kind of introspective honesty cannot happen while they are in command.
Bob Woodward knows this truth, but he chose not to give it a voice in his book, because to
do so would disrupt the pre-scripted narrative that he had constructed, around which he bent
and twisted the words of those he interviewed -- including the president and Jim Mattis. As
such, 'Rage' is, in effect, a lie built on a lie. It is one thing for politicians and those in
power to manipulate the truth to their advantage. It's something altogether different for
journalists to report something as true that they know to be a lie.
On the back cover of 'Rage', the Pulitzer prize-winning historian Robert Caro is quoted from
a speech he gave about Bob Woodward. " Bob Woodward ," Caro notes, " a great
reporter. What is a great reporter? Someone who never stops trying to get as close to the truth
as possible ."
After reading 'Rage', one cannot help but conclude the opposite -- that Bob Woodward has
written a volume which pointedly ignores the truth. Instead, he gives voice to a lie of his own
construct, predicated on the flawed accounts of sources inflicted with 'Military Messiah
Syndrome', whose words embrace a fantasy world populated by military members fulfilling
missions far removed from the common good of their fellow citizens -- and often at conflict
with the stated intent and instruction of the civilian leadership they ostensibly serve. In
doing so, Woodward is as complicit as the generals and former generals he quotes in misleading
the American public about issues of fundamental importance.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Scott Ritter
is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of ' SCORPION
KING : America's Suicidal Embrace of Nuclear Weapons from FDR to Trump.' He served in the
Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff
during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter
@RealScottRitter
Whichever construct you want to believe, the fact remains that US has continued to sow
instability around the world in the name of defending the liberty and freedom. Which brings
to the question how the world can continue to allow a superpower to dictate what's good or
bad for a sovereign country.
Johan le Roux Jewel Gyn 18 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 03:42 AM
The answer you seek is not in the US's proclaimed vision of 'democracy' ot 'rescuing
populations from the clutches of vile dictators.' They just say that to validate their
actions which in reality is using their military as a mercenary force to secure and steal the
resources of countries.
Joaquin Montano 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 04:57 PM
Bob Woodward was enshrined as a great, heroic like journalist by the Hollywood propaganda
machine, but reality is he is a US Security agent pretending to be a well informed/connected
journalist. And indeed, he is well informed/connected, since he was a Naval intelligence man,
part responsible of the demise of the Nixon administration when it fell out of grace with the
powerful elites, and the Washington Post being well connected with the CIA, the rest is
history. And as they say, once a CIA man, always a CIA man.
That is correct. Woodward is a Naval intelligence man. The elite in the US was not happy
about Nixon's foreign policy and his detante with the Soviet Union. Watergate was invented,
and Nixon had nothing to do with it. However, it brought him down, thank's to Woodward.
NoJustice Joaquin Montano 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:48 PM
But he also exposed Trump's lies about Covid-19.
lectrodectus 17 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 04:45 AM
Another first class article by ....Scott .. The book makes it clear that Mattis viewed Trump
as a threat to the Us' standing as the defender of a " rules -based order -built on the back
of decades -old alliances-that had been in place since the end of the second World War". It
also makes it clear that " Mattis and the Military officials he oversaw placed defending this
order above the implementing the will of the American People " These old Military Dinosaurs
simply can't let go of the past, unfortunately for the American people / the World I can't
see anything ever changing, it will be business as usual ie, war after War after War.
Jonny247364 lectrodectus 5 minutes ago 17 Sep, 2020 09:53 PM
Just because donny signs a dictact it does not equate to the will of the americian people.
The americian people did not ask donny to murder Assad.
neeon9 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:56 PM
"a threat to the US’ standing as the defender of a rules-based order –" Who made
that a thing? who voted for the US to be the policeman of the planet? and who said their
"rules" are right? I sure didn't, nor did anyone I know, even my american friends don't know
whose idea it was!
fezzie035fezzm 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:29 PM
It's interesting to note that every president since J.F.K. has got America into a military
conflict, or has turned a minor conflict into a major one. Trump is the exception. Trump
inherited conflicts (Afghanistan, Syria etc) but has not started a new one, and he has spent
his three years ending or winding down the conflicts he had inherited.
NoJustice fezzie035fezzm 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:34 PM
Trump increased military deployment to the Middle East. He increased military spending. He
had a foreign general assassinated. He had missiles fired into Syria. He vetoed a bill that
would limit his authority to wage war. Trump is not an exception.
T. Agee Kaye 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 05:59 PM
Good op ed. 'Rage is built on a lie' applies to many things.
E_Kaos T. Agee Kaye 7 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 02:46 PM
True, the beginning of a new narrative and the continuation of an old narrative.
PYCb988 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 07:25 PM
Something's amiss here. Mattis was openly telling the press that there was no evidence
against Assad. Just Google: Mattis Newsweek Assad.
erniedouglas 12 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 09:14 AM
What was Watergate? Even bet says there were tapes of a private relationship between Nixon
and BB Rebozo.
allan Kaplan 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:03 PM
Continuation of a highly organized and tightly controlled disinformation campaign to do one
singularly the most significant and historically one of the most illegal act of American
betrayal... overthrow American elections at any and all costs to install one of the most
deranged, demoralized sold out brain dead Biden and his equally brown nosing Harris only to
unseat a legally and democratically elected US president according to our Constitution! Will
their evil acts against America work? I doubt it! But at a price that America has never
before seen. Let's sit back and watch this Rose Bowl parade of America's dirtiest of the
dirty politics!
E_Kaos allan Kaplan 7 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 02:49 PM
"brown nosing harris", how apropos with the play on words.
Bill Spence allan Kaplan 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:29 PM
Both parties and their politicians are totally corrupt. Why would anyone support one side
over the other? Is that because you believe the promises and lies?
custos125 17 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 04:35 AM
Is there any evidence that both Mattis and Woodward knew that the allegations of a Syrian use
of chemical weapons by plane were not true, a false flag? On the assumption of this use, the
capacity to fly such attack and deploy such weapons was destroyed for some time. I recommend
reading of Rage, it is quite interesting, even if some people will not like it and try to
keep people away from the book.
E_Kaos custos125 7 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 02:58 PM
My observations were: 1 - where were the bomb fragments 2 - why use rusted gas cylinders 3 -
how do you attach a rusted gas cylinder to a plane 4 - were the rusted gas cylinders tossed
out of a plane 5 - how did the rusted gas cylinders land so close to each other My conclusion
- False Flag Incident
neeon9 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:58 PM
The is only one threat to peace in the world, and it's the US/Israeli M.I.C.. War mongering
children, who actually believe, against all reason, that they are the most worthy and
entitled race on earth! they are not. The US has been responsible for more misery in the
world than any other state, which isn't surprising given how many Nazi's were resettled there
by the Jews. They are also the only Ppl on the planet who think a nuclear war is winnable!
How strange is that!
NoJustice 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:22 PM
So everything is a lie because Woodward didn't mention that there was no evidence found that
linked the Syrian government to the chemical attack?
Strongbo50 6 minutes ago 17 Sep, 2020 09:58 PM
The left is firing up the Russian Interference narrative again, how Russia is trying to take
the election. The real truth is in plain sight, The main stream media is trying to deliver
Biden a win, along with google yahoo msn facebook and twitter. I say, come on Russia, if you
can help stem that tide of lies please Mr Putin help. That's a joke but the media is real.
And Woodward in his old age wants one more trophy on his mantle.
CuttySark 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 05:41 PM
Trump has become the great white whale. Seems like there are Ahab's everywhere willing to
shoot their hearts upon the beast to bring it down whatever the cost. I think it was this
kind of rage and attitude that got Adolf off to a good start.
NoJustice CuttySark 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 05:44 PM
He's an easy target because he keeps screwing up.
Gryphon_ 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:59 PM
The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon. Never in my life have I seen a
newspaper that lies as much as the post. Bob Woodward works for the post.
Who within the Deep state is supporting the riots? This is the question. Antifa would not
last a a couple of months, if all repressive power of the state fall on the head of its
brainwashed children of the middles class, who constitute the majority of it members. All members
probably are well known to FBI and the organization was infiltrated long ago.
America went through its own bout of Dionysian intoxication in the days following May 25,
when a Minneapolis cop by the name of Derek Chauvin knelt on the neck of a 46-year-old Black
man by the name of George Floyd, causing his death. Corrupted by 66 years of bad education,
America's Black Lumpenproletariat erupted in an orgy of rioting that brought the rule
of law to an end in many of America's large cities. As of this writing, Antifa, a group which
Donald Trump has designated a domestic terrorist organization, is still in control of a
six-square block section of downtown Seattle, which they have designated the "Capitol Hill
Autonomous Zone." In Minneapolis, the town where the rioting started, their Pentheus, Mayor
Jacob Frey, was denounced by one of the Bacchant women who spoke in the name of Black Lives
Matter after he refused to defund the Minneapolis police department. Frey was not torn limb
from limb, but he was expelled from the crowd and had to take refuge with the police he was
ordered to defund.
The race riots of May and June 2020 were only the latest installment of what might be called
the regime of governance by crisis which began four years ago, when the Deep State decided to
do whatever was necessary to depose Donald Trump. That campaign began with Russiagate, followed
by the impeachment, followed by the hate speech campaign of 2019 which sought to ban "unwanted
content" from the Internet, followed by the Covid-19 pandemic. What united all of these crises
was oligarch unhappiness with the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States
and a desire to replace the institutions of representative government with ad hoc committees of
crisis managers masquerading as scientific experts and/or aggrieved minorities.
By now it should be obvious that the racial narrative writes itself whenever a Black man
dies at the hands of a white cop. Floyd's body was still warm when the mainstream media took up
the story which had already been written and declared him a saint, complete with halo and
wings. In reality, Floyd was a violent felon who died with traces of fentanyl and cocaine in
his system, but the BBC described him as someone who "was simply trying to live life as any
other American, in search of betterment in the face of both personal and societal challenges."
[1] He then
became "the latest totem of the ills that plague the country in 2020." After growing in wisdom,
age, and grace, Floyd's life suddenly "took a different turn, with a string of arrests for
theft and drug possession culminating in an armed robbery charge in 2007, for which he was
sentenced to five years in prison." Missing from the BBC account was any mention of Floyd's
incarceration, drug dealing, violence against pregnant women or his role as a porn star,
[2] but no one
needed to tell a graduate of America's public school system that he was witnessing the latest
installment of the ongoing saga of American racism in action.
... ... ...
Both sides of the racial conflict which George Floyd's death ignited were controlled by
Jews. The ADL has consistently played a double game by condemning the racial violence that
their training seminars have created. According to the Democratic Socialists of America, "The
police violence happening tonight in Minneapolis is straight out of the IDF playbook," adding,
"US cops train in Israel." [20] After
the death of George Floyd, the ADL, eager to avoid any association with the violence their
police seminars wrought among Blacks, tweeted: "As we continue to fight for justice for
#GeorgeFloyd, we also need to fight for justice for #BreonnaTaylor, who was murdered in her own
home by police. We need justice for everyone who has been a victim of racist policing &
violence." [21]
At the same time that the ADL was demanding justice for George Floyd, they made no mention
of the death of Iyad Hallaq, an autistic Palestinian man who was gunned down after pleading for
his life while on the way to his special education class in occupied East Jerusalem. [22] The
Electronic Intifada, which did mention Hallaq's death, then singled out the Anti-Defamation
league as "a major player in the industry of bringing US police junkets to Israel for
'counterterrorism' and other kinds of joint training." [23]
Docile Negroes at traditionally Jewish organizations like the NAACP routinely get praised
for their work against racism, but as soon as Black Lives Matter began its Black solidarity
with Palestine campaign, the Israeli government and its lobbies in America attempted to disrupt
the Black Lives Matter movement in retaliation. In 2018 Al Jazeera's documentary The
Lobby -- USA revealed how The Israel Project "pulled strings behind the scenes to
get a Black Lives Matter fundraiser at a New York City nightclub canceled." [24]
So on the one hand we have American policemen being trained to treat their fellow citizens
in the same way that Israelis treat Palestinians, including the knee holds that will subdue and
sometimes kill them. This explains the white cop side of the equation. But on the other hand,
we have George Soros funding Black Lives Matter and the insurrections which follow incidents of
police brutality as the black side of the equation. Taken together both Jewish-funded groups
perpetuate the cycle of increasing violent racial conflict in America, while remaining all the
while invisible.
Black Lives Matter was a reincarnation of the Black-Jewish Alliance, which began with the
founding of the ADL after the lynching of Leo Frank and has continued to this day, with
time-outs taken for the World Wars of the 20th century. Shortly after World War II, Louis
Wirth, a Jewish sociologist from the University of Chicago began implementing his plan to
"integrate" housing in Chicago. When Chicago's ethnic neighborhoods understood that
"integration" was a euphemism for ethnic cleansing, riots ensued, beginning with the Airport
Park riots of 1947 and culminating in the arrival of Martin Luther King in Marquette Park
almost 20 years later. As one more indication that Black Lives Matter was the reincarnation of
the Black-Jewish Alliance, Alicia Garza, one of the founders of Black Lives Matter, was born in
1981 to a white Jewish father and a Black mother.
Black Lives Matter was funded by George Soros to promote race war in the United States, but
BLM also promoted sexual deviance, another cause dear to the heart of the world's most
prominent Hungarian Jewish philanthropist. In their recently published manifesto, BLM situates
its attempt to be "unapologetically Black in our positioning" within a matrix of sexual
deviance, including attempts "to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk," by
disrupting "the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure" and putting in its place a
"queer-affirming network." [25]
If that jargon sounds familiar, it's because it stems from the university gender studies
programs which provide the matrix from which groups like BLM and Antifa get both their ideas
and their recruits. The ultimate cause of the uprising which took place in city after city in
the wake of George Floyd's death was bad education. Beginning in the late 1980s, literature
departments had been taken over by "tenured radicals" who have used critical theory, derived
from thinkers like Foucault, Derrida, and Gramsci, to undermine the validity of all structures
of authority. This essentially Nietzschean transvaluation of all values transferred moral
superiority to anyone who could claim oppression according to oligarchic endorsed categories
like race and gender, allowing the tenured radicals to take over one department after another
and, more importantly, allowing the proliferation of new departments, invariably ending in
"studies," as in gender studies, which drove the traditional liberal arts from academe turning
traditional universities into Maoist inspired re-education camps. The takeover of academe
reached its bitter culmination when Antifa led groups of disaffected, badly educated young
people, who were aware of nothing more significant than their grievances, into the streets in
what became an uncanny replication of the Chinese cultural revolution of 1966. One of the most
unlikely leaders of that revolution in China was an American Jew from Charleston, South
Carolina by the name of Sidney Rittenberg.
The academic pedigree of Rittenberg's successors became apparent when Antifa warlord Joseph
Alcoff got apprehended in Philadelphia in 2017 for assaulting a group of Hispanic Marines.
Alcoff's arrest shed light on one of the main figures in a society that remained literally
faceless because of their habit of wearing masks at the protests they disrupted by their
violence. Alcoff, who was known as the leader of Antifa in Washington, DC, was the child of
radical academics and had co-authored an academic paper with his mother Linda Alcoff in Volume
79 of Science and Society in the special issue on "Red and Black: Marxist Encounters
with Anarchism," entitled "Autonomism in Theory and Practice." [26] Radical
theory in the mind of Linda Alcoff led to violent praxis in the life of her son. As with Black
Lives Matter, the ADL has played a double game with Antifa, condemning its tactics while at the
same time defending it against accusations that it was morally equivalent to the "white
supremacists" it attacked in the streets of Charlottesville in 2017.
Continuity between the generations was made possible by the Jewish revolutionary spirit. The
fact that Alcoff was a Jew got suppressed in virtually every mainstream account of his
activity, [27] which
sanitized his communist connections by linking him to the Democratic Party through figures like
Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters. Alcoff was more forthright when he spoke in his own voice,
saying on one Youtube video, "I'm a Communist, motherf***er," before spitting into the camera.
[28]
Christians for truth portrayed Alcoff as "a self-styled modern-day Leon Trotsky" and attributed
the suppression of his ethnic identity to the fact that "Antifa's political manifestations are
funded by the billionaire Jew, George Soros." [29]
Andy Ngo, who was severely beaten by Antifa thugs in Portland in the wake of the 2016
presidential election, claims that "prominent media figures and politicians glamorize and even
promote Antifa as a movement for a just cause. CNN's Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon have defended
Antifa on-air. Chuck Todd invited Antifa ideologue Mark Bray onto Meet the Press to
explain why Antifa's political violence is "ethical." [30] Ngo goes
on to mention Joseph Alcoff as one of the most visible figures in what is otherwise a
clandestine organization, and claims that he had access to Democrat Representative Maxine
Waters in 2016. [31] He also
mentions Adam Rothstein, who is associated with the Rose City Antifa group which assaulted him
in 2016. Rothstein conducted a series of "secret lectures" at a Portland bookstore where local
recruits learned how to "heckle" opponents and make them "look ridiculous, make them feel
outnumbered," and convinced that the "Trump thing is gonna go by the wayside." [32]
Armed with political clout of this magnitude, Antifa can easily overwhelm local police
forces, which is what happened in Portland in 2016. The result is that "city government and
police lack the political will to protect citizens." What happened in Seattle in 2020 with the
creation of the "Capital Hill Autonomous Zone" was only the logical conclusion to what began in
Portland in 2016 and spread all over the Pacific Northwest, "where Antifa is especially
active." In its attempt to destabilize and destroy the nation state and its sovereign borders,
Antifa drew support from "mainstream progressive politicians, such as Rep. Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez, who normalize hatred of border enforcement and sovereignty as such." [33]
Antifa has continued to be successful in disrupting local government and thwarting police
attempts to bring them under control because it is a Jewish organization which can always count
on favorable press from the Jewish-controlled mainstream media, which renders the connection
invisible. The same cannot be said for the Jewish press, which cites Antifa's Jewishness with
thinly-disguised ethnic pride.
When Donald Trump referred to Antifa as a terrorist organization, the Israeli newspaper
Ha'aretz came to their defense, "Trump's Attacks on Antifa Are Attacks on Jews."
[34]
According to an article which appeared in the Forward , Antifa activism "is an
affirmation of Jewish identity, both religious and secular" [35] which
stretches all the way back to 1897 with the founding of Bundism, which "sought to organize the
working-class Jews of Russia, Poland, and Lithuania." [36] After
members of a specifically Jewish Antifa group defaced a plaque in New York City honoring the
president of Vichy France Philippe Petain, they left a note which defended the rationale behind
their act of vandalism:
With Monday's actions, Jewish antifascists and allied forces have served notice that fascist
apologism will not be tolerated in our city in 2019; that anti-Semitic ideology and violence
will be confronted with Jewish solidarity and strength; and that the Holocaust will be
remembered not only with sadness and grief but also with righteous anger and action: 'We will
never forget. We will never forgive.' [37]
In the final analysis, Antifa is a Jewish organization in the same way that Bolshevism and
Neoconservatism were Jewish political movements. Not every member of Antifa is a Jew, but Jews
invariably find their ways into leadership roles in places like Portland, Washington, DC, and
even in China, as was the case during the Cultural Revolution of 1966, because they have an
advantage over non-Jews in embodying the Jewish Revolutionary Spirit which is the hidden
grammar of all revolutionary movements.
Interesting article, not the least surprising the Usual Suspects are playing both sides.
Like WW2?
One picky point is the Yanez shooting, the victim did have a gun, he had a permit for it.
He didn't show his hands and died with his hand near the gun. This was the one his GF put out
on Facebook Live to it incited two police massacres right away, the one everybody knows about
in Dallas (where they killed the shooter with a robot bomb) an another in Louisiana.
I'm a witness the SF Bay Area as a model of the racial obsession/gender bending schemes.
What a mess the place is–the signature of the Left-wing establishment that runs the
place is how the education system fails to fulfill the simple market demands for labor in
their own locale, at the high end Silicon Valley runs on Indian/Pakistani B-1s and at the
other the booming (until now) construction business runs on mostly imported Hispanics.
They spend more per pupil than the rest of the world and the whole system runs on
immigration.
I couldn't finish this article after reading this garbage:
"Floyd was a violent felon who died with traces of fentanyl and cocaine in his system"
It was announced two weeks ago that he had a lethal dose. His toxicology report was
finally made public and shows that he had a lethal dose of the dangerous pain killer fentanyl
in his system. This caused his lungs to fill with fluid, which explains why he told arriving
cops "I Can't Breath" and did not cooperate as he was delusional and dying. The cops wrestled
him to the ground and cuffed him as he died from a fentanyl overdose. Floyd would have died
right there even if the cops had not shown up.
This is why coroners wait for toxicology results before declaring the cause of death, but
in this case he bowed to political pressure and announced his death was caused by the knee to
the neck. This news is so big that our corporate media, which has promoted the riots, refuses
to air the truth. Details can be read here.
https://spectator.org/minnesota-v-derek-chauvin-et-al-the-prosecutions-dirty-little-secret/
In fair and normal world, the accused cops would be immediately freed and rehired with a
bad mark for Chauvin using an improper neck hold. Let's see what happens, but I don't expect
justice.
Floyd said "i can't breathe" several times BEFORE he was put on the ground. The cops did
nothing wrong and were trying to help him. It's all another monstrous media lie like the
mueller report and jussie smollett and rayshard brooks and the covington kids and bubba
wallace and the KY gun range video.
The American Deep State can destroy anti-fa if it wanted. Hunting down all the leaders of
this terrorist organization is not that hard. But of course the American Deep State will not
do so because anti-fa is a branch of the deep state, just like how Hollywood and the media
are (& have been for a long time) arms of the American (Globalist) deep state.
This is one of Jones' many indispensable articles. The opening alone is required reading
of anyone slightly bothered by what is going on. Dionysius sparks sexual revolution, and it
leads to debauched riot and murder and then to either social collapse or else brutal
tyranny.
The American Left and the Neocons both demand tyranny, as brutal as possible. They serve
anti-Christ.
It is either Christ and Christendom or the chaos of anti-Christ.
If Jones would realize that the Novus Ordo Mass and Vatican II are at best impotent before
Dionysius and return to Tradition, he could serve much better.
It cannot be repeated too much: we live in the Anglo-Zionist Empire 2.0. The first phase
of Anglo-Zionist Empire was the British Empire. The Brit WASP Empire spread philoSemitism
across the globe: cultural Zionism that was the inherent fruit of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism,
which was a Judaizing heresy that was the final and most defining part of Modern English, and
Anglophone Protestant, culture.
The reality is that we are in the eyes of the Anglo-Zionist Empire's elites what Irish
Catholic were to archetypal WASP Oliver Cromwell and what Palestinians are to Israelis. They
wish us exterminated or made serfs forever, and the base reason predates Freud, Darwin, Marx
and the French Revolution. It is Judaizing heresy birthing monsters to war against historic
Christianity and peoples who have any legacy in the building and maintenance of Christendom
and therefore do not serve Zionism.
WASP culture serves Zionism and always will.
When Kevin McDonald realizes all of that and the necessary inferences, his work will
become worth the effort.
There's a sure way to curb the influence that certain (((individuals))) have on American
culture and politics; it's called the "wealth tax." It's a tax on the assets of the rich and
also on foundations set up to circumvent the inheritance tax. Both Bernie Sanders and
Elizabeth Warren proposed a wealth tax but it is not included in Biden's platform. Instead,
he's proposed raising the maximum income tax rate to 39.6%. There are lots of loopholes that
individuals can utilize to reduce their income tax obligations. It won't stop their meddling
in social and political affairs. Only a very stiff wealth tax (at least 10% per year) will
curb their meddling.
Crisis of neoliberal undermines the USA supremacy and the US elite hangs by the stras to the Full Specturm Domionanc edoctrine,
whih it now can't enforce and which is financially unsustainable for the USA.
Collapse of neoliberalism means the end of the USA supremacy and the whole political existence on the USA was banked on this
single card.
Notable quotes:
"... In America, this unfortunate status quo in support of primacy persists even in the Trumpian Age and within debates around the eccentric and unconventional presidency of Donald Trump. In fact, despite all the talk of political polarization in the United States, it appears that when it comes to naming new threats and enemies to "contain," "deter," and deem "existential," bipartisan consensus is found swiftly and quite readily. ..."
"... In a recent speech delivered in Europe, the U.S. defense secretary and former corporate lobbyist for Raytheon, Mark Esper, unified these two faces of the Janus that embodies the North Atlantic foreign policy establishment. Esper referred to both China and Russia as disruptive forces working to unravel the international order, which "we have created together," and called on the international community to preserve that order by countering both powers. As it stands, we are on the path to a series of cold wars throughout this century, if not a hot conflict between rival great powers that could spiral into World War III. Despite increased calls for realism and restraint in foreign policy, primacy is alive and well. ..."
"... There is, however, a more significant psychosociological reason for the blob's remarkable persistence. When it comes to foreign policy, Western policymakers today suffer from a Manichean worldview, a caustic mindset crystalized during a decades-running Cold War with the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Frozen in this Cold War mindset, the Atlanticist blob has internalized the bipolar moment that followed the Second World War, treating it as a permanent fixture and the normal state of the international system. In fact, the bipolar and unipolar periods we have undergone over the past 75 years are nothing but aberrations and historical anomalies. In truth, the reality of the international system tends toward multi-polarity -- and at long last it appears that the system is self-correcting. The North Atlantic establishment came of age during that time of exception, forming its (liberal) identity through the process of "alterity" and in a nemetic opposition to communism. ..."
"... Not surprisingly then, the North Atlantic elites continue to seek adversaries to demonize and "monsters to destroy" in order to justify their moral universalism and presumed ideological superiority, doing so under the garb of a totalizing and absolutist idea of exceptionalism. ..."
The international order is no longer bipolar, despite the elites' insistence otherwise.
Fortunately there is hope for change.
Despite its many failings and high human, social, and economic costs, American foreign
policy since the end of the Second World War has shown a remarkable degree of continuity and
inflexibility. This rather curious phenomenon is not limited to America alone. The North
Atlantic foreign policy establishment from Washington D.C. to London, which some have aptly
dubbed the "blob," has doggedly championed the grand strategic framework of "primacy" and armed
hegemony, often coated with more docile language such as "global leadership," "American
indispensability," and "strengthening the Western alliance."
In America, this unfortunate status quo in support of primacy persists even in the Trumpian
Age and within debates around the eccentric and unconventional presidency of Donald Trump. In
fact, despite all the talk of political polarization in the United States, it appears that when
it comes to naming new threats and enemies to "contain," "deter," and deem "existential,"
bipartisan consensus is found swiftly and quite readily.
On the Left, and in the wake of
President Trump's election, the Democratic establishment began fixating its wrath on
Russia–adopting a confrontational stance toward Moscow and fueling fears of a renewed
Cold War. On the Right, the realigning GOP has increasingly, if at times inconsistently,
singled out China as the greatest threat to U.S. national security, a hostile attitude further
exacerbated in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Alarmingly, Joe Biden, the Democratic
presidential nominee, has recently joined the hawkish bandwagon toward China, even attempting
to outflank Trump on this issue and attacking the president's China policy as too weak and
accommodating of China's rise.
In a recent speech delivered in Europe, the U.S. defense secretary and former corporate
lobbyist for Raytheon, Mark Esper, unified these two faces of the Janus that embodies the North
Atlantic foreign policy establishment. Esper referred to both China and Russia as disruptive
forces working to unravel the international order, which "we have created together," and called
on the international community to preserve that order by countering both powers. As it stands,
we are on the path to a series of cold wars throughout this century, if not a hot conflict
between rival great powers that could spiral into World War III. Despite increased calls for
realism and restraint in foreign policy, primacy is alive and well.
Indeed, the dominant tendency among many foreign policy observers is to overprivilege the
threat of rising superpowers and to insist on strong containment measures to limit the spheres
of influence of the so-called revisionist powers. Such an approach, coupled with the prospect
of ascendant powers actively resisting and confronting the United States as the ruling global
hegemon, has one eminent International Relations scholar warning of the Thucydides Trap.
There are others, however, who insist that the structural shifts undermining the liberal
international order mark the end of U.S. hegemony and its "unipolar moment." In realist terms,
what Secretary Esper really means to protect, they would argue, is a conception of
"rules-based" global order that was a structural by-product of the Second World War and the
ensuing Cold War and whose very rules and institutions were underwritten by U.S. hegemony. This
would be an exercise in folly -- not corresponding to the reality of systemic change and the
return of great power competition and civilizational contestation.
What's more, the sanctimony of this "liberal" hegemonic order and the logic of democratic
peace were both presumably vindicated by the collapse of the Soviet Union and its totalitarian
system, a black swan event that for many had heralded the "end of history" and promised the
advent of the American century. A great deal of lives, capital, resources, and goodwill were
sacrificed by America and her allies toward that crusade for liberty and universality, which
was only the most recent iteration of a radically utopian element in American political thought
going back to Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. Alas, as it had eluded earlier generations of
idealists, that century never truly arrived, and neither did the empire of liberty and
prosperity that it loftily aimed to establish.
Today, the emerging reality of a multipolar world and alternate worldviews championed by the
different cultural blocs led by China and Russia appears to have finally burst the bubble of
American Triumphalism, proving that the ideas behind it are "not simply obsolete but absurd."
This failure should have been expected since the very project the idealists had espoused was
built on a pathological "savior complex" and a false truism that reflected the West's own
absolutist and distorted sense of ideological and moral superiority. Samuel Huntington might
have been right all along to cast doubt on the long-term salience of using ideology and
doctrinal universalism as the dividing principle for international relations. His call to
focus, instead, on civilizational distinction, the permanent power of culture on human action,
and the need to find common ground rings especially true today. Indeed, fostering a spirit of
coexistence and open dialogue among the world's great civilizational complexes is a fundamental
tenet of a cultural realism.
And yet, despite such permanent shifts in the global order away from universalist
dichotomies and global hegemony and toward culturalism and multi-polarity, there exists a
profound disjunction between the structural realities of the international system and the often
business-as-usual attitude of the North Atlantic foreign policy elites. How could one explain
the astonishing levels of rigidity and continuity on the part of the "blob" and the
military-industrial-congressional complex regularly pushing for more adventurism and
interventionism abroad? Why would the bipartisan primacist establishment, which their allies in
the mainstream media endeavor still to mask, justify such illiberal acts of aggression and
attempts at empire by weaponizing the moralistic language of human rights, individual liberty,
and democracy in a world increasingly awakened to arbitrary ideological framing?
There are, of course, systemic reasons behind the power and perpetuation of the blob and the
endurance of primacy. The vast economic incentives of war and its instruments, institutional
routinization and intransigence, stupefaction and groupthink of government bureaucracy, and the
significant influence of lobbying efforts by foreign governments and other vested interest
groups could each partly explain the remarkable continuity of the North Atlantic foreign policy
establishment. The endless stream of funding from the defense industry, neoliberal and
neoconservative foundations, as well as the government itself keeps the "blob" alive, while the
general penchant for bipartisanship around preserving the status quo allows it to thrive. What
is more, elite schools produce highly analytic yet narrowly focused and conventional minds that
are tamed to be agreeable so as to not undermine elite consensus. This conveyor belt feeds the
"blob," supplying it with the army of specialists, experts, and wonks it requires to function
as a mind melding hive, while in practice safeguarding employment for the career bureaucrats
for decades to come.
There is, however, a more significant psychosociological reason for the blob's remarkable
persistence. When it comes to foreign policy, Western policymakers today suffer from a
Manichean worldview, a caustic mindset crystalized during a decades-running Cold War with the
Soviet Union. The world might have changed fundamentally with the fall of the Berlin Wall in
1989, the bipolar structure of the international system might have ended irreversibly, but the
personnel -- the Baby Boomer Generation elites conducting foreign policy in the North Atlantic
-- did not leave office or retire with the collapse of the USSR. They largely remain in power
to this day.
Every generation is forged through a formative crisis, its experiences seen through the
prism that all-encompassing ordeal. For the incumbent elites, that generational crisis was the
Cold War and the omnipresent threat of nuclear annihilation. The dualistic paradigm of the
international system during the U.S.-Soviet rivalry bred an entire generation to see the world
through a black-and-white binary. It should come as no surprise that this era elevated the
idealist strain of thought and the crusading, neo-Jacobin impulse of U.S. foreign policy
(personified by Thomas Jefferson and Woodrow Wilson) to new, ever-expanding heights. Idealism
prizes a nemesis and thus revels in a bipolar order.
Frozen in this Cold War mindset, the Atlanticist blob has internalized the bipolar moment
that followed the Second World War, treating it as a permanent fixture and the normal state of
the international system. In fact, the bipolar and unipolar periods we have undergone over the
past 75 years are nothing but aberrations and historical anomalies. In truth, the reality of
the international system tends toward multi-polarity -- and at long last it appears that the
system is self-correcting. The North Atlantic establishment came of age during that time of
exception, forming its (liberal) identity through the process of "alterity" and in a nemetic
opposition to communism.
Not surprisingly then, the North Atlantic elites continue to seek adversaries to demonize
and "monsters to destroy" in order to justify their moral universalism and presumed ideological
superiority, doing so under the garb of a totalizing and absolutist idea of exceptionalism.
After all, a nemetic zeitgeist during which ideology reigned supreme and realism was routinely
discounted was tailor-made for dogmatic absolutism and moral universalism. In such a zero-sum
strategic environment, it was only natural to demand totality and frame the ongoing
geopolitical struggle in terms of an existential opposition over Good and Evil that would quite
literally split the world in two.
Today, that same kind of Manichean thinking continues to handicap paradigmatic change in
foreign policy. A false consciousness, it underpins and promotes belief in the double myths of
indispensability and absolute exceptionality, suggesting that the North Atlantic bloc holds a
certain monopoly on all that is good and true. It is not by chance that such pathological
renderings of "exceptionalism" and "leadership" have been wielded as convenient rationale and
intellectual placeholders for the ideology of empire across the North Atlantic. This sense of
ingrained moral self-righteousness, coupled with an attitude that celebrates activism,
utopianism, and interventionism in foreign policy, has created and reinforced a culture of
strategic overextension and imperial overreach.
It is this very culture -- personified and dominated by the Baby Boomers and the blob they
birthed -- that has made hawkishness ubiquitous, avoids any real reckoning as to the limits of
power, and habitually belittles calls for restraint and moderation as isolationism. In truth,
however, what has been the exceptional part in the delusion of absolute exceptionalism is Pax
Americana, liberal hegemony, and the hubris that animates them having gone uncontested and
unchecked for so long. That confrontation could begin in earnest by directly challenging the
Boomer blob itself -- and by propagating a counter-elite offering a starkly different
worldview.
Achieving such a genuine paradigm shift demands a generational sea-change, to retire the old
blob and make a better one in its place. It is about time for the old establishment to forgo
its reign, allowing a new younger cohort from among the Millennial and post-Millennial
generations to advance into leadership roles. The Millennials, especially, are now the largest
generation of eligible voters (overtaking the Baby Boomers) as well as the first generation not
habituated by the Cold War; in fact, many of them grew up during the "unipolar moment" of
American hegemony. Hence, their generational identity is not built around a dualistic alterity.
Free from obsessive fixation on ideological supremacy, most among them reject total global
dominance as both unattainable and undesirable.
Instead, their worldview is shaped by an entirely different set of experiences and
disappointments. Their generational crisis was brought on by a series of catastrophic
interventions and endless wars around the world -- chief among them the debacles in Afghanistan
and Iraq and the toppling of Libya's Gaddafi -- punctuated by repeated onslaughts of financial
recessions and domestic strife. The atmosphere of uncertainty, instability, and general chaos
has bred discontent, turning many Millennials into pragmatic realists who are disenchanted with
the system, critical of the pontificating establishment, and naturally skeptical of lofty
ideals and utopian doctrines.
In short, this is not an absolutist and complacent generation of idealists, but one steeped
in realism and a certain perspectivism that has internalized the inherent relativity of both
power and truth. Most witnessed the dangers of overreach, hubris, and a moralized foreign
policy, so they are actively self-reflective, circumspect, and restrained. As a generation,
they appear to be less the moralist and the global activist and more prudent, level-headed, and
temperamentally conservative -- developing a keen appreciation for realpolitik, sovereignty,
and national interest. Their preference for a non-ideological approach in foreign policy
suggests that once in power, they will be less antagonistic and more tolerant of rival powers
and accepting of pluralism in the international system. That openness to civilizational
distinction and global cultural pluralism also implies that future Millennial statesmen will
subscribe to a more humble, less grandiose, and narrower definition of interest that focuses on
securing core objectives -- i.e., preserving national security and recognizing spheres of
influence.
Reforming and rehabilitating the U.S. foreign policy establishment will require more than
policy prescriptions and comprehensive reports: it needs generational change. To transform and
finally "rein in" North Atlantic foreign policy, our task today must be to facilitate and
expedite this shift. Once that occurs, the incoming Millennials should be better positioned to
discard the deep-seated and routinized ideology of empire, supplanting it with a greater
emphasis on partnership that is driven by mutual interests and a general commitment to sharing
the globe with the world's other great cultures.
This new approach calls for America to lead by the power of its example, exhibiting the
benefits of liberty and a constitutional republic at home, without forcibly imposing those
values abroad. Such an outlook means abandoning the coercive regime change agendas and the
corrosive projects of nation-building and democracy promotion. In this new multipolar world,
America would be an able, dynamic, and equal participant in ensuring sustainable peace
side-by-side the world's other great powers, acting as "a normal country in a normal time."
Reflecting the spirit of republican governance authentically is far more pertinent now and
salutary for the future of the North Atlantic peoples than is promulgating the utopian image of
a shining city on a hill.
Arta Moeini is research director at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy and a postdoc
fellow at the Center for the Study of Statesmanship. Dr. Moeini's latest project advances a
theory of cultural realism as a cornerstone to a new understanding of foreign policy.
The Institute for Peace and Diplomacy will be co-sponsoring "The Future of Grand Strategy
in the Post-COVID World," with TAC, tonight at 6 p.m. ET. Register for free here
.
While I agree with the statement, I can, with a degree of certainty, say nothing was
intercepted, and this is all face saving. As this article elucidates, no such iron dome,
exists, or cannot be overcome.
All empire's bases remain exposed in the region. This is why the empire is high tailing it out
of SW Asia. Zarif said so, himself.
Dr Rubin, the founder and first director of the Israel Missile Defence Organization, which
developed the state's first national missile defence shield, wrote in the wake of the 14
September attack on Abqaiq, (the Saudi Armco oil facility) that it was: "A brilliant feat of
arms. It was precise, carefully-calibrated, devastating yet bloodless -- a model of a
surgical operation the incoming threats [were not] detected by the U.S. air control systems
deployed in the area, nor by U.S. satellites
This had nothing to do with flaws in the air and missile defence systems; but with the
fact that they were not designed to deal with ground-hugging threats. Simply put, the
Iranians outfoxed the defense systems".
Katyusha rockets are normally fired in salvos of dozens. Two of them being launched against
the American fortress in Baghdad is just gentle prodding.
Another interesting point is that Katyusha rockets (BM-21 Grad) are dirt cheap. Whatever
was used to intercept them was several orders of magnitude more expensive. I'm sure the Iraqi
militias can keep lobbing Katyushas at the Green Zone for much longer than America can afford
to try to shoot them down.
Another interesting point is that Katyusha rockets (BM-21 Grad) are dirt cheap. Whatever was
used to intercept them was several orders of magnitude more expensive. I'm sure the Iraqi
militias can keep lobbing Katyushas at the Green Zone for much longer than America can afford
to try to shoot them down.
...As I have written, Antifa is more of a movement than a specific organization. However, it
has long been the
"Keyser Söze" of the anti-free speech movement , a loosely aligned group that employs
measures to avoid easy detection or association.
Wray stated "And we have quite a number - and I've said this quite consistently since my
first time appearing before this committee - we have any number of properly predicated
investigations into what we would describe as violent anarchist extremists and some of those
individuals self-identify with Antifa. "
Wray was adamant: "Antifa is a real thing. It's not a fiction" and, while it is not a
conventional organization as opposed to a movement, they have arrested people who admit that
they are Antifa.
... ... ..
George Washington University student Jason Charter has been charged as the alleged
"ringleader" of efforts to take down statues across the capital. Charter has been an active
Antifa member on campus for years.
The State Department can designate foreign organizations as terrorist organizations, but there is no law governing domestic
organizations. At the moment, it is unclear what President Trump's tweet refers to in concrete legal steps. The Patriot Act
defines domestic terrorism, but there are no federal crimes tied to domestic terror.
Trump said in July of 2019 that he was considering declaring Antifa an "Organization of Terror."
Antifa is known for its black-bloc protest tactics, where protestors wear all black and cover up their face so that they can't be
identified by police or right-wing opponents.
Antifa's name comes from the pre-World War 2 German group Antifaschistische Aktion, which resisted the Nazi German state, and
birthed the design of Antifa's now infamous flag.
Noted black clergyman and left-wing activist Cornel West told Democracy Now that Antifa protected him and other clergy from the
worst of the white nationalist violence.
"We would have been crushed like cockroaches were it not for the anarchists and the anti-fascists," he told Democracy Now. "You
had police holding back and just allowing fellow citizens to go at each other."
Trump, in his response to the Charlottesville protest, said that he blamed Antifa and the "alt-left" for violence as well.
AG Barr: "To identify criminal organizers and instigators, and to coordinate federal resources with our state and local partners,
federal law enforcement is using our existing network of 56 regional FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF). "
It is unclear what other avenues the federal government may use to pursue enforcement actions against Antifa, but the FBI Agents
Association has been lobbying for the creation of a domestic terrorism law.
"... The CIA was founded by the same fascists who tried to enlist Smedley Butler to overthrow FDR. During the post-war period, they smuggled their ideological brethren out of Germany with operation Paperclip. Their founding fathers included Prescott Bush, a Nazi, whose son and grandson went on to become US Presidents. ..."
The CIA was founded by the same fascists who tried to enlist Smedley Butler to overthrow FDR.
During the post-war period, they smuggled their ideological brethren out of Germany with
operation Paperclip. Their founding fathers included Prescott Bush, a Nazi, whose son and
grandson went on to become US Presidents.
They have never stopped hating Russia, nor have
they ever stopped lying to the American Public.
"... But CNN has and will continue to repeat the allegations as fact, so it's mission accomplished for the deep state. As another poster said on this board about manufacturing consent: "It is important to discuss the story, not its credibility, the more the discussion, the more the reaction and the more it reinforces the narrative." ..."
"... In the 1920s (or 30s), far-rightist Karl Popper coined the concept of systematic manipulation of "public opinion". This would become a hallmark of Western Civilization in the post-war. The public opinion theory states that the masses don't have an opinion for themselves or, if they have, it is sculpting/flexible. The dominant classes can, therefore, guide the masses like a shepherd, to its will. ..."
"... It is an insult to the noble profession, to call what the mainstream media in the west, especially in the USA do, journalism. In my opinion what they do is propaganda and stenography on behalf of those who are in power. I am not sure who coined the term but "presstitution" is not a bad attempt at describing their profession. ..."
"... While the western corporate media lie on a continuous basis - and that has the predictable effect - what is more insidious is not these acts of commissions ( meaning lies), but their acts of omission (meaning excluding or deemphasizing important contextual information) leading people to make the wrong conclusions. NPR in the US is an excellent example of such presstitution. ..."
"... Why are the US promoting conflict with China, with Russia? Why are they beating Europe, maybe with the intention to destroy it? Why is a new civil war in the US promoted? ..."
"... Normal (geopolitically interested) people would think: against China it is better to come together and unite, at least US & Europe, but eventually Russia included. For instance take the population of these three together: far less than China's. ..."
"... Journalism in the US is so superficial, it is a drop above the uppermost wavy comb. Not worth to pay attention to it. ..."
"... Other than few independent blog site such as this, every media outlet is in the service of its home government or foreign sponsors. Only born-suckers take the corporate media at face value. Modern journalism is nothing but an aggressive propaganda racket. ..."
"... Using lies (bearing false witness) to cause murder and theft are not exactly a new phenomenon. These 'groups of individuals', which are employing these fabricated deceptions, are doing nothing less than trying to commit murder and theft. ..."
"... Everything that was accomplished (albeit incompletely or moderately) through the New Deal and then the abortive Great Society absolutely spooked the oligarchy. Lifting much of the working class out of absolute wage slavery to the point where the next rung on Maslow's ladder was at least visible. And when it all culminated in the late 60's and early 70's with the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the Surface Mining act, and various labor protection measures, the wealthy owner class decided the proles had gained too much power to influence "their" captive government. ..."
"... What differs, however, is the presentation. Trump is criticized (not praised) for being allegedly soft on Russia and Biden criticized for being allegedly soft on China. This clever trick ensures that just about everybody is onboard the bash-China-and-Russia train. ..."
"... In a violently polarized society, with red-blue antagonism reaching ridiculous heights, people tend to act exclusively in contradiction to the cult figure they hate so much. ..."
"... I've been saying for years here to watch the documentary - Century of the Self. If you want to learn about and understand America, its all here. Government, Corporations, Consumerism, Militarism, Deep State, Psychology, Individual selfishness and mental illness. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s ..."
Every few days U.S. 'intelligence' and 'officials' produce fake claims about this or that
'hostile' country. U.S. media continue to reproduce those claims even if they bare any logic
and do not make any sense.
On June 27 the New York Times and the Washington Post published fake news
about
alleged Russian payments to the Taliban for killing U.S. troops.
[T]hat the story was obviously bullshit did not prevent Democrats in Congress, including
'Russiagate' swindler Adam Schiff, to bluster about it and to call for immediate briefings
and new
sanctions on Russia .
Just a day after it was published the main accusation, that Trump was briefed on the
'intelligence' died. The Director of National Intelligence, the National Security Advisor and
the CIA publicly rejected the claim. Then the rest of the story started to crumble. On June
2, just one week after it was launched, the story was
declared dead .
...
The NYT buried the above quoted dead corpse of the original story page A-19.
Despite that the Democrats
continued to use the fake story for attacks on Donald Trump.
Yesterday the commander of the U.S. forces in the Middle East
drove a stake though the heart of the dead corpse of the original story:
Two months after top Pentagon officials vowed to get to the bottom of whether the Russian
government
bribed the Taliban to kill American service members , the commander of troops in the
region says a detailed review of all available intelligence has not been able to corroborate
the existence of such a program.
"It just has not been proved to a level of certainty that satisfies me," Gen. Frank
McKenzie, commander of the U.S. Central Command, told NBC News. McKenzie oversees U.S. troops
in Afghanistan.
But as one fake news zombie finally dies others get resurrected. Politico's
'intelligence' stenographer Natasha Bertrand produced
this nonsensical claim :
The Iranian government is weighing an assassination attempt against the American ambassador
to South Africa, U.S. intelligence reports say, according to a U.S. government official
familiar with the issue and another official who has seen the intelligence.
News of the plot comes as Iran continues to seek ways to retaliate for President Donald
Trump's decision to kill a powerful Iranian general earlier this year, the officials said. If
carried out, it could dramatically ratchet up already serious tensions between the U.S. and
Iran and create enormous pressure on Trump to strike back -- possibly in the middle of a
tense election season.
U.S. officials have been aware of a general threat against the ambassador, Lana Marks,
since the spring, the officials said. But the intelligence about the threat to the ambassador
has become more specific in recent weeks. The Iranian Embassy in Pretoria is involved in the
plot, the U.S. government official said.
Ambassador Lana Marks is known for selling overpriced handbags and for her donations to Trump's campaign.
To Iran she has zero political or symbolic value. There is no way Iran would ever think about
an attack on such a target. Accordingly the South African intelligence services
do not believe that there is such a threat:
South African Minister of State Security Ayanda Dlodlo said the matter was "receiving the
necessary attention" and that the State Security Agency (SSA) was "interacting with all
relevant partners both in the country and abroad, to ensure that no harm will be suffered by
the US Ambassador, including any other Diplomatic Officials inside the borders of our
country."
However, an informed intelligence source told Daily Maverick that although the
"matter has been taken seriously as we approach all such threats, specifically, there appears
to be, from our perspective, no discernible threat. Least of all from the source that it
purports to emanate from.
There was "no evidence or indicator", the source said, so the plot was "not likely to be
real". The "associations made are not sustainable on any level but all precautions will be
put in place".
The source suggested this was an instance of the "tail wagging the dog", of the Trump
administration wielding a "weapon of mass distraction" to divert attention from its failures
in the election campaign running up to President Donald Trump's re-election bid on November
3.
The spokesperson for the Iranian ministry of foreign affairs, Saeed Khatibzadeh, strongly
denied the allegation in the Politico report which he called "hackneyed and worn-out
anti-Iran propaganda".
In January the U.S. assassinated the Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad. Soleimani
led the external campaigns of the Iranian Quds Forces. He was the one who orchestrated the
campaign that defeated the Islamic State. His mythic-symbolic position for Iran and the
resistance in the Middle East is beyond that of any U.S. figure.
There is simply no one in the U.S. military or political hierarchy who could be seen as his
equal. Iran has therefore announced that it will take other ways to revenge the assassination
of Soleimani.
As an immediate response to the assassination of Soleimani Iran
had launched a precise missile attack against two U.S. bases in Iraq. It has also announced
that it will make sure that the U.S. military will have to leave the Middle East. That program
is in full swing now as U.S. bases in Iraq are again coming under
daily missile attacks :
More than eight months after a barrage of rockets killed an American contractor and wounded
four American service members in Kirkuk, Iraq, militia groups continue to target U.S.
military bases in that country, and the frequency of those attacks has increased.
"We have had more indirect fire attacks around and against our bases the first half of
this year than we did the first half of last year," Gen. Frank McKenzie, the commander of the
U.S. Central Command, said. "Those attacks have been higher."
...
McKenzie's comments came just hours after he announced the United States would be cutting its
footprint in Iraq by almost half by the end of September, with about
2,200 troops leaving the country .
Just hours agon two Katyusha rockets were fired against the U.S.
embassy in Baghdad's Green Zone. Two British/U.S.convoys also came under attack . U.S. air
defense took the missiles down but its anti-missile fire is only further disgruntling the Iraqi
population.
These attacks are still limited and designed to not cause any significant casualties. But
they will continue to increase over time until the last U.S. soldier is withdrawn from
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and other Middle East countries. That, and only that, is the
punishment Iran promised as revenge for Soleimani's death.
The alleged Iranian thread against the U.S. ambassador to South Africa is just another fake
news propaganda story. It is useful only for lame blustering:
According to press reports, Iran may be planning an assassination, or other attack,
against the United States in retaliation for the killing of terrorist leader Soleimani, which
was carried out for his planning a future attack, murdering U.S. Troops, and the death &
suffering...
...caused over so many years. Any attack by Iran, in any form, against the United States will
be met with an attack on Iran that will be 1,000 times greater in magnitude!
The danger of such fake stories about Russia or Iran is that they might be used to justify a
response in the case of a false flag attack on the alleged targets.
Should something inconvenient happen to Ambassador Lana Marks the Trump administration could
use the fake story as an excuse to respond with a limited attack on Iran.
It is well known by now that U.S. President Donald Trump is lying about every time he opens
his mouth. Why do U.S. journalists presume that the agencies and anonymous officials who work
under him are more truthful in their utterings than the man himself is hard to understand. Why
do they swallow their bullshit?
Posted by b on September 15, 2020 at 11:50 UTC |
Permalink
US and European journalists are also lying constantly, that's why. Even when they make
embarrassing attempts at "being unbiased" or "factual". Do they understand it? Many might
not, but some do, perhaps fewer than anyone would think reasonable.
Btw a lot of these "journalists" in Europe in particular openly self-identify to "the
left" or even as socialists and communists or "greens". So much for ideology as some kind of
solution: entirely worthless and superficial.
But CNN has and will continue to repeat the allegations as fact, so it's mission
accomplished for the deep state. As another poster said on this board about manufacturing
consent:
"It is important to discuss the story, not its credibility, the more the discussion, the
more the reaction and the more it reinforces the narrative."
Just for laughs, I looked at the reviews of Gordon Chang's book, 'The Coming Economic
Collapse of China' to see if I could figure out the reasoning and one of the reviewers said
that China weakens because they lack a free press to hold their govt accountable. I had a
good laugh at that one.
In the 1920s (or 30s), far-rightist Karl Popper coined the concept of systematic manipulation of "public opinion".
This would become a hallmark of Western Civilization in the post-war. The public opinion theory states that the masses don't have an opinion for themselves or,
if they have, it is sculpting/flexible. The dominant classes can, therefore, guide the masses
like a shepherd, to its will.
Friedrich von Hayek - a colleague of Popper and father of British neoliberalism (the man
behind Thatcher) - then developed on the issue, by proposing the institutionalization of
public opinion. He proposed a system of three or four tiers of intellectuals which a
capitalist society should have. The first tier is the capitalist class itself, who would
govern the entire world anonymously, through secret meetings. These meetings would produce
secret reports, whose ideas would be spread to the second tier. The second tier is the
academia and the more prominent politicians and other political leaderships. The third tier
is the basic education teachers, who would indoctrinate the children. The fourth tier is the
MSM, whose job is to transform the ideas and opinions of the first tier into "common sense"
("public opinion").
Therefore, it's not a case where the Western journalists are being fooled. Their job was
never to inform the public. When they publish a lie about, say, Iran trying to kill an
American ambassador in South Africa, they are not telling a lie in their eyes: they are
telling an underlying truth through one thousand lies. The objective here is to convince
("teach") the American masses it is good for the USA if Iran was invaded and destroyed (which
is a truth). They are like the modern Christian God, who teach its subjects the Truth through
"mysterious ways".
It is an insult to the noble profession, to call what the mainstream media in the west,
especially in the USA do, journalism. In my opinion what they do is propaganda and
stenography on behalf of those who are in power. I am not sure who coined the term but
"presstitution" is not a bad attempt at describing their profession.
Unfortunately they have been amazingly successful in brainwashing people. One current
example, from numerous ones that could be cited, is the public's opinion on Julian Assange.
.
While the western corporate media lie on a continuous basis - and that has the predictable
effect - what is more insidious is not these acts of commissions ( meaning lies), but their
acts of omission (meaning excluding or deemphasizing important contextual information)
leading people to make the wrong conclusions. NPR in the US is an excellent example of such
presstitution.
What I am saying is nothing new to the bar flies here. But I am extremely distressed when
I see how poorly informed (propagandized, brainwashed) the vast majority of the people I know
are. Let's say a decade ago, ideological polarization was the main reason why it was so
difficult to have an open discussion on important issues the US. Today it has become even
more difficult because, thanks to the success of the presstitutes, people also have different
sets of "facts". And most alarmingly, after successfully creating a readership who believe in
alternative "facts", the mainstream presstitutes are moving on to creating a logic-free
narrative. Examples include Assad supposedly gassing his people when he was winning (even
though that was guaranteed to produce western intervention against him). A more recent
example is the Navalny affair. Sadly, very sadly, way too many people are affected.
Hi, thanks, and sorry, but: why does nobody look behind the curtain?
Why are the US promoting conflict with China, with Russia?
Why are they beating Europe, maybe with the intention to destroy it?
Why is a new civil war in the US promoted?
Are these random developments of history? Are laws of history behind that?
NO!! Surely not!
Normal (geopolitically interested) people would think: against China it is better to come
together and unite,
at least US & Europe, but eventually Russia included.
For instance take the population of these three together: far less than China's.
If something is going against the common sense, then there should be a reason behind.
This reason I recommend You, with due respect, to find - and to uncover the plan.
Journalism in the US is so superficial, it is a drop above the uppermost wavy comb.
Not worth to pay attention to it.
The actual demand is to understand and to show the forces playing deep underwater.
And to preview where these forces are determined to strike against.
A new report showing that US state-level voter databases were publicly available calls into
question the narrative that Russian intelligence "targeted" US state election-related
websites in 2016.
The problem with these sorts of accusations about "state-sponsored" hacking is they assume
that because a target has some connection to a state or some political activity that it means
the hackers are "nation-state". In reality, personal identification information (PII) is a
commodity on the black market, along with intellectual property - and *any* hacker will
target *any* such source of PII. So the mere fact that it is an election year, and that
voting organizations are loaded with PII, makes them an obvious target for any and every
hacker.
"Oregon's chief information security officer, Lisa Vasa, told the Washington Post in
September 2017 that her team blocks 'upwards of 14 million attempts to access our network
every day."'
This is the usual ridiculous claim from almost every organization. They treat every
Internet packet that hits their firewall as being an "attempt to access" the network (or
worse, a "breach" - which it is not.) Which is technically true, but would only be relevant
if they had *no* firewall - a setup which no organization runs these days. By definition,
99.99999% of those attempts are random mass scans of a block of IP addresses by either a
hacker or some malware on someone else's machine - or even a computer security researcher
attempting to find out how many sites are vulnerable.
"It just has not been proved to a level of certainty that satisfies me," Gen. Frank
McKenzie, commander of the U.S. Central Command, told NBC News. McKenzie oversees U.S. troops
in Afghanistan.
Barflies should write Gen Frank McKenzie inside the back cover of their diaries, and count
the days until we hear of/from him again. I've a feeling he's crossed a line and knows
precisely what he's doing and why. Imo, the Swamp has just been put on notice.
Posted by: vk | Sep 15 2020 12:54 utc | 4
In the 1920s (or 30s), far-rightist Karl Popper coined the concept of "public opinion".
vk, I can't find anything regarding this coinage. Could you please provide a link.
Wiki is specially devoid of it and it goes back to 16 century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion
The term public opinion was derived from the French opinion publique which was first used in
1588 by Michel de Montaigne in the second edition of his Essays
Thank you, b. In this world of illusion that mainstream press provides it is forgivable that
we cannot even convince members of our own families that are dear to us of the underlying
truths behind what these masters of deception continue to print. Surely they only do so
because livelihoods are threatened, and the public perceptions are reaching a critical point
where belief in what they write, read by the diminishing numbers of faithful few, reaches a
pinnacle of perception and spills chaotically down into a watershed of realization.
I remember when we were told what happens on the top floor of the New York Times. It
opened my eyes. And perhaps here also, b is providing a chink through which we may glimpse
what is happening in military circles in fields of operation where facts collide with
fiction:
"We have had more indirect fire attacks around and against our bases the first half of
this year than we did the first half of last year," Gen. Frank McKenzie, the commander
of the U.S. Central Command, said. "Those attacks have been higher."
...
McKenzie's comments came just hours after he announced the United States would be
cutting its footprint in Iraq by almost half by the end of September, with about 2,200
troops leaving the country.
On Hayek's "tiering", google "IHS model" ("pyramid of social change") and his book "The
Intellectuals and Socialism".
On Popper's conception of "public opinion", see "The Open Society and Its Enemies" (1945).
Yes, the term itself is not Popper's invention - he never claimed to have done so. But he
gave it a "twist", and we can say nowadays every Western journalist's conception of "public
opinion" is essentially Popper's.
because on matters related to Iran, China and Russia, they are not independent, there is
no real difference between the two camps in US, Biden' foreign policy which is endorsed and
supported by NYT and WP is not that different than Trump's, if not more radical. There is no
free press in US, as matter of fact, as long as this United Oligarchy of America exist there
will be no free press.
As well, this fake news propaganda barrage continues in the context of determined censorship
of alternative media and social media - a campaign which has been largely promoted by the
liberal intelligentsia in the US, in the name of reducing "fake news."
Having to live within an ever-widening swamp of utter BS is wearying and mind-numbing - also
to the point, one may assume.
Yes, I agree, IMO/observation, the US Government, the political parties and their supportive
media are rapidly ideologically polarizing their constituencies to two hard entrenched
ideological camps (which as you say has become hard shelled impenetrable). Except on one
common ideological point, which almost all the population has been and is being brain washed
as young as first grade, this common used term, which shield you from needing to investigate
or form any other opinion is: US has always been, is and will be a "force for good" by its
constitution, no matter what she has done or will do. This sentence when fully believed and
carved in one' mind from childhood is very difficult to erase and crack. These two
ideologically opposing camps about 70% of the population will not want to hear any fact or
not, other than what they are told and believed all their life.
"Unlike utopian engineering, piecemeal social engineering must be "small scale," Popper
said, meaning that social reform should focus on changing one institution at a time. Also,
whereas utopian engineering aims for lofty and abstract goals (for example, perfect justice,
true equality, a higher kind of happiness), piecemeal social engineering seeks to address
concrete social problems (for example, poverty, violence, unemployment, environmental
degradation, income inequality). It does so through the creation of new social institutions
or the redesign of existing ones. These new or reconfigured institutions are then tested
through implementation and altered accordingly and continually in light of their effects.
Institutions thus may undergo gradual improvement overtime and social ills gradually reduced.
Popper compared piecemeal social engineering to physical engineering. Just as physical
engineers refine machines through a series of small adjustments to existing models, social
engineers gradually improve social institutions through "piecemeal tinkering." In this way,
"[t]he piecemeal method permits repeated experiments and continuous readjustments" (Open
Society Vol 1., 163).
Only such social experiments, Popper said, can yield reliable feedback for social
planners. In contrast, as discussed above, social reform that is wide ranging, highly complex
and involves multiple institutions will produce social experiments in which it is too
difficult to untangle causes..."
So Top-Down with a vengeance, but softly, softly, hunting for 'good results', for what and
how these are defined is left out entirely, and who exactly runs the process...? (Btw China
sorta follows this approach with 'social experiments' gathering data that is analysed etc. to
improve governance.)
Don't forget that the only time the Amerikastani Empire's warmongering imperialist media
called Trump "presidential" was when he launched missiles at Syria on false pretences in
support of al Qaeda.
The statement by praetor McKenzie probably won't do much to remove the "Russian bounties"
tale from the received Beltway belief structure, where it lodged immediately upon
publication, any more than earlier refutations, or its inherent implausibility, did. I see
the bounties regularly referred to by Dems and Dem-adjacent media as established fact.
In the same light, it's worthwhile to read the Politico article on the alleged Iranian
designs on the purse princess and try to spot other fictions included as supposedly factual
background, some qualified as being American assertions, but others presented as undisputed
fact, such as:
Trump's version of the almost-happened retaliation after Iran downed a U.S. drone
that the attack that killed a U.S. "contractor" in Iraq that started last winter's
U.S./Iran tit-for-tat was "by an Iranian-allied militia"
Soleimani was responsible for the death of numerous U.S. troops
Soleimani plotted to hire a Mexican drug cartel to kill the Saudi ambassador in
Washington (remember that one? a blast from the past)
This new one about the plot to get the ambassador in Pretoria may be too trivial to get
sustained attention, but it will show up as background in some future Politico article or the
like, joining the rest in the Beltway's version of reality, which at this point is made
almost entirely of these falsehoods encrusting on each other, decade after decade, creating
the phony geopolitical mindscape these people live in.
Mere factual refutation – even from otherwise establishment-approved sources –
won't remove these barnacles. For instance, in February the NY Times itself published a
debunking of the initial account that it was an Iran-backed Shia militia, as opposed to
Salafist I.S.-affiliated forces, that killed that U.S. contractor last December. But the good
(if delayed) reporting is forgotten; the lie persists. The same fate awaits McKenzie's
dismissal of the Russian bounties nonsense.
The thoughtful reader would at this point stop and ponder. "Fake News About Iran, Russia,
China Is U.S. Journalism's Daily Bread". I agree with this statement. But not just U.S. Journalism. Minimally U.K. Journalism is
on-board, if not tutoring the Yanks in the art of Journalism. And then there is Europe
herself, she too has armies of Journalists and many Journals. They too mostly fake around in
general.
Now then, that leave Journalism in "Iran, Russia, China". It is fine trait to root for
underdogs but Journalism in these states is also subject to a highly controlled and managed
environment. It is disingenuous to ignore these facts.
Given this congregation of "fakers", worldwide, it is very reasonable to question the very
"fight" that these "fakers" keep telling us is on between the "adversaries".
Good to see so many being able to name the operation of the official narrative. It serves
also another purpose, witnessed by one of the most consequential actions of all, the wanton
abandonment of international law and accountability - the GWOT and the launching of same in
Afghanistan and Iraq. That other purpose is to create cover for those, elected in our name,
to avoid responsibility.
"Who knew?" asked the soulless Rumsfeld. And the refrain returned from the hollowed out
halls of the Greatest Democracy On Earth (tm) - "We were misled!", "Look it says so right
there in the official narrative, REMEMBER?" But the misleaders are never rounded up and never
face any consequences, cause truth be told all that voted for the AUMF belong in the pokey.
And the congressional class of '02-'03 would do the same thing all over again, 'cause the
narrative's got their back.
Despite the future grimness predicted by 1984 , the ability and effectiveness of Media
Structures to openly lie and thus herd the public to embrace the preferred Narrative hasn't
turned out quite the way Orwell thought it might. Former authoritarian blocs learned the hard
way that it's better to tell their citizens the truth and actively engage them in governance,
while the Anglo-Imperial powers have gone in the opposite direction, thus the question why?
IMO, the longstanding Narrative related to the mythical Dream has greatly eroded in the face
of Reality, while at the same time the Rentier Class and the Duopoly it controls needs
to try and obfuscate what it's doing. And thus we've seen the rise of BigLie Media to be used
for the purpose of Divide and Rule. There're numerous works detailing how and why; two of the
more important are Manufacturing of Consent and J is for Junk Economics . Part
of the overall process of dumbing-down populations is the deliberate destruction of the
educational process, particularly in the areas of philosophy and political-economy/history,
which are essentially connected as one when considering the History of Ideas or a sub-area
like the Philosophy of Science.
Such a dumbing-down of a nation's populous can be measured, the USSR and its Warsaw Bloc
being the most evident, but also The Inquisition and its affect on the advancement of science
within the regions it ruled, and the inward turning of China during the Ming Dynasty which
allowed for its subjugation by Western forces beginning in the 16th Century. Most recently,
this is evident in China's passing the Outlaw US Empire in terms of geoeconomics and thus
overall geopolitical power. An explanation for India's inability to match China's development
can be found in its refusal to do away with its semi-feudal caste system and not educate its
masses so they can become a similar collective dynamo as in China. At the beginning of his
brief tenure, JFK noted the Knowledge Gap that existed between a USSR that was nearing its
intellectual heights (although that wasn't known then) and the USA whose educational system
effectively excluded @60% of students from having the opportunity to advance. There would
never have been a Dot.Com economy without JFK's initiative to improve educational outcomes.
There seems to be a notion within the Outlaw US Empire's elite that an well educated populace
presents a danger to their rule and they can get by using AI and Robotics to further their
future plans. Here I'd refer such thinkers to the lessons provided by the failure of Asimov's
Galactic Empire in his Foundation series of books--particular their reliance on AI, robotics,
dumbing-down the populace to the point where no one recalls how atomics functioned. The sort
of balance sheet being constructed by the Fed cannot repair or replace crumbling
infrastructure or train the engineers needed to perform the work.
So, what continual BigLie Media lies tell us is the continued downward spiral of the
West's intellectual abilities will continue while an East that values the Truth and Discovery
moves on to eclipse it, mainly because the West has stopped trying, thinking it's found a
better way based on the continual amassing of Debt, which is seen as wealth on their balance
sheets. Ultimately, the West thinks the one person holding all the assets as the winner of
its Zero-sum Monopoly Game is a better outcome than having millions of people sharing the
winnings of a Win-Win system that promotes the wellbeing of all. I can tell you now which
philosophy will triumph, but you all ought to be capable of reasoning that outcome.
After a sound and an in-depth analysis, b sometimes confounds me with his credulity. Take
this sentence for example: "Why do U.S. journalist presume that the agencies and anonymous
officials who work under him are more truthful in their uttering than the man himself is hard
to understand. Why do swallow their bullshit?" Of course there is no daylight between the US,
and indeed the whole Western governments, and its Press. Other than few independent blog site
such as this, every media outlet is in the service of its home government or foreign
sponsors. Only born-suckers take the corporate media at face value. Modern journalism is
nothing but an aggressive propaganda racket.
You only have to look at who owns the media and who their close friends are,
to understand why the media says what it says or lies what it lies !
It's an industry promoting the elites self-interest, creating fictioous enemy countries to
feed the arms industry and create US domestic mass paranoia.
The Israeli lobby groups are at the wheel of the whole dam clown car.
Using lies (bearing false witness) to cause murder and theft are not exactly a new
phenomenon.
These 'groups of individuals', which are employing these fabricated deceptions, are doing
nothing less than trying to commit murder and theft.
No doubt the two propaganda streams will merge until we will be told that the CIA now
believes that Iran will attempt plausible deniability by funnelling the money through Putin,
who will offer it to the Taliban by way of a bounty on the Ambassador's head.
The CIA's wet dream: the Taliban does it, Putin arranged it, but it was all Iran's fault,
leading to:
A) infinite occupation of the poppy fie.... sorry, Afghanistan
B) even more sanctions on Russia
C) war with Iran
'"Public opinion", according to Bernays, is an amorphous group of judgments which are not
well elaborated even in the head of a single average individual. He extracts a quotation from
Wilfred Trotter, which states that this average man has many strong convictions whose origin
he can't explain (Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War, p. 36). People's minds have
"logic-proof compartments" which must be approached by means beyond the rational. (pp.
61–68).'
Yes, I forgot to mention this very important book. If I'm not mistaken (and I may be),
Popper got the term from Bernays.
Popper, von Hayek... these guys are the fathers of neoliberalism. I'm not mentioning
backyard intellectuals here. They shaped the West as we know it today and, if you're a
Westerner and wants to understand the civilization you live in, you have to know what they
formulated.
Just to clear that off: I don't agree with Popper's (or Bernays, for that matter)
conception on "public opinion". The Marxist conception of ideology is much more complete and
precise scientifically.
Speaking of education (although of science/tach, rather than critical thinking)...
Add in the migration of top-level educated individuals. In the US, an underdeveloped
primary/secondary school system creates room at the university/grad level to absorb talent
from the rest of the world. For many years, this was a source of competitive advantage --
imported human capital is better than home grown, because if you import, you take it away
from someone else. Clever!
It was not that big a deal for the US if social mobility of native born lower and middle
classes was stifled somewhat. (and I would say it still would not be a big deal if the
resources of the country were not so grossly mismanaged/wasted/stolen).
But in the current century, or certainly the decade now ending, China alone can fill every
US grad school science/tech program and still have people to spare for itself. Other parts of
the world are right up there as well.
And then you have computers. Sometime between 2000 and 2010, computers became pretty much
cheap enough that you could give one to a every kid, even in families of limited means.
Provided the primary/secondary education system is there to support it, a country could
develop as much tech talent as they had population. The first generation of kids whose
childhood took place under this condition is now coming out of university - I would think
vastly greater in numbers than any amount the US (or Euro) higher educational system can
absorb. Should be a pretty serious shifting of gears in how human capital is distributed
worldwide.
But none of this is about critical thinking. Few systems of organizing society actually
promote that ... it tends to happen in spite of the organizing principles, rather than
because of them. Nor are the most educated (regardless of country of origin) any less
susceptible to the propaganda - if anything they are more so, due to the design of the
message, because it is more important that they receive it. You want a book recommendation
that talks about that, check out 'Disciplined Minds' by Jeff Schmidt (though perhaps with an
overly pessimistic outlook -- people can recognize the reality he describes and deal with
it... it is only the more naive/idealistic types who fall extra hard for the mythology and
then find themselves in a conflict they can't handle). There are lots of other avenues to
take too... about the psychology of self-discovery, discovery of self-vs-social-organism
etc....
Exactly that and yet we are constantly fed a diet from the bottom of the barrel. NYT?
WAPO? They are rags. Gutter press peddling drivel. Surely there are more erudite and critical
publications in this world than these USA drivel sheets. I am aware of good journalism in
Switzerland and elsewhere but currently separted from a device adequate to translate and
quote.
Thank you Conspiracy-theorist it I way past time we escaped the neverending story of BS +
HATE.
A propos fake news, John Helmer reports on the Navalny saga and was lately on the
Gorilla radio podcast with Chris Cook to discuss the newest events. It's a one-hour-talk
but very enjoyable listening to Helmer. You can also follow his reports on his blog
Dances With Bears .
Try this on for size. This is a conclusion I arrived at several decades ago, wrote about
several times, but not recently.
Everything that was accomplished (albeit incompletely or moderately) through the New Deal
and then the abortive Great Society absolutely spooked the oligarchy. Lifting much of the
working class out of absolute wage slavery to the point where the next rung on Maslow's
ladder was at least visible. And when it all culminated in the late 60's and early 70's with
the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the Surface Mining act, and various labor protection
measures, the wealthy owner class decided the proles had gained too much power to influence
"their" captive government.
The princes and barons of industry and finance were very open about their complaints. The
advance of regulation on their ability to pollute and to exploit must stop or they would take
their bundles of riches and go elsewhere. It is what Saint Ronny was ALL about. And so all
that got fat and filthy rich during the real American Century took their wealth where
regulation and labor fairness and justice didn't exist to continue their exorbitant profit
taking.
And then they imported those cheap products here to wreak what was left of our industrial
base and to impress on all of us that they remain the boss, the real power. Drive down wages,
destroy pensions and safety nets and put US proles back into wage slavery. Remember the 80's
and 90's when Wal-Mart basically told established and storied US manufacturers "either you
produce the goods we want for what our Asian suppliers can make them for, or you're
finished." And that is exactly what happened. Wal-Mart was just the vanguard, it is now
ubiquitous. Another aspect of this assault was forcing us proles into the stock market
through our pensions and retirement funds so as to make us all sympathetic to de-regulation -
so as not to hurt OUR bottom line. Many labor unions became just a sick symbiosis with the
industries they "served."
Incomplete and observational, I am not erudite or lettered, but I think it is an accurate
narrative.
There is a curious schizophrenia where the U.S. press will treat presidential claims about
foreign affairs as a sacred truth but treat claims denying adultery, such as in the Lewinski
affair, as dismissible.
Living in the USA (Steve Miller classic) has always seemed to me about dealing with falsehood
and deception. US highschool seemed like he time for me when the formidable pressure to
conform became completely nonsensical, perhaps because it was so utterly cruel, but also
because it seemed untruthful. You basically were required to accept modes if behavior and
thought that seemed alien to human behavior, but were presented as the sine quo non of how to
be. How to succeed, how to live. It seems to me that if you were attempting to retain
truthfulness, this conformity was rife with logical fallacies of every sort which if you
tried to deal with them, or confront them, you were ostracized or at worst outcast.
In the many years since, it seems like everything else, once a person adopts untruthful
behavior, it is next to impossible to change course, so you deal with all kinds of people who
have doubled down on their personal deceptions. Marriages based on financial success come to
mind, and are like any deception, the cause of incredible dis ease and misey.
There is a philosophical concept I came upon called parrhesia that Foucault gives a
fantastic series of lectures on which can be found by searching the web, that investigates
the perils implicit in telling truth to falsehood, and the many disasters and tragedies that
have befallen human kind in the attempts to do so.
I've come to think that humans by nature are basically incapable of avoiding whatever it
is that is "truth." Because over and over life seems to present situations that are the
unswervingly the same to everyone. Youth and aging, for example, and the end result never
varies, like illness, death, and dying. And everyone has their own similar story navigating
the human predicaments and facing an inalterable "truth," which might be in this example,
death.
My wonder as I observe life as I age, is what is the damage done to those not only who try
their honest best to remain truthful, but what is the damage done to those who cannot escape
an adopted untruth and refuse to let go of it. I suppose in this moment of history, you need
only look at pandemic, wildfires, and conflicts to see how far human beings have digressed
from an Eden. But there must be a purpose to it all? Like, trying to cling to any kind of
integrity.
You think international fake news is just a Trump thing? Just off the top of my head we have
thins like Tonkin Bay, Kuwait babies being massacred by Iraqi troops, my personal favorite
Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and a multiple of mean Assads killing their people with
poison. That is just a bipartisan few. We have one political party, who serves the deep
state. The deep state serves the interests of Wall Street and more importantly the Rothschild
world banking system. Give the spooks a lot of credit they let us have two "choices" while
controlling both. Think of it as a neo fascism kinda thing that ironically finances the anti
fascists. The press is just a means to an end. Assume everything is an agenda, and read the
independents for some actual thought. I may not agree with you all the time, but I do love
you MoA. Thank you for all your work.
'spooked oligarchy...reforms..culminated in ..70s'
Yep. When committed Dem's go off on Trump, it's deeply felt but kindof a ritual rant.
Bring Ralph Nader into the conversation, just mention him in passing, and the response
becomes live! Betrayal, danger of being shown up again!
Old and Grumpy @67 has a good point. Anyone suggesting that fake news is in any way related
to Trump being President are big parts of the problem for why fake news persists in the first
place. Suggesting that it is because of Trump, and thus implying that the fake news will go
away when Trump does, is either profoundly ignorant, or profoundly deceitful, though probably
both. Trump ranting about fake news exposed the problem and forced it into the public
discourse. Those rants did not create the problem.
"You basically were required to accept modes if behavior and thought that seemed alien to
human behavior ... ... forced to double down"
I had short but deeply influential conversation right out of college with a recruiter/HR
manager from Raytheon, of all places. He talked about exactly what you said. He spoke, in a
hypothetical third person, about a mid-career guy with a mortgage and family who finds
themselves questioning the defense industry. How that isn't the best place to be in,
mentally. I changed my career plans that day, forever thankful for the encounter.
However, regarding people being able to avoid unpleasant realities, he was of the opinion
that for most people, it is possible to do so. Even beneficial. (Except of course for the
recipients of his company's products. I didn't say that but I think he figured out that I was
thinking it). The issue, from the point of view of running an effective organization, is what
happens if the doubters and believers start to mix? Part of his assigned task was to simply
keep out people curious enough to ask too many questions. That's one of the "benefits" of
really polarizing politics too.
"My wonder as I observe life as I age, is what is the damage done to those not
only who try their honest best to remain truthful, but what is the damage done to those who
cannot escape an adopted untruth and refuse to let go of it."
That's what modern pharmaceuticals are for, and why one in six Americans (officially) are
prescribed them. If we include the numbers of Americans who self-medicate with alcohol and/or
grey/black market pharmaceuticals, then the proportion would be a bit (quite a bit) larger.
People who succeed at being truthful (mostly to themselves) are not confronted with cognitive
dissonance mind-quakes; however, such individuals are confronted with experiencing the retch
reflex when consuming mass media.
Is being truthful vs embracing the lies then half-dozen of one and six of the other? I
find satisfactory peace of mind from being truthful and simply avoiding the primary vector of
deception; the mass media. Noble individuals like our host and some of the posters here will
slog through that vile cesspool of lies and fish out the little nuggets of truth that leak
out. It is selfish of me to leave such dirty work to others, but at least I am not
hermetically isolated on a mountain somewhere.
An interesting thought. I have long had the feeling that a large part of the obviously
orchestrated drive to almost define both of the two US parties with really incredibly
unimportant issues like bathroom preferences were designed to split the voters as equally as
possible, so that to swing elections one had only to control the votes of a very small number
of tie breakers. I still think this is likely true, but I do think you make an important
point that a lot can be learned about what is truly important to the PTB by reflecting on the
topics that aren't being argued over.
Compare the "two" US political parties, and you will note that while they seem to be getting
ever more extreme and irreconcilable and quasi-religious in their differences, these
differences are always on the periphery. Both parties are being indoctrinated with certain
common beliefs they will take for granted because they are never talked about -- because
these points are not allowed to be in contention. So while even something like climate change
can be a big divider (no worries, there's money to be made on both sides of that issue, and
means of control); but you will never hear debate about
1. America is the greatest ever!
2.
America is always and unquestionably a force for good, and even it's proven bad things
(kidnapping, rendition, and torture programs) are done "for the greater good."
3. Unbridled
capitalism is the only way, and the privatization and unwinding of any vestiges of social
programs, like education, social security, and even utilities and infrastructure, is always a
good thing deserving of priority.
4. Individualism is the best, if not only, way. To be a
hero you must strike alone against the bad guys/the system/the government; someone who
rallies others, causes forces to be gathered and united, unionized, whatever are discouraged
or ignored.
5. "Leadership" in the affairs of others around the world is American right,
responsibility, and destiny. Having the largest, almost entirely offensively oriented
military on earth is essential; and having it, we must use it to get our money's worth.
6.
Omnipresent "intelligence" services equal safety and are absolutely required for life to be
normal. I'm sure there are other examples of "universally agreed" doctrines in the US, but
these are some that leap out.
These crazy MSM lies Anecdote. Last Sat (Geneva, Switz.) I spoke to 20 ppl whom I know
somewhat, all know I like to discuss news etc. I said, weird news this week, making no
mention of Navalny. 18/20 believed Putin poisoned Navalny and brought it up spontaneously!
There is something so appealing and narratively 'seductive' about spies and 'opponents'
(Skripal ) and mysterious poisons used by evil doers etc. that fiction just flows smoothly
into fact or whatever is 'real.'
I had to mention Assange myself to most, but there the reaction was very mixed, most
thought Assange was being persecuted, or it was 'not right', and took this story seriously in
one way or another - 4 ppl claimed not to know the latest news. Here, NGOs, Leftists and
Others have made demands for him to be offered asylum in Switz, so he has been front
page.
Besides that (I'm always interested in from-the-ground view-points, experiences, so post
some myself) what is going on is monopoly consolidation:
Mega MSM in cahoots with the MIC, Big Pharma, Big Agri, Finance, and so on. Corporations
joining up their positions bit by bit while also competing in some ways, bribing and owning
the Pols. who are front-men and women tasked with providing a lot of drama, manufactured
agitation, etc., which in turn is fodder for the MSM, etc.
Overall, the most important sector to watch is the GAFAM, 1, the reign of the middle men
is close at hand (control information, both the channels and the content, and commerce up to
a point.) All this leaves out energy considerations, another vital topic left aside.
Thanks for your reply! I've touched on the topic of human capital and its development
occasionally here, positing it's the #1 asset of all nations. Those nations who neglect to
develop their own human capital are bound to become deficient when it comes to basic
comparative advantages with other nations, particularly as political-economy shifts from
being materialistic to knowledge-based; thus Pepe Escobar agreeing wholeheartedly with my
comment about India. (He added this article to his FB timeline and I posted my comment
there.)
From 1999-2003, I was involved in developing distance learning platforms for the rapidly
advancing ability to learn outside of a school's four walls. The other educators I worked
with and myself had great hopes for the virtual classroom and what it might do to aide both
teachers and students. At the time we thought this development would provide a great
opportunity for the third member of the educational team--parents--to play a greater role in
the process since active parental involvement was proven to generate better student outcomes.
But for that to be properly implemented, equitable funding for all school districts became an
even greater issue than it was already. This issue highlighted the huge problems related to
financing education at a moment when BushCo Privatizers began to seriously threaten what was
already in place. And that problem has only worsened, the vast disparities being very evident
thanks to COVID-forced distance learning. The primary reason good teachers can't be retained
is the entire system's a massive Clusterfuck. And computers aren't substitutes for even poor
teachers. And parents are even more aloof from becoming involved in the process than ever
before.
The dumbing-down I mention is now entering its third generation. The educational structure
needs to be completely refitted nationally, but I wouldn't give that task to any of the
fuckwits employed by the past three administrations--Yes, I'm arguing education needs to be a
completely federal program instead of the 53 different school systems in states and
territories; and yes, I'm aware of the pitfalls and potential corruption that poses, which is
a microcosm of all the problems at the federal level of government. This problem is yet
another very basic reason why the Duopoly and its backers need to be ousted from government
and kept as far away as possible as the structure is torn down and rebuilt--The USA will
never be great again until that is done.
I suggest that the reason that the media focus on the ridiculous is to convince the public
that there is nothing important happening - except where the MSM wants the participation of
the public as in with anti-Russia, anti_China, anti-Socialism, etc. Good to get the public
participation directed at harmless targets.
They've got to fill the papers with something. The public must be kept warm, comfortable,
semi-comatose, watching cat videos...
Last thing anybody wants is the involvement of the public, they will only screw
everything-up or try anyway.
Thanks for your reply! Your explanation sadly is correct, but it was put into motion prior
to Reagan becoming POTUS. The tools used to undo the New Deal were put into place before FDR
became POTUS. And FDR's unwillingness to prosecute those who attempted to overthrow his
government provided that faction to infiltrate government and eventually attempt to undo the
good that was done prior to WW2. When looked at closely, American society was generally quite
Liberal in the positive aspects of that term and during the Depression was becoming ever more
Collectivist with the war advancing that even further. At the war's end, it was paramount for
the forces taking control of the nation to push the public to the right and away from its
collectivist proclivities. Where we find ourselves today thus is not an accident of history
but an engineered outcome. You may recall voices on the Right accusing Liberals and their
organizations of engaging in Social Engineering. Those accusations were projections since it
was actually forces on the Right that were maneuvering society to the Right while assiduously
applying the principle of Divide and Rule to create a condition where they would be immune
from political challenge, which is where we are now.
A few understand this ugly truth and how we arrived here. What's missing is scholarship
that links the changes that began in the 1870s with today's situation. Yes, there're good
examinations of various pieces of the overall puzzle. But it appears that only Hudson and
those in his small circle have figured it out; yet, they haven't produced a complete history
that encapsulates it all. And for us to have a realistic chance to undo what's been done, we
need to know how it all transpired.
Antonym @ 60
"There are big differences between Trump and Biden regarding their foreign policies:
Trump is hard on Xi-China and soft on Putin Russia, while Biden is the reverse."
I don't share your view. The current administration's foreign policy is very much aligned
with that of past administrations and the diplomatic circus surrounding the Skripal affair
alone is evidence that nobody is soft on Russia.
What differs, however, is the presentation. Trump is criticized (not praised) for being
allegedly soft on Russia and Biden criticized for being allegedly soft on China. This clever
trick ensures that just about everybody is onboard the bash-China-and-Russia train.
In a violently polarized society, with red-blue antagonism reaching ridiculous heights,
people tend to act exclusively in contradiction to the cult figure they hate so much.
If a Trump hater hears the criticism that the president is too soft on Russia, he will
readily grab the bash-Russia stick hoping to score a few hits on Trump. The same person's
reaction to a criticism on Biden will be either indifference or angry denial. In either case,
he will not be opposed to the bash-Russia nor the bash-China movement.
The dem hater's reaction is similar. Indifference to the soft-on-Russia claim (ie. no
opposition to the bash-Russia movement) and active support for the China-bashing.
The article and subsequent discussion brings to mind Dawkins discussion of Memes and
Memetics. Not those pesky internet memes. The propaganda war is fierce, and almost without
exception the people here are poking and prodding perhaps without being able to put the
finger on the "EZ button". This is war, baby, so one thinks the following link may be useful:
Wherein: " Ideally the virus of the mind being targeted will be overwritten with a higher
fidelity, fecundity, and longevity memeplex in order to assure long term sustainability. When
this is not practical, it is still possible to displace a dangerous memeplex, by creating a
more contagious benign meme utilizing certain packaging, replication, and propagation
tricks."
The lie is irrelevant, whether true or false, it must be believable, and it must
successfully replicate.
You are right, the early FDR days were, in hindsight, one of the most important in setting
the course of the US for the next century, and unfortunately Big Business won, taking us on a
long, ugly road to the right. I agree this would be a most fascinating history book if some
of those respected, genuinely knowledgeable people you often cite could collaborate on an
opus.
Yes, most people do not know that the wide ranging labor laws implemented at that time
were actually not meant to empower organized labor, but to limit it. Perhaps FDR thought it
was the best he could do for the working class, but I tend to think it was more a case of him
thinking that by outlawing general strikes, wildcat strikes, strikes in support of other
unions, and setting up an NLRB with a lot of political control by business, the powers who
had so recently let it be known they were ready to actively try to overthrow the government
might be mollified. I think he feared the US was at the cusp of a revolution, and perhaps it
was. Whether or not if would have been better had that been allowed to proceed is the big
question.
Anti-China activists funded by NED & Co make up all sorts of horrid stories online, which
are then picked up by MSM and political NGOs to spoon feed world audiences/viewers. Viola,
you have "fact-based" anti-China news!
This is literally what these overseas Uyghur activists do all day. Putting a random
caption on a video they ripped down from a medical worker's tiktok in China. And people
believe it. They'd even believe if the follow up rebuttal is that this is a forced labour
doctor.
Glad to see his name mentioned here. I've been saying for years here to watch the
documentary - Century of the Self. If you want to learn about and understand America, its all here. Government, Corporations,
Consumerism, Militarism, Deep State, Psychology, Individual selfishness and mental
illness.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s
Thanks for your reply! JK Galbraith in his American Capitalism: The Concept of
Countervailing Power lamented what you recap in your 2nd paragraph and that there was
thus no power capable of offsetting Big Business although one was sorely needed. As I wrote,
some very sharp minds have written about small segments of the overall movement toward
totalitarianism since the 1870s, Galbraith's 1952 book being one that's still worth
reading.
The scorching desert sun streams through narrow slats in the tiny window. A mouse scurries
across the cracked concrete floor, the scuttling of its tiny feet drowned out by the sound of
distant voices speaking in Arabic. Their chatter is in a western Libyan dialect distinctive
from the eastern dialect favored in Benghazi. Somewhere off in the distance, beyond the
shimmering desert horizon, is Tripoli, the jewel of Africa now reduced to perpetual war.
But here, in this cell in a dank old warehouse in Bani Walid, there are no smugglers, no
rapists, no thieves or murderers. There are simply Africans captured by traffickers as they
made their way from Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad, Eritrea, or other disparate parts of the continent
seeking a life free of war and poverty, the rotten fruit of Anglo-American and European
colonialism. The cattle brands on their faces tell a story more tragic than anything produced
by Hollywood.
These are slaves: human beings bought and sold for their labor. Some are bound for
construction sites while others for the fields. All face the certainty of forced servitude, a
waking nightmare that has become their daily reality.
This is Libya, the real Libya. The Libya that has been constructed from the ashes of the
US-NATO war that deposed Muammar Gaddafi and the government of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. The
Libya now fractured into warring factions, each backed by a variety of international actors
whose interest in the country is anything but humanitarian.
But this Libya was built not by Donald Trump and his gang of degenerate fascist ghouls. No,
it was the great humanitarian Barack Obama, along with Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Susan Rice,
Samantha Power and their harmonious peace circle of liberal interventionists who wrought this
devastation. With bright-eyed speeches about freedom and self-determination, the First Black
President, along with his NATO comrades in France and Britain, unleashed the dogs of war on an
African nation seen by much of the world as a paragon of economic and social development.
But this is no mere journalistic exercise to document just one of the innumerable crimes
carried out in the name of the American people. No, this is us, the antiwar left in the United
States, peering through the cracks in the imperial artifice – crumbling as it is from
internal rot and political decay – to shine a light through the gloom named Trump and
directly into the heart of darkness.
There are truths that must be made plain lest they be buried like so many bodies in the
desert sand.
To understand the depth of criminality involved in the US-NATO war on Libya, we must unravel
a complex story involving actors from both the US and Europe who quite literally conspired to
bring about this war, while simultaneously exposing the unconstitutional, imperial presidency
as embodied by Mr. Hope and Change himself.
In doing so, a picture emerges that is strikingly at odds with the dominant narrative about
good intentions and bad dictators. For although Gaddafi was presented as the villain par
excellence in this story told by the Empire's scribes in corporate media, it is in fact Barack
Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, former French President Nicholas Sarkozy, French
philosopher-cum-neocolonial adventurist Bernard Henri-Levy, and former UK Prime Minister David
Cameron, who are the real malevolent forces. It was they, not Gaddafi, who waged a blatantly
illegal war on false pretenses and for their own aggrandizement. It was they, not Gaddafi, who
conspired to plunge Libya into chaos and civil war from which it is yet to emerge. It was they
who beat the war drums while proclaiming peace on earth and good will to men.
The US-NATO war on Libya represents perhaps one of the most egregious examples of US
military aggression and lawlessness in recent memory. Of course, the US didn't act alone as a
wide cast of characters played a role as the French and British were keen to involve themselves
in the reassertion of control over a once lucrative African asset torn from European control by
the evil Gaddafi. And this, only a few years after former UK Prime Minister and Iraq war
criminal Tony Blair met with Gaddafi to usher in
a new era of openness and partnership.
The story begins with Bernard Henri-Lévy, the French philosopher, journalist, and
amateur foreign service officer who fancied himself an international spy. Having failed to
arrive in Egypt in time to buttress his ego by capitalizing on the uprising against former
dictator Hosni Mubarak, he quickly shifted his attention to Libya, where an uprising in the
anti-Gaddafi hotbed of Benghazi was underway. As Le Figaro
chronicled , Henri-Levy managed to talk his way into a meeting with then head of the
National Transition Council (TNC) Mustapha Abdeljalil, a former Gaddafi official who became
head of the anti-Gaddafi TNC. But Henri-Levy wasn't there just for an interview to be published
in his French paper, he was there to help overthrow Gaddafi and, in so doing, make himself into
an international star.
Henri-Levy quickly pressed his contacts and got on the phone with French President Nicholas
Sarkozy to ask him, rather bluntly, if he'd agree to meet with Abdeljalil and the leadership of
the TNC. Just a few days later, Henri-Levy and his colleagues arrived at the
Élysée Palace with TNC leadership at their side. To the utter shock of the
Libyans present, Sarkozy tells them that he plans to recognize the TNC as the legitimate
government of Libya. Henri-Levy and Sarkozy have now, at least in theory, deposed the Gaddafi
government.
But the little problem of Gaddafi's military victories and the very real possibility that he
might emerge victorious from the conflict complicated matters as the French public had become
aware of the scheme and was rightly lambasting Sarkozy. Henri-Levy, ever the opportunist,
stoked the patriotic fervor by announcing that without French intervention, the tricolor flag
flying over five-star hotels in Benghazi would be stained with blood. The PR campaign worked as
Sarkozy quickly came around to the idea of military intervention.
However, Henri-Levy had a still more critical role to play: bringing the US military
juggernaut into the plot. Henri-Levy organized the first of what would be several high-level
talks between US officials from the Obama Administration and the Libyans of the TNC. Most
importantly, Henri-Levy set up the meeting between Abdeljalil and Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton. While Clinton was skeptical at the time of the meeting, it would be a matter of months
before she and Joe Biden, along with the likes of Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and others would
be planning the political, diplomatic, and military route to regime change in Libya.
The
Americans Enter the Fray
There would have been no war in Libya were it not for the US political, diplomatic, and
military machine. In this sense, despite the relatively meager US military involvement, the war
in Libya was an American war. That is to say, it was a war that could not have happened were it
not for the active collaboration of the Obama Administration with its French and British
counterparts.
As Jo Becker of the NY Times explained
in 2016, Hillary Clinton met with Mahmoud Jibril, a prominent Libyan politician who would go on
to become the new Prime Minister of post-Gaddafi Libya, and his associates, in order to assess
the faction now garnering US support . Clinton's job, according to Becker, was "to take measure
of the rebels we supported" – a fancy way of saying that Clinton attended the meeting to
determine whether this group of politicians speaking on behalf of a diverse group of
anti-Gaddafi voices (ranging from pro-democracy activists to outright terrorists affiliated
with global terror networks) should be supported with US money and covert arms.
The answer, ultimately, was a resounding yes.
But of course, as with all America's warmongering misadventures, there was no consensus on
military intervention. As Becker reported, some in the Obama Administration were skeptical of
the easy victory and post-conflict political calculus. One prominent voice of dissent, at least
according to Becker, was former Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Himself no dove, Gates was
concerned that Clinton and Biden's hawkish attitude toward Libya would ultimately lead to an
Iraq-style political nightmare that would undoubtedly end with the US having created and then
abandoned a failed state – exactly what happened.
It is important to note that Clinton and Biden were two of the principal voices for
aggression and war. Both were supportive of the No-Fly Zone from early on, and both advocated
for military intervention. Indeed, the two have been simpatico in nearly every war crime
committed by the US in the last 30 years, including perhaps most egregiously in support of
Bush's crime against humanity that we call the second Iraq War.
As former Clinton lackey (Deputy Director of Secretary of State Clinton's Policy Planning
staff) Derek Chollet explained, "[Libya] seemed like an easy case." Chollet, a principal
participant in the American conspiracy to make war on Libya who later went on to serve directly
under Obama and at the National Security Council, inadvertently illustrates in stark relief the
imperial arrogance of the Obama-Clinton-Biden liberal interventionist camp. In calling Libya an
"easy case" he of course means that Libya was a perfect candidate for a regime change operation
whose primary benefit would be to boost politically those who supported it.
Chollet, like many strategic planners at the time, saw Libya as a slam dunk opportunity to
turn the demonstrations and uprisings of 2010-2011, which quickly became known as the Arab
Spring, into political capital from the Democratic camp of the US ruling class. This rapidly
became Clinton's position. And soon, the consensus of the entire Obama
Administration.
Obama's War Off the Books
One of the more pernicious myths of the US war on Libya was the notion – propagated
dutifully by the defense lobbyists-cum-journalists at major corporate media outlets –
that the war was a cheap little war that cost the US almost nothing. There were no American
lives lost in the war itself (Benghazi is another mythology to be unraveled later), and very
little cost in terms of "treasure", to use that despicable imperialist phrase.
But while the total cost of the war paled in comparison to the monumental-scale crimes in
Iraq and Afghanistan, the means by which it was funded has cost the US far more than dollars;
the war on Libya was a criminal and unconstitutional endeavor that has further laid the
groundwork for the imperial presidency and unconstrained executive power. As the Washington
Post
reported at the time:
Noting that Obama had said the mission could be paid for with money already appropriated to
the Pentagon, [former House Speaker] Boehner pressed the president on whether supplemental
funding would be requested from Congress.
Unforeseen military operations that require expenditures such as those being made for the
Libyan effort normally require supplemental appropriations since they are outside the core
Pentagon budget. That is why funds for Afghanistan and Iraq are separate from the regular
Defense Department budget. The added costs for some of the operations in Libya are minimal But
the expenditures for weapons, fuel and lost equipment are something else.
Because the Obama Administration did not seek congressional appropriations to fund the war,
there is very little in the way of paper trail to do a proper accounting of the costs of the
war. As the cost of each bomb, fighter jet, and logistical support vehicle disappeared into the
abyss of Pentagon accounting oblivion, so too did any semblance of constitutional legality. In
essence, Obama helped establish a lawless presidency that not only has little respect for
constitutionally mandated checks and balances, but completely ignores the rule of law. Indeed,
some of the crimes that Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr are guilty of have their direct
corollary in the Obama Administration's prosecution of the Libya war.
So where did the money come from and where did it go? It's anybody's guess really, unless
you're one of those rubes who likes taking the Pentagon's word for it. As a Pentagon
spokesperson told CNN in 2011,
"The price tag for U.S. Defense Department operations in Libya as of September 30 [was] $1.1
billion. This included daily military operations, munitions, the drawdown of supplies and
humanitarian assistance." However, to illustrate the downright Orwellian impossibility of
discerning the truth, Vice President Joe Biden doubled that number when speaking on CNN,
suggesting that "NATO alliance worked like it was designed to do, burden-sharing. In total, it
cost us $2 billion, no American lives lost."
As is painfully evident, there is no clear way to know how much was spent other than to take
the word of those who prosecuted the war. With no congressional oversight, and no clear
documentary record, the war on Libya disappears down the memory hole, and with it the idea that
there is a separation of powers, Congressional authority to make war, or a functioning
Constitution.
America's Dirty War in Libya
While the enduring memory of Libya for most Americans is the political theater that resulted
from the attack on the US facility in Benghazi that killed several Americans, including US
Ambassador Stevens, it is not nearly the most consequential. Rather, America's use of terrorist
groups (and the insurgents who emerged from them) as military proxies may perhaps be the real
legacy from a strategic perspective. For while the corporate media presented the narrative of
spontaneous protests and uprisings to overthrow Gaddafi, it was in fact a loose network of
terror groups that did the dirty work.
While much of this recent history has been buried by bad reporting, establishment
mythmaking, and conspiracist muddying of the truth, it was surprisingly well reported at the
time. For example, as the New York Times wrote of one of the
primary US-backed forces on the ground during the war in 2011:
"The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group was formed in 1995 with the goal of ousting Colonel
Qaddafi. Driven into the mountains or exile by Libyan security forces, the group's members
were among the first to join the fight against Qaddafi security forces Officially the
fighting group does not exist any longer, but the former members are fighting largely under
the leadership of Abu Abdullah Sadik [aka Abdelhakim Belhadj]."
Even at the time, there was considerable unease among Washington's strategic planners that
the Obama Adminstration's embrace of a terror group with known links to al-Qaeda could prove to
be a major blunder. "American, European and Arab intelligence services acknowledge that they
are worried about the influence that the former group's members might exert over Libya after
Colonel Qaddafi is gone, and they are trying to assess their influence and any lingering links
to Al Qaeda," the Times noted.
Of course, those in the know at the various US intelligence agencies already had a pretty
good sense of who they were backing, or at least the elements likely to be involved in any US
operation. Specifically, the US knew that the areas from which it was drawing anti-Gaddafi
opposition forces was a hotbed of criminal and terrorist activity.
"Almost 19 percent of the fighters in the Sinjar Records came from Libya alone.
Furthermore, Libya contributed far more fighters per capita than any other nationality in the
Sinjar Records, including Saudi Arabia The apparent surge in Libyan recruits traveling to
Iraq may be linked with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group's (LIFG) increasingly cooperative
relationship with al-Qa'ida which culminated in the LIFG officially joining al-Qa'ida on
November 3, 2007 The most common cities that the fighters called home were Darnah [Derna],
Libya and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, with 52 and 51 fighters respectively. Darnah [Derna] with a
population just over 80,000 compared to Riyadh's 4.3 million, has far and away the largest
per capita number of fighters in the Sinjar records."
It was known at the time that the majority of the anti-Gaddafi forces hailed from the region
including Derna, Benghazi, and Tobruk – the "Eastern Libya" so often referred to as
anti-Gaddafi – and that the likelihood that al-Qaeda and other terror groups were among
the ranks of the US recruits was very high. Nevertheless, they persisted.
Take the case of the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, charged by the US with guarding the CIA
facility in Benghazi at which Ambassador Stevens was murdered. As the Los Angeles Times
reported in 2012:
"Over the last year, while assigned by their militia to help protect the U.S. mission in
Benghazi, the pair had been drilled by American security personnel in using their weapons,
securing entrances, climbing walls and waging hand-to-hand combat The militiamen flatly deny
supporting the assailants but acknowledge that their large, government-allied force, known as
the Feb. 17 Martyrs Brigade, could include anti-American elements The Feb. 17 brigade is
regarded as one of the more capable militias in eastern Libya."
But it wasn't just LIFG and al-Qaeda affiliated criminal groups entering the fray thanks to
Washington rolling out the blood-stained red carpet.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS
MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
A longtime asset of the US, General Khalifa Hifter and his so-called Libyan National Army
have been on the ground in Libya since 2011, and have emerged as one of the primary forces
vying for power in post-war Libya. Hifter has a long and sordid history working for the CIA in
its attempts to overthrow Gaddafi in the 1980s before being resettled conveniently near
Langley, Virginia. As the
New York Times reported in 1991:
The secret paramilitary operation, set in motion in the final months of the Reagan
Administration, provided military aid and training to about 600 Libyan soldiers who were
among those captured during border fighting between Libya and Chad in 1988 They were trained
by American intelligence officials in sabotage and other guerrilla skills, officials said, at
a base near Ndjamena, the Chadian capital. The plan to use the exiles fit neatly into the
Reagan Administration's eagerness to topple Colonel Qaddafi.
Hifter, leader of these failed efforts, became known as the CIA's "Libya point man,"
having taken part in numerous regime change efforts, including the aborted attempt to
overthrow Gaddafi in 1996. So, his arrival in 2011 at the height of the uprising signaled an
escalation of the conflict from an armed uprising to an international operation. Whether
Hifter was directly working with US intelligence or simply complimenting US efforts by
continuing his decades-long personal war against Gaddafi is somewhat irrelevant. What matters
is that Hifter and the Libyan National Army, like LIFG and other groups, became part of the
broader destabilization effort which successfully toppled Gaddafi and created the chaotic
hellscape that is modern Libya.
Such is the legacy of the US dirty war on Libya.
The Past is Prologue
It is September 2020. Americans are focused on an election between an Orange Fascist
criminal and an old-school right-wing Democrat war criminal. Where Donald Trump projects chaos
and disorder, Biden projects stability, order, and a return to normalcy. If Trump is the virus,
then surely Biden is the cure.
It is September 2020. Libya prepares to enter its eighth year of civil war. Slave markets
like the one in Bani Walid are as common as youth literacy centers were in Gaddafi's Libya.
Armed gangs and militias wield power even in areas nominally under government control. A
warlord regroups in the East as he looks to Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab
Emirates for support.
It is September 2020 and the US-NATO war on Libya has faded to a distant memory as other
issues like Black Lives Matter and police murder of Black youth have captured the public
imagination and discourse.
But these issues are, in fact, united by the bond of white supremacy and anti-Blackness. The
Libya once known as the "Jewel of Africa," a country that provided refuge for many sub-Saharan
African migrant workers while maintaining independence from the US and the former colonial
powers of Europe, is no more. In its place is a failed state that now reflects the kind of
vicious anti-Black racism forcefully suppressed by the Gaddafi government.
Libya as the global exemplar of the exploitation and disposability of the black body.
Squint a little and you can see President Joe Biden getting the old band back together.
Hillary Clinton welcomed into the Oval Office as an influential voice, someone to give words to
the demented thoughts of the living corpse serving as Commander-in-Chief. Derek Chollet and Ben
Rhodes laughing together as they buy another round at their favorite DC hangout, toasting to
the re-establishment of order in Washington. Barack Obama as the éminence grise behind
the political resurgence of the liberal-conservative dominant structure.
But in Libya, there is no going back, no fixing the past to escape the present.
Perhaps the same might be true of the United States.
AVmaster , 13 hours ago
Number of wars the boy king and his minions started: 6, that we know of: Ukraine, Syria,
Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.
(Not withstanding the proxy wars during the "muslim spring" like in egypt)
Number of wars Trump has started: 0
This is NOT including the ongoing wars that trump inherited but has dialed back
somewhat, like reduced troop presence in iraq/afghan.
fucking truth , 12 hours ago
Trump hasn't started any but he still feeds the beast, hopefully his next four will see
a correction to this behaviour,one can only hope.
ay_arrow 2
GreatUncle , 3 hours ago
Has no choice.
The economic reality is the MIC is a big part of the US domestic economy.
Shut that down and you would go into a full blown depression.
If you build bullets, missile, bombs, F35's etc. they have to be used or you have to
start scrapping them.
The issue though is not the MIC as such but the lack of any moral integrity and
disregard for human life by those mentioned in the article. Once the country was put into
this position by them it is much more difficult to extract.
Now I think those in the article should be prosecuted for not going to Congress to
declare a war and fund it correctly as this is supposed to be the check and balance of a
rogue president.
play_arrow
Bollixed , 2 hours ago
Regarding the MIC, many of those companies consist of manufacturing entities comprised
of engineers, factory infrastructure and logistics infrastructure funded by government
spending that could realistically be 'retooled' to produce things that could benefit
society instead of piss money away on the tools of destruction. America is in need of a
massive infrastructure overhaul from our electric grid to our transportation modes to name
just two. Nothing is preventing those MIC giants from refocusing their efforts toward a
better America versus the current focus they are paid to undertake. It's a matter of
priorities and right now I find their priorities misplaced and vulgar.
The money is available at their current funding rates, the manpower and brain power is
there, what is lacking is the will to turn the ship around and start putting humans before
profits. There is no need to go into a full blown depression as with the shut down of that
capacity if those entities are given a mandate to redirect their output for the good of
society and create things of lasting value. In other words, take the retooling mindset that
turned refrigerator factories into weapons factories like they did in WW2 and take the
weapons factories and turn them into entities for the betterment of society. And then wean
them off of the government teat.
DeepStateThrombosis , 3 hours ago
Unused funds from the Pentagon can be redirected to the Wall and other Defense
protections not known to the public at this time.
ay_arrow
DaiRR , 1 hour ago
DemoRats and NeoCons will try every way possible to keep the wars going.
The USA is incredibly blessed to have Donald J. Trump in the White House.
play_arrow
1
muggeridge , 11 hours ago
To think Americans demonstrated in the millions to stop the Vietnam war exposed as a
fraud by Daniel Ellsberg in the PENTAGON PAPERS. Obama did admit that the removal of
Ghadaffy was his biggest foreign policy mistake. Clinton also in trouble over Tunisia while
Secretary of State with US ambassador killed in 2012. She took responsibility but was found
not to have acted improperly by US Congress. However her part in this tragedy remains an
open question. Today the only Middle Eastern country still standing IRAN supported by
China. Syria supported by Russia. Cold Wars never go away?
play_arrow 2
GreatUncle , 3 hours ago
Cold war is an inevitable consequence of a MIC that must continually produce and expend
munitions to keep its part of the economy going.
2 play_arrow
scaleindependent , 10 hours ago
Final Jeopardy, genius!
What is Syria and Iran?
HIS acts against those countries ARE acts of war.
lay_arrow
muggeridge , 10 hours ago
Regime Change as our modus operandi to serve the cause of military superiority as if
pre-set by computer.
How everything became war and the military became everything by Rosa Brooks Tales of the
Pentagon.
Something funny happened on the way to the forum; Broadway musical. Hail
Caesar?
play_arrow
CheapBastard , 7 hours ago
Hey, military contractors have to put food on the table also, even if it means murdering
millions of innocent people in Yugoslavia (like Clinton did) or in the middle east (like
Bush and Obama did).
play_arrow
GreatUncle , 3 hours ago
Yep some people don't get it.
With all the military contractors now moved into peaceful protests maybe we actually
need more war to keep them gainfully employed.
Get the picture?
2 play_arrow
SoilMyselfRotten , 3 hours ago
HIS acts against those countries ARE acts of war
Don't forget also blockading Venezuela
No1uNo , 9 hours ago
No Libya story is complete without mentioning David Shayler- the MI6 agent turned
whistleblower who was tasked with blowing up Gaddafi in his car - but refused to do so when
he was accompanied by his wife and children. (under the Tony Blair govt). -yep.
Shayler later went into a bizarre series of personas -which is understood by many as self
preservation tactic - (testimony of mentally unstable is not recognised in court - so no
threat).
Then there's the covert ratlines of gathering the ex-Libyan army weapons & shipping
them to ISIS Syria via Turkey and White Helmets (see James Corbett) organised by HRC via
Benghazi -so no rescue for US Ambassador & team (RIP) HRC prefer'd keep op covert.
Carrier 50 miles off coast -HRC killed US Diplomats & support team. -Biden knew.
Also check out the courageous Dilyana Gaytandzhieva who runs armswatch .com and some SM
in her name. for laypersons overview of extent of games-within-games &
wheels-within-wheels in arms trade/ chem weapons "research". She's currently researching
the Beirut bombings - which will be another revelation when it hits.
sauldaddy , 11 hours ago
That awkward moment when you find out the first Black President brought slavery BACK to
Africa .....Q- That awkward moment when you find out the first Black President brought
slavery BACK to Africa
_arrow
. . . _ _ _ . . . , 13 hours ago
Qaddafi kept African migrants out of the Mediterranean and away from Europe's
shores.
Sarkozy couldn't allow that knowing what was in store for Europe.
He predicted what would happen to Europe were he to be deposed. He was right. Macron's (and
Merkel's) policies are proof.
That and the gold dinar was his undoing.
.
P.S. Don't tell the leftists, but Libya was the only case of a successful socialist state.
On second thought, it might be funny to see them publicly defending Qaddafi.
Ms No , 13 hours ago
That may work for a while when you pull black gold out of the ground, for a while. Oil
declines and free **** armies breed faster. Then you are Saudi Arabia and we are about to
see how that ends up.
play_arrow
not dead yet , 12 hours ago
Libyan youth unemployment was over 30% because these spoiled kids with their families
getting oil checks in the mail every month refused to do menial jobs. Qaddafi kept the
black Africans out of the boats by letting them do the work the kids and other Libyans
thought was beneath them. A lot of the money the Africans made they sent home which was
spent in the local economies which increased jobs there. Libya also invested heavily in
Africa which created lots of jobs. These actions kept the number of Africans headed to
Europe a trickle. Once Qaddafi was gone so were all the jobs in Libya and the money that
flowed into Africa dried up and jobs were lost. A lot of businesses the Libyans created in
Africa were confiscated by the local governments and no doubt given to cronies who ran them
into the ground.
No1uNo , 9 hours ago
Gaddafi thought wrongly that job description would save him. Also suggested trading oil
for €uro's over dollar$, which blew the lid on powder keg. In the end they say it was
the oil, though my thinking was DC think tanks didn't want a monied "Mexico" on south coast
of Euroland - could make Europe too financially powerful & too difficult to
control.
play_arrow
. . . _ _ _ . . . , 6 hours ago
I had heard about selling oil for Euros in relation to Saddam, but not to Qaddafi.
Qaddafi was about the gold Dinar.
??
No1uNo , 6 hours ago
Yep, it's what can happen if I'm not careful when I post and try to watch a documentary
at the same time.
Thanks for your vigilance.
Find the Libyan gold that dissapeard.... and one likely finds the source of the
overthrow....
quanttech , 13 hours ago
try the french treasury...
Bill300 , 12 hours ago
Look no further than Hillary's brother. General Gage, a former Special Forces Colonel,
had been hired by Hillary, et al, to assemble a merc army to secure Qaddafi's gold amidst
the fog of war and transport it to Haiti to be laundered thru Hugh Rodham's little gold
mine. Does anyone really think Obama sold enough books to buy a $12M seaside mansion in
Massachusetts and the Washington DC home?
These people are so evil.
Justapleb , 12 hours ago
That's certainly titillating. Do you have a source that puts these things together?
I tried some Google searches, but I already know those searches are censored so it is
not an easy thing to find
dark pools of soros , 4 hours ago
you gotta get your hands dirty if you want to know whats in the soil
DaCrustyDad , 13 hours ago
Imagine if some country invaded us and slaughtered about 23.5 million (apples for apples
based on the 500k civilians killed out of 7,000,000)? Obama and the Clinton's should be
playing basketball at Pelican Bay the rest of their lives at best.
quanttech , 12 hours ago
It's mind boggling.
Trump dropped 7400 bombs on Afghanistan in 2019. That would be like 60,000 bombs
dropping on the US one year.
Arch_Stanton , 9 hours ago
Libya was a modern, secular Arab state. A model for the rest of Islam. Who the f@@k
decided it was appropriate to reduce Libya to a 19th century sh1thole?
Shifter_X , 9 hours ago
Hillary ******* Clinton
Constitution101 , 6 hours ago
on instruction from the cabalist banksters who never permit a rival currency system.
Qaddafi's gold-backed dinar throughout Nth Africa would have exposed and displace their
petrodollar scam in which they infinitely print their cronies untold trillion$.
end the fed, and all central banks.
Best Satan in Town , 6 hours ago
That's the story in a nutsh-ell
desertboy , 10 hours ago
The petrodollar centrality gets monotonously overplayed. For anyone who cares to look,
the geopolitics of the West/NATO are the geopolitics of all its central bank owners as an
interlinked group, who are keeping all their options open.
Destroying Libya went beyond the petrodollar to the fight for influence in Africa's
future, where France's history in Africa has made it the designated hitter. Note the new
CFR-type buzz on a "resurgent France" due to this role.
No1uNo , 8 hours ago
I maintained elsewhere on this thread, was advice of DC think tanks he was taken out.
Because a well funded, well educated, low cost, labor factory resource state on south coast
of eurozone makes europe too competitive to DC tank's interests. (and open Africa's growing
economy to cheap - outside eurozone - euro profiting business interests).
Gaddafi was never a threat to Europe, but europe buying his oil and building his
economy......different story.
No1uNo , 9 hours ago
B-I-N-G-O !
get your case of beer for that one!
not dead yet , 11 hours ago
Qaddafi would have not met with death if he only wanted to sell oil in the Gold Dinar.
Instead he wanted the Gold Dinar as the currency for all of Africa. The system was being
set up along with 4 central banks to manage African economic and monetary affairs when
Libya was attacked. Libya also invested heavily in Africa creating lots of jobs and
enhancing communications. Unlike the IMF and World Bank with their draconian edicts
attached to their loans, like no loans for fossil fueled power plants and other eco
garbage, almost guaranteeing default the Libyan Development Fund attached no such garbage
to their loans making success possible. Europe was charging Africa $500 million a year for
use of their satellites. Qaddafi ponied up $300 million of the $400 million needed to put
up Africa's first satellite screwing Europe out of $500 million a year. Qaddafi was also
the driving force for Africa for Africans and which kept US African command and it's troops
out of Africa. Now the US has troops all over Africa. Qaddafi really was bad. Bad for
Western exploitation of Africa.
At the time of Qaddafi's demise the Libyan Development Fund had $32 billion in banks
around the world. Western governments and media tried to claim it was money stolen by
Qaddafi. Last I knew the Libyan's, the rightful owners of that money, haven't seen a
penny.
Constitution101 , 6 hours ago
great info.
got a good concise source?
dark pools of soros , 4 hours ago
you have to dig deep to get little nuggets of truth about Libya since so many sides want
to tarnish and twist to push their agenda and greed on its riches
SmokeyBlonde , 12 hours ago
America, as a country, deserves whatever happens just for electing and re-electing
Obama.
Far too many grifters, Bolsheviks, pedocrats, and sub-moron IQ feral ghetto rats
oh-so-pleased with themselves for being so enlightened and bringing chaos to the whole F'n
world.
ReflectoMatic , 11 hours ago
The Democrats are working with the globalist at the United Nations & World Economic
Forum. The program being run is the destruction of the United States and elimination of
humans, per instructions from "The Cult of Rasur", which is located in the jungle at Mount
Rasur in Costa Rica but now renamed as the United Nations University For Peace. The
university teaches occult and meditation and only graduates 20 students per year, those
students then take positions of influence within the UN. The cult was founded by Maurice
Strong & Dr Muller, Strong also created the Agenda 21 & World Economic Forum, plus
in 1982, the more exclusive secret group of 300 called just "World Forum" which met in Vail
Colorado near his hippie commune at the Baca Grande in the San Luis Valley.
The GAIA Theory which was converted into GAIA Religion at the Maurice Strong Hippie
Commune in Colorado. David Perkins was there, apparently one of the first hippies to arrive
at the commune around 1978. In this podcast we get a rare look into the mindset of the
globalist and the creation of Agenda 21.
It's not clear if David Perkins & his partner, Chris O'Brian, are aware of Maurice
Strong & Klaus Schwab conducting the special and secret World Forum of 300 at Vail in
1982. At that 1982 event the concepts David Perkins describes, combined with concepts
gotten by paranormal activities at Mount Rasur in Costa Rica, were passed down to the 300
and thus began the creation that has brought the world to a standstill.
Chris O'Brian has an interesting podcast also, describing the Maurice Strong hippie
commune, in this he describes meeting Lawrence Rockefeller at the commune.
And finally, who the heck is this guy, the one in the middle? MJ-12 captured this photo
of him in Hollywood in 1972, he was then usually seen in company of Curtis LeMay, grandson
of the General who founded JPL NASA MJ-12, then in 1982 he was at that World Forum in Vail
and in charge of covertly poisoning them all with LSD. He was born in Berkley or Alameda in
1951 while his mother was at theater watching "Day The Earth Stood Still". Seems there is a
message which needs to be understood.
David Champaign, night manager at the Christie Lodge in Avon Colorado, can give further
description and verification that the ultra-secret World Forum did occur.
If you listened to that podcast, there was mention of the "group of psychics" at the
Baca hippie commune. The guy in the photo, the link just above, the photo was taken in the
presence of Allen J Funk MJ-12, Funk's only friend took the photo, Bob Custer. Bob shared
hotel rooms with the Stones & Monkeys while on concert tour as official photographer.
The guy in the photo and Bob were taken one night, in Allen's white Cadillac convertible,
to a house in the hills east of JPL Pasadena. There he met Bob's ex, Val, and Val's work
associates, the work Val and associates did was some secret psychic project in Central
America and perhaps in Colorado, usually Val just came over to Bob's house to visit when
Val was not off at those remote locations. Secret about it they were.
Shifter_X , 8 hours ago
These are self-loathing humans. Imagine wanting to destroy the human race.
SMH
bobroonie , 13 hours ago
Obama bombed Libya in defense of Islamic terrorists he sold weapons to. 600 requests for
more security from Ambassador Stevens unanswered.. But when defense contractor Osprey
Global's Sidney Blumenthal called Clinton gave him special treatment. Lots of money to be
made for a defense contractor and the Secretary of State that starts the war.
not dead yet , 12 hours ago
At the time Stevens died, he was not murdered he died of smoke inhalation as the
invaders set the place on fire and the safe room wasn't air tight, Benghazi was the most
dangerous place on earth for diplomats. Attempted murders and kidnappings of diplomats were
so rife that most governments closed their missions and evacuated their people. Stevens was
well aware of this and he went to Benghazi, the US Embassy is in Tripoli, anyway with his
last meeting running guns with the Turks. By doing so he signed his death warrant.
According to many at the time Stevens was begging for more security shortly before he left
for Benghazi he was offered a military security detachment that was already in Tripoli and
Stevens refused. Seems Stevens and Hillary didn't want the military to know what they were
up to.
quanttech , 12 hours ago
the ambassador got what was coming to him. he was a terrorist, plain and simple.
the rest of the Americans were rescued ... by Qadaffi loyalists. the Americans are shy
to admit this.
David2923 , 5 hours ago
Facts you probably do not know about Libya under Muammar Gaddafi:
• There are no electricity bills in Libya; electricity is free for all its
citizens.
• There is no interest on loans, banks in Libya are state-owned and loans given to
all its citizens at 0% interest by law.
• If a Libyan is unable to find employment after graduation, the state pays the
average salary of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
• Should Libyans want to take up a farming career, they receive farm land, a house,
equipment, seed and livestock to kick start their farms – all for free.
• Gaddafi carried out the world's largest irrigation project, known as the Great
Man-Made River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country.
• A home considered a human right in Libya. (In Qaddafi's Green Book it states:
"The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not
be owned by others.")
• All newlyweds in Libya receive 60,000 Dinar (US$ 50,000 ) by the government to
buy their first apartment so to help start a family.
• A portion of Libyan oil sales is credited directly to the bank accounts of all
Libyan citizens.
• A mother who gives birth to a child receives US $5,000.
• When a Libyan buys a car, the government subsidizes 50% of the price.
• The price of petrol in Libya is $0.14 per liter.
• For $ 0.15, a Libyan local can purchase 40 loaves of bread.
• Education and medical treatments are free in Libya. Libya can boast one of the
finest health care systems in the Arab and African World. All people have access to
doctors, hospitals, clinics and medicines, completely free of charge.
• If Libyans cannot find the education or medical facilities they need in Libya,
the government funds them to go abroad for it – not only free but they get US
$2,300/month accommodation and car allowance.
• 25% of Libyans have a university degree. Before Gaddafi only 25% of Libyans were
literate. Today the figure is 87%.
• Libya has no external debt and its reserves amount to $150 billion – though
much of this is now frozen globally.
You have explained why Libya was perfectly ripe for looting by the US Evil Empire and
its slave states.
dark pools of soros , 5 hours ago
Yes I've been shining a light on this for years. The true history of Libya should red
pill EVERYONE that can still think for themselves.
We are destroying George Washington statues while worshiping a black african american
president who destroyed the one rare prosperous socialist African nation.. which now has
slave trading!!!! all because it didn't share it's water to french/italian bottlers. And of
course the Gold Dinar becoming the African currency.
Lokiban , 11 hours ago
Gadhaffi's two mistakes leading to this war.
Threaten to sell his sweet oil in gold dinars
Threaten French president Sarkozy to pull out all of his money out of France and reveal
to the public the donations he made to the French presidential campaign of Sarkozy, which
we know is illegal because foreigners can't donate money.
That sealed his fate. America needed to stop this gold for oil scheme just like it did
in Iraq and French president Sarkozy's presidency was ont he line.
NuYawkFrankie , 12 hours ago
Slick Willy --> War Criminal
Chimp --> War Criminal
Obongo --> War Criminal
Hillarity --> War Criminal
Groper Joe --> War Criminal
Etc... etc... etc...
Are you at least BEGINNING to see a pattern here???
If not, you soon will do as 'the chickens come home to roost' and ZOG focusses it's
attention on YOUR a$$!
Apeon , 11 hours ago
Apparently you are not old enough to remember Johnson
NuYawkFrankie , 8 hours ago
I'm holding "Johnson" as we speak... and the most I can accuse him of is being a naughty
- sometimes a VERY naughty- boy. Looks like he's due for another spanking!
NAV , 2 hours ago
But in Libya, there is no going back, no fixing the past to escape the present.
Perhaps the same might be true of the United States.
Obama left this country and Libya in rags, what else is there to say.
Yet Obama lives, while Gaddafi is dead, a man who had the good of his people in mind and
already was using primary water from which eventually all of Africa could be watered and
developed into a paradise for his people, a people who live on a continent rich with more
natural resources than any other.
But this could not be allowed by the Devil's Globalists who want to own all the world's
resources in order to make beggars of all mankind. Obama was their man. He not only
betrayed Africa but all men for a $40,000,000 pot of silver proffered by the world enemy of
liberty - the DEEPSTATE.
NAV , 2 hours ago
But in Libya, there is no going back, no fixing the past to escape the present.
Perhaps the same might be true of the United States.
Obama left this country and Libya in rags, what else is there to say.
Yet Obama lives, while Gaddafi is dead, a man who had the good of his people in mind and
already was using primary water from which eventually all of Africa could be watered and
developed into a paradise for his people, a people who live on a continent rich with more
natural resources than any other.
But this could not be allowed by the Devil's Globalists who want to own all the world's
resources in order to make beggars of all mankind. Obama was their man. He not only
betrayed Africa but all men for a $40,000,000 pot of silver proffered by the world enemy of
liberty - the DEEPSTATE.
you know it makes sense , 5 hours ago
Who writes this crap and who believes a word of it ?.
No mention that Gaddafi planned to set up a new gold backed African money to sell his
oil rather than the euro or the dollar. 143+ tons of gold and 140 tons of silver went
missing.
It was because of this lie and NATO's involvement in the destruction of Libya that both
Russia and China vowed never again to allow this to happen to another country
taglady , 7 hours ago
Trump: "lock her up" became "she's been through enough." What has she been through
exactly? "Make America great again" became we need to bail out Boeing and the rest because
of an "invisible enemy." It's invisible alright, because it doesn't exist. The only
invisible enemy are the parasites shoveling our money into their own very deep pockets in
every conceivable way. Like Biden and his entire family and the Clintons and the Obamas and
many others have been doing for many years. Like Bush and Cheney made out so well after
911. That's how Gates and the pharmaceutical industry became so bloated while real
Americans have struggled to make ends meet.
taglady , 7 hours ago
Interesting coalition between finance, government and media. Like when Bush announced
the necessary, unconstitutional war and changes to our society after 911. We didn't get to
vote on these changes. No referendum ever happened. Just an announcement in the media and
media spin on public opinion, then preplanned actions by corrupt officials. This alliance
was never more obvious than during the cv response. We are censored and silenced while
liars and thieves are given the bully pulpit to beat us over the head with their idiocracy
to enrich very few parasites, again. Then the public is blamed for the rogue actions of
government/ business/media. America is bad. We just keep voting for these dummies. Except
our voting system is run by the same corrupt dummies who keep getting re-elected. Hmmm.
Just like they did to Kadafi and many others. Suddenly Libya is poor. What happened to all
of Kadafi's gold? Probably the same thing that happened to the Pentagon trillions and SS
"surplus" and public pensions across America. Taxation without representation leaves us
broke, without a voice and broken. What are we going to do about it?
Iconoclast27 , 1 hour ago
The problem is you believe imperialism and colonialism has ended in the African
continent when that clearly isn't the case, this Libyan regime change op being the latest
example of interference you are claiming no longer exists.
John C Durham , 1 hour ago
Actually the end of colonialism that FDR ("Winston, Colonialism is the Cause of this
War. This war is going to end all Colonialism".) wished for is hardly over. We got
Democratic Party's Truman, not the great Henry Wallace, remember?
Libya only proves this true.
LEEPERMAX , 5 hours ago
America's "BOTCHED CIA OPERATION OF THE CENTURY" as they funneled GADDAFI WEAPONS from
the PORT OF BENGHAZI into SYRIA as OBAMA & CO. completed their agenda to DESTABILIZE
THE MIDDLE EAST and eventually ALL OF EUROPE.
NO MORE . . . NO LESS
QABubba , 5 hours ago
This is the very reason I sat out the 2016 election. They say citizens don't vote
foreign policy but I did. The "We came, we saw, he died" statement illustrated that our
leaders didn't have a clue as to the geopolitical damage we had done. The US supported a
"no fly zone" in the UN Security Council. Russia supported it. Gaddafi declared his own,
stating that none of his air force would fly. The US and their allies quickly "redefined"
it to mean they could destroy his air force on the ground, and once destroyed, any of his
antiaircraft guns, and once destroyed, any of his tanks and artillery (which don't fly),
and his troop convoys.
Gaddafi's, Russia's, perhaps North Korea's big mistake was believing the US would stand
by their agreement in the UN Security Council. This and the Eastward creep of Nato may very
well be the deciding factor's in Putin's view that he has no responsible actors in the West
to deal with. North Korea was watching. Any dream of getting a denuclearized North Korea
just receded by about 50 years.
And of course, our presstitute media had a starring role as always. The average American
thinks this was a just war, and knows nothing of the slave markets, and nothing about the
flood of African immigrants, who are majority muslim, and have no plans whatsoever to
assimilate, into Europe. The leaders of France and supposedly Great Britain have stabbed
their citizens in the back, as they will now have to watch European culture destroyed.
Vivekwhu , 6 hours ago
Many thanks are due to Draitser for this excellent report on the vile activities of the
US Evil Empire in Libya. The power motives have been laid bare, but the massive greed of
the US/EU imperial elites have not been detailed. The greed for Libyan oil by France and
Italy is well known but the US also looted Libyan gold, just as they looted Ukrainian gold
after the 2014 Maidan coup.
By removing Gaddaffi (and who can forget Clinton's evil words "We came, we saw, he
died") and looting the gold they scuppered the plans to create a gold-backed dinar for all
of Africa, that would have challenged the use of USD, French-controlled "Franc" and other
fiat currencies.
That would have been shocking for the US/EU imperial elite that regards Africa as their
private fiefdom to loot at will.
Combined with a lust for power, the US/EU imperial elites have an insatiable greed.
After all, what use is an empire if the elites can't gorge themselves at will?
lastugro , 10 hours ago
... and Medvedev led Russia abstained (did not veto the vote) at the UNSC session where
the intervention was approved. Russia bears a tacit responsibility.
Michael Norton , 11 hours ago
Obama supplied ISIS with leftover weapons from the Libya operation to take out Bashar
Assad in Syria. That didn't work out for him too well, did it? Got an ambassador and some
CIA spooks killed in Benghazi.
dogfish , 9 hours ago
And Trump steals the oil, the oil that is desperately needed by the suffering Syrians.
Trump is a real humanitarian.
Maghreb2 , 5 hours ago
Obama believed every word he was fed about the R2P Right to Protect fantasy concocted at
the U.N. At the same time if you knew how dangerous the man was with his Green Revolution
and Desert sorcery you would have had him killed.
The first step of his plan was the Libyan African Gold Dinar which would have been a
commodity backed gold cuerrency. This would have broken Rothschild and most of the colonial
banking systems. On its own it was a just move but not even the Chinese could have an
African Bloc form that fast with that much growth. Imploding the CFA system would have
destroyed France as we know it and made it poorer than Poland.
Second factor was his ruthless plans to deal with his Islamic Nationalist and Monarchist
"Brothers". Gaddafis Green revolution could have spread across the desert wastes and easily
overthrown the Al Sauds and trapped Arab natioanlists in their citites. Not a powerful
fighter but understood desert warfare. It was the cost of Soviet equipment and the French
adapted technicals that made him weaker. The Wars of the Sahara desert like those of
Polisario Front and Libyan Chad War were decided by mobility.
Finally there were reports amongst the occultists that the man was obsessed with the
Occult and the Djinn. Giving a warlord his own banking system and access to African black
Magic was enough even for the Jesuits to view the man as a threat to global peace. Rumours
the djinns warned him of advance of air strikes and gave strength to his soldiers in the
deserts made him a force to be reckoned with in his borders. The association with Abu Nidal
is rumoured to have revealed things about the nature of these desert beings. If he had the
innate gift for it his tribe probably would have joined us at some point. Reports he had
fallen out with the real Green a man a sage and advisor to the Islamic leaders point to a
major rupture with the Islamic creed.
Only God can really judge whether his plan to emancipate Africa was his own power grab
to free the continent or another mad man trying to join the global elite by enslaving
them.
It would appear, at this point in time, that regardless of motive of his plan, the
US-backed alternative has turned out far worse. The only positive result is more money in
the pockets of the MIC and the opportunity to play war games in the desert.
Maghreb2 , 2 hours ago
Like I said he was a dangerous man. It takes one to rock the boat like he did. End of
the day the system could have been put in place for the African Gold Standard to start to
expand into areas that were tired of the Central African Franc system but it would have
destroyed Rothschild and led to hundreds of million of Black Muslims having resources to
throw at Israel.
Making Chad, Senegal and Mali into something like Yugoslavia with Chinese and Russian
Weaponry was beyond the imaginings of Africom. Would have lowered the birth rates with the
development and solved the migration and economic crisis. Having these countries like
Sweden would have also created living space for white liberals who were highly educated.
Instead all the money vanished with the Kleptokrats. Its only insane Facists who want dead
Africans on their doorsteps in Berlin and on the television that agree with this
madness.
Euafrica, Eurabia could be avoided by making sure the Africans slow their birth rates
through development and saving wealth rather than following it to Europe when the big men
run with gold and dollars.
At the same time he was known as a devil to the Arabs and the dissidents. Sort of like
Rockefeller with the company towns and corporate face. You ask the bastards to resign and
why all these people has vanished and gives you statistics on how many electrical
appliances have been handed out and says he was never in charge and you don't know how the
system works.
Hard to say but he played the game. Robbed Bunker Hunt which was enough for us. Bunker
C%nt as we called him when he tried to bring down the Morgue in Texas. Stuff like that is
why the Illuminati are feared. Its hard for anyone to gauge what is going on and what the
domino effects are. He was trained by the Americans and British and supplied with Socialist
apparatus. Gianni Agnelli the suavest yid since Joseph kept NATO off his back. He had ties
to the U.S deep State as well but that goes back to Wheelus.
Like we said about the Occult everyone has a backer but that man had demons watching
over him. According to some. Thin line between a Djinn and Shaytan when politics and murder
get involved.
Failed nation states make a perfect platform for a profitable global criminal
enterprise.
voting machine , 6 hours ago
Allen Dulles couldn't have scripted this operation any better.
This is right out of the CIA hand book. Regime change 101
Jackprong , 7 hours ago
As is painfully evident, there is no clear way to know how much was spent other than to
take the word of those who prosecuted the war. With no congressional oversight, and no
clear documentary record, the war on Libya disappears down the memory hole, and with it the
idea that there is a separation of powers, Congressional authority to make war, or a
functioning Constitution.
Got an answer for this: CUTBACKS!
bshirley1968 , 3 hours ago
" The story begins with Bernard Henri-Lévy, the French philosopher, journalist,
and amateur foreign service officer who fancied himself an international spy. "
The real reason is the threat against the `dollar`.
JeanTrejean , 6 hours ago
It's the Frenchmen Sarkozy and B.H. Levy who are responsible for this agression.
The USA and NATO (outside Europe) were just "dumb followers".
Vivekwhu , 6 hours ago
Nothing dumb about Obomber: why did he loot and murder in Libya (or Yemen, Ukraine,
Syria etc)? Because he CAN!!!
Joiningupthedots , 21 minutes ago
Everything The West touches turns to rat ****.
Mercifully Russia recognised its mistake with Libya and stepped in to save Syria from
the same fate.
Every country, its military bandits politicians involved in the unprovoked attack and
subsequent destruction of Libya can be considered........WAR CRIMINALS.
Hopefully one day they will be stupid enough to attack Russia or China and be completely
destroyed for their stupidity.
OTBorder@CA , 1 hour ago
First of all, Gadhafi gave an unconditional surrender that was brokered by international
diplomatic channels over a month before our invasion. Obama & his minions ignored it.
We knew many pilots that flew "missions" over Libya during this war & were involved in
a massive bombing campaign. Don't forget the Wikileaks where France signed onto the war on
the condition they got a % of Libya's gold. My wish is that someday history will tell the
truth about the bastard Obama. Read the Lost Arab Spring by, Walid Phares to see all of the
other Countries Obama tried to overthrow & have radical Islamic Terrorists replace the
peaceful governments.
csc61 , 1 hour ago
The author gives these idiots far too much credit. People must come to the understanding
that presidents and politicians (on all sides) simply do as they're told. It is the hidden
hand, the international financiers, who are ruining the world. Politicians are mere pawns
... minions willing to sell their souls for a few short years of presumed power, only to
scurry off afterward to play the role of elder statesmen. Politicians are nothing more than
privileged degenerates who proved early in their political lives they could be easily
corrupted and compromised. It is not them who do the damage directly - these things would
happen no matter who's in charge. No, they're simply the ones pushed out front to sign
documents and take blame for the world's ruination ... a small price they are willing to
pay to feed their narcissistic appetites.
Mentaliusanything , 7 hours ago
I would caption that image as "Who is going first to the platform and rope... Biden
thinks he has won a Prize and is excited , The Kenyan says you first Bro (loser) and the
white Privileged woman is laughing as she says , You have nothing on Me... Bitches, I bury
mine deep and dead, I do not swing
Scipio Africanuz , 8 hours ago
Fair enough..
Now that we've completed stage 1 of the harvest, perhaps we ought boost the Republic of
Liberty, and hopefully, temper the anxious wrath of folks..
Libya was a catastrophic mistake, borne of hubris, vanity, intellectual rigidity,
vainglory, and confusion. Hubris on the part of some, Sarkozy comes to mind, vanity on the
part of some, Hillary Clinton comes to mind, confusion on the part of some, Obama comes to
mind, and Ideological rigidity on the part of some, Biden comes to mind, and vainglorious
pride on the part of some, the security establishment and their directors come to
mind..
Having cleared that, it's no use crying over spilt milk, what's necessary, if the
humility to acknowledge errors is available, is contributing rationally, and pernitently,
to fixing the errors, and not by the same thinking that led to the errors, but fresh
thinking that ought now understand that..
What's sown, is what's reaped, but MERCY it is, mitigates the harvests of depravity, via
the provision of energy to restitute, and make amends..
The caveat however, is that mercy is NEVER deployed without REPENTANCE and
RECALIBRATION,
which are the foundational pillars that make MERCY provide the energy to effect
RESTITUTION..
Having clarified that, it's pertinent to inform, that Providence is NOT interested, in
any way, shape, or form, in the damnation of anyone and why?
Well, which loving father is interested in the damnation of his children, no matter how
depraved?
Still, patience ought not be mistaken for coddling and why?
With one, patience, the intent is to provide time for change..
With the other, coddling, the gambit is the turning of blind eyes to depravity..
But seeing as God, the Almighty Father is CONSISTENTLY Just, we can conclude then, that
patience is the prerequisite for either Mercy or Damnation and how so?
Because if patience is deployed, and the depraved utilize it to change, then their
salvation is self directed..
And if not, utilized that is, then their damnation as well, is self obtained..
And thus is the Justice and Honor of Divine Providence satisfied..
It's that simple..
And on that note VP Biden, we'll no longer refer to you as that, but as Joseph..
That ought awaken in you the grave responsibility on your shoulders, like that of the
Biblical Joseph, whose father made for him, a "Coat of MANY colors.."
And if you be perceptive Joseph, you're now about to wear E Pluribus Unum (Coat of many
colors..), created as a singular garment (ONE NATION..), for a reason (the glorification of
Provident Divinity..
)
And the glorification?
That E Pluribus Unum (coat of many colors created as a singular garment..), ought
demonstrate to all who see it worn, the goodness, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, and
LOVE of the Provider of the Coat..
And considering Joseph, that in service of the Republic, you've not withheld the fruit
of your loins, it's appropriate then, that you ought now demonstrate that love for the
Republic, by putting it first, just as you'd put the fruits of your loins first, except
above Divine Providence, known to you, as God Almighty..
So then Joseph, as we begin the next stage of the harvest, remember your oath that "you
keep your promises..", you'll be judged by that oath..
And Joseph, "a promise is a debt..", it MUST be paid..
And to boost you energetically, here's Parton the Sweet Voiced Nightingale..
In the days, weeks, and months immediately following the 9/11 attacks, Arab-Americans,
South Asian-Americans, Muslim-Americans, and Sikh-Americans were the targets of widespread
hate violence. Many of the perpetrators of these acts of hate violence claimed they were
acting patriotically by retaliating against those responsible for 9/11.
...
Just after September 11, numerous Arabs, Muslims, and individuals perceived to be Arab or
Muslim were assaulted, and some killed, by individuals who believed they were responsible
for or connected to the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. The first backlash
killing occurred four days after September 11.
Balbir Singh Sodhi was shot to death on September 15 as he was planting flowers outside
his Chevron gas station. The man who shot Sodhi, Frank Roque, had told an employee of an
Applebee's restaurant that he was "going to go out and shoot some towel heads." Roque
mistakenly thought Sodhi was Arab because Sodhi, an immigrant from India, had a beard and
wore a turban as part of his Sikh faith. After shooting Sodhi, Roque drove to a Mobil gas
station a few miles away and shot at a Lebanese-American clerk. He then drove to a home he
once owned and shot and almost hit an Afghani man who was coming out the front door. When
he was arrested two hours later, Roque shouted, "I stand for America all the way."
The next two killings were committed by a man named Mark Stroman. On September 15, 2001,
Stroman shot and killed Waquar Hassan, an immigrant from Pakistan, at Hassan's grocery
store in Dallas, Texas. On October 4, 2001, Stroman shot and killed Vasudev Patel, an
immigrant from India and a naturalized U.S. citizen, while Patel was working at his Shell
station convenience store. A store video camera recorded the killing, helping police to
identify Stroman as the killer. Stroman later told a Dallas television station that he shot
Hassan and Patel because, "We're at war. I did what I had to do. I did it to retaliate
against those who retaliated against us."
Beyond these killings, there were more than a thousand other anti-Muslim or anti-Arab
acts of hate which took the form of physical assaults, verbal harassment and intimidation,
arson, attacks on mosques, vandalism, and other property damage.
Instead of "calming prejudice" the GB Bush administration institutionalized hate
crimes:
First, in the weeks immediately following the September 11 attacks, the government began
secretly arresting and detaining Arab, Muslim, and South Asian men. Within the first two
months after the attacks, the government had detained at least 1,200 men.
...
Second, in November 2001, the Department of Justice began efforts to "interview"
approximately 5,000 men between the ages of 18 and 33 from Middle Eastern or Muslim nations
who had arrived in the United States within the previous two years on a temporary student,
tourist, or business visa and were lawful residents of the United States. Four months
later, the government announced it would seek to interview an additional 3,000 men from
countries with an Al Qaeda presence.
...
Third, in September 2002, the government implemented a "Special Registration" program also
known as NSEERS (National Security Entry-Exit Registration System), requiring immigrant men
from 26 mostly Muslim countries to register their name, address, telephone number, place of
birth, date of arrival in the United States, height, weight, hair and eye color, financial
information and the addresses, birth dates and phone numbers of parents and any foreign
friends with the government.
Besides all that a rather useless security theater was installed at U.S. airports which
has costs many billions in lost time and productivity ever since. The Patriot Act was
introduced which allowed for unlimited spying on private citizens. Wars were launched that
were claimed to be justified by 9/11. These were "mass outbreaks of anti-Muslim sentiment and
violence. Many were killed and maimed in them. People were tortured and vanished. All of this
happened largely to applause of a majority of the U.S. people which were glued to 24 and dreamed of being "terrorist
hunters".
Anyone with a functional memory knows that the U.S. reaction to 9/11 was anything but
"pretty calm". It is ridiculous that Krugman is claiming that.
I find it a bit humorous b that you are critical of Krugman for his 911 dementia when for
years many of us finance types have railed about how morally corrupt the logic and thinking
of Paul Krugman is.
Paul Krugman is to economics what Bernie Sanders has become for the purported "left" side
of the "right wing" uni-party....a sheep dog for the easily led.
Paul Krugman is an acolyte for the God of Mammon/global private finance elite.
While spreading anger and hate toward Arab people, The Bush Administration rescued the
many members of the Kingdom's family from all around the US and escorted their flights out of
the US to safety in Saudi Arabia.
Distracting the public big time was Dick Cheney, VP, who insisted from the very next day
that the plot to hit the Twin Towers was Saddam's plot.
So, the historical record and US response was skewed from the getgo. AQ and Bin Laden
didn't concern the neocons. They wanted the US to go to Iraq again, and this time start a
wide war that would spread to Syria and Lebanon and Iran.
It was easy times to spread fear and hate, and Cheney and the war mongers of CENTCOM were
riding high. Americans were scared of all Arabs, all Sunnis, all Shiites, from anywhere. They
were all the same in the public's mind. Enemies.
It was perfect and has led to 19 years of endless wars. Add ISIS and al Nusra and the
Taliban and you have an endless soup of enemies.
krugman is a terrible shill for the neo-cons and liberal-interventionists of the 21st
century
at my age, I shouldn't really be surprised any more by what american "intellectuals" and
"nobel prize winners" say about anything..... but I am.
He's neo-liberal interventionist moron of the first rank, and saying what he did actually
normalizes the war mania and war-mongering which has become so staple in mainstream thought
and the "think tanks" and is now practically part of the american DNA and "culture".
shame on krugman
...
It appears the Deep State has attacked the USA's people twice in two decades--on 911 and with
the decision to let as many die as possible by deliberately not doing anything to mitigate
the impact of COVID-19 and allowing the real economy to atrophy so even more will die in the
long run.
Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 11 2020 19:40 utc | 34
Talking about tilting at windmills - I'll never forget Robert Fisk angrily pointing out
that the Yankees knew where to find Al CIA-duh because they extended the cave complex at Tora
Bora to help Al CIA-duh, equipped with 10,000 US Stinger Missiles, kick the Russians out of
Afghanistan in the 1980s!!!
(The Yankees had to wait for 10+ years to invade Afghanistan because it takes that long
for Stingers to pass their Use By date)
@michaelj72. "krugman is a terrible shill for the neo-cons and liberal-interventionists of
the 21st century"
Actually, Paul Krugman was a strong and outspoken opponent of the Iraq War since early
2003 and possibly earlier. He was amongst the few mainstream liberal commentators to take
that stand.
If MoA readers and commenters were to read the entire series of Krugman's tweets, six in
all, they will see mention of how the Bush govt began exploiting the events of 11 September
2001 almost immediately. Though the example Krugman actually uses would make most people
cringe at what it suggests about the bubble he lives in and how far removed it is from most
people's lives and experiences, and his reference to a "horrible war" does not mention either
Afghanistan or Iraq.
It has to be said that Twitter is not designed very well for the kind of informal
conversational commentary that people often use it for. But then you would think Krugman
would use something other than Twitter to discuss and compare 9/11 with the impact of
COVID-19.
The real issue I have with Krugman's Tweet is that he is revising history and bending over
backwards to apologise for Dubya in a way to criticise Donald Trump's performance as
President.
b " Anyone with a functional memory knows that the U.S. reaction to 9/11 was anything but
"pretty calm". It is ridiculous that Krugman is claiming that. "
Careful with that axe b, you are talking about Biden's chief economic adviser and likely
appointee as Chair of the Fed. How does this look?
Volker
Greenspan
Bernanke
Yellen
Powell
Krugman
Reading Krugman's columns in 2016, I had a strong to overwhelming sense that this was a
person revving up for a spot in Hillary's White House or cabinet. For some reason it isn't
hitting me as strongly this time around – he may not have as close connections in
Biden's circle – but it certainly would not be a surprise to see him take a turn
through the media/government revolving door if Trump loses (though, fwiw, I don't think it
will be a job at the Fed).
Yep. Pretty staggering how a few disgruntled ex-CIA contractors managed to, deliberately
or not, help the US Gov't launch the biggest world war operation right under the noses of the
brainwashed masses.
99% of Westerners still are clueless as to explaining the last 20 years in a broader
geopolitical context.
#28: "The antiwar protests in the US were small and insignificant."
No they were not. Millions of people demonstrated against the planned war, in the US,
in the UK, and around the world...
We mustn't forget how the vast majority of those who allegedly were anti-war suddenly went
totally pro-war silent upon Obama coming in.
But that pales compared to the vile spectacle of all the self-alleged
"anti-authoritarians", "anti-propagandists" "dissidents", who suddenly regard the government
media as the literal voice of God, where their alleged God speaks of Covid.
His book, End this Depression Now, is pretty weak. He has no theory of why the crash
occurred. He critiques the austerity agenda but doesn't understand that government spending
CAN create tax liabilities for capital down the road and eat into profits, thus blocking
expanded investments and growth. Moronic libertarians hate Krugman just because they are
right wing assholes who think, like fairies, that a free market without the state will work
fine and self correct. Marx debunked this fairy tale thoroughly in Capital Volume 1, showing
that, even if we start with the mythical free market of libertarian morons, capitalism will
still operate according to the general law by which concentration and centralization lead to
class polarization. In any case, in volume 3 of Capital, Marx develops his laws of crisis,
showing that the cycles of expansion and depression under capitalism follow the movements of
the rate of profit, which itself is determined by the ratio of the value of sunk capital in
production technologies to the rate of exploitation (profits/wages). If the former rises more
than the latter, the rate of profit sinks, along with investment, output and employment.
Financial crises then set in.
The empirical evidence in the data bears out Marx's theory, not Krugman's dumb notion of
aggregate demand, or the stupid libertarian focus on interest rates.
We could discuss here all day about the sociological subject of the American people's true
positioning in the aftermath of 9/11. It would be, sincerely, a waste of time.
The important thing to grasp over this episode - from the point of view of History - is
this: it was a strategic victory for al-Qaeda . The USA took the bait (all scripted?)
and went into a quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan. In a few years, the surplus the USA had
accumulated with the sacking and absorption of the Soviet space during Bill Clinton
evaporated and became a huge deficit in the Empire's accounts. Not long after, the 2008
financial meltdown happened, burying Bushism in a spectacular way.
There's a debate about the size of the hole the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan cost the
American Empire. Some put it into the dozens of billions of USDs; others put it into the
trillions of USDs range. We will never know. What we know is that the hole was big enough to
both erase the American surplus and to not avoid the financial meltdown of 2008.
Either the expansion through the Middle East wasn't fast and provided riches enough to
keep up with the Empire's voracious appetite or the invasion itself already represented a
last, desperate attempt by the Empire to avoid its imminent collapse. We know, however, that
POTUS Bush had a list of countries he wanted to invade beyond Iraq (the "Axis of Evil") which
contained a secret country (Venezuela). He was conscious Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't be
enough. Whatever the case, he didn't have the time, and the financial meltdown happened in
his last year in the White House.
They knew who the perps of 9/11 were: their "own" Saudi irregulars in the CIA's US main
land training camps, who started practicing on the "wrong"- domestic American- targets. These
guys were officially entered without any background checks.
The Bush and Bin Laden families go way back in money making. That is why George had to ponder
so long in that Florida kindergarten after hearing about the attacks: he had a suspicion. The
Saudi only fly out after 9/11 confirms that.
Paul Krugman Is a pro. Completely owned by Deep State. His purpose is to deflect
discussion and prevent questioning the official version of 9/11 , and get people chasing
something completely irrelevant. Well done Paul, most have taken the bait.
By
Tony
Cox
, a US journalist who has written or edited for Bloomberg and several major daily newspapers.
The New York Times and CNN are desperate to paint Donald Trump as an enemy of the military, due to his desire not to get
involved in pointless wars. But this is simply not true, and Trump has the backing of many soldiers.
Someone should tell the
New York Times, CNN and other mainstream media outlets that soldiers don't actually like getting killed or maimed for no good
reason. Nor do they like generals and presidents who spill their blood in vain.
Alas, ignorance of these
obvious truths probably isn't the issue. This is likely just another case of the biggest names in news pretending to not get
the point so they can take the rest of us along for a ride in their confidence game of alternative reality.
The latest example is the
New York Times spinning President Donald Trump's critique this week of Pentagon leadership and the military industrial complex
as disrespect for the military at large.
"Trump has lost the right and authority to be
commander in chief,"
the
Times quoted
retired US Marines General Anthony Zinni as saying. Zinni cited Trump's alleged
"despicable
comments"
about the nation's war dead – reported last week by
The
Atlantic
, citing anonymous sources – as one of the reasons Trump "must go."
Never mind that Trump and all on-the-record administration sources denied The Atlantic's report. The Times couldn't resist
when the pieces seemed to fit so well together for the military's latest propaganda campaign against Trump. First the
president disses the troops, calling them "losers" and "suckers," then he has the
temerity
to say
Pentagon leaders want to fight wars to keep defense contractors happy.
Except the pieces don't
fit. The many people who occupy so-called boots on the ground don't have the same interests as the few people who send them to
war. In fact, combat troops are given reason to hate the generals who send them to die when there's not a legitimate national
security reason for the war they're fighting. And the US has fought a long line of wars that didn't serve the nation's
national security interests. Even when a war is justified, the interests of top brass and front-line soldiers often clash.
Remember that great 1967
war movie, '
The
Dirty Dozen'
? A group of 12 soldiers who were condemned to long prison sentences or execution in military prison for their
crimes were sent on a 1944 suicide mission to kill high-ranking German officers at a heavily defended chateau far behind enemy
lines. After succeeding in the mission and escaping the Germans, the lone surviving convict, played by tough-guy actor Charles
Bronson, told the mission leader,
"Killing generals could get to be a habit with me."
So no, New York Times, speaking out against ill-advised wars does not equal bashing the military. And sorry, General Zinni,
but generals, defense contractors and their media mouthpieces don't get to decide who has the
"right
and authority"
to be commander in chief. The voters decided that already, and they expressed clearly that they don't want
senseless and endless wars and foreign interventions.
The Times cited General
James McConville, the Army's chief of staff, as saying Pentagon leaders would only recommend sending troops to combat
"when
it's required for national security and a last resort."
And no, it wasn't a comedy skit. What's the last US war or combat
intervention that measured up to that standard? Let's just say the late Bronson, who died in 2003 at the age of 81, was a
young man the last time that happened.
CNN tried a similar ploy
on Sunday, while trying to sell the "losers" and "suckers" story in an interview with US Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert
Wilkie. Host Dana Bash said the allegations fit a
"pattern of public statements
" by
the president because Trump called US Senator John McCain a "loser" in 2015 and said McCain shouldn't be considered a hero for
being captured in the Vietnam War. She repeatedly suggested to Wilkie, who didn't take the bait, that Trump's attacks on
McCain, who died in 2018, showed disrespect for the troops.
Apparently, this follows
the same line of propagandist thought which told us that saying there are rapists among the illegal aliens entering the US
from Mexico – which is undeniably true –
equals
saying
all Mexicans are rapists. In CNN land, a bad word about McCain is a bad word about all soldiers.
McCain was
a
warmonger
who didn't mind getting US troops killed or backing terrorist groups in Syria. If
he
had his way
, many more GIs would be dead or disabled, because the intervention in Syria would have been escalated and the
US might be at war with Iran. Soldiers wouldn't want their lives wasted in such conflicts.
All wars are hard on the
people who have to fight them, but senseless wars are spirit-crushing. An average of about 17 veterans commit suicide each day
in the US, according to Veterans Administration
data
.
Veterans account for 11 percent of the US adult population but more than 18 percent of suicides.
The media's deceiving
technique of trying to pretend that ruling-class chieftains and front-line grunts are in the same boat reflects a broader
campaign of top-down revolution against populism. The
military
is
just one of several pro-Trump segments of the population that must be turned against the president. Other pro-Trump segments,
such as
police
,
are demonized and attacked.
Trump has managed to keep
the US out of new wars and has drawn down deployments to Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan – despite Pentagon opposition. His rival,
Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden, can be expected to rev up the war machine if he takes charge. His foreign policy
adviser, Antony Blinken, lamented in a May
interview
with CBS News
that Trump had given up US "leverage" in Syria.
Trump also has turned
around the VA hospital system, ending
decades
of neglect
that left many veterans to die on waiting lists.
Like past campaigns to
oust Trump, the notion that he's not sufficiently devoted to the troops might be a tough sell. No matter how good their words
may sound, the people who promote endless wars without clear objectives aren't true supporters of the rank and file.
This is surely the last thing the American people want to hear, but it does confirm
President Trump's
recent statements saying that top Pentagon brass essentially seeks out constant wars to
keep defense contractors "happy": the Department of Defense plans to cut major military
contractors a $10 billion to $20 billion COVID bailout check .
Defense One
reports : "With lawmakers and the White House unable to come to an agreement on a new
coronavirus stimulus package, it's unlikely that money requested to reimburse defense
contractors for pandemic-related expenses will reach these companies until at least the second
quarter of 2021, according to the Pentagon's top weapons buyer."
Defense undersecretary for acquisition and sustainment, Ellen Lord, in recent statements has
indicated the private defense firm stimulus would cover the period from March 15 to Sept. 15
and is estimated at "between $10 and $20 billion."
"Then we want to look at all of the proposals at once," Lord said at a press briefing
Wednesday. "It isn't going to be a first in, first out, and we have to rationalize using the
rules we've put in place what would be reimbursable and what's not."
And strongly suggesting that it won't be the last of such stimulus for defense firms who
have already profited immensely off post 9/11 'wars of choice' launched under Bush and Obama,
Lord
said , "I would contend that most of the effects of COVID haven't yet been seen."
"I'm not saying the military's in love with me," Trump added , as he advocated for
the removal of U.S. troops from "endless wars" and lambasted NATO allies that he says rip off
the U.S. "The soldiers are."
"The top people in the Pentagon probably aren't because they want to do nothing but fight
wars so all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make
everything else stay happy," he added.
"Some people don't like to come home, some people like to continue to spend money," the
president said. "One cold-hearted globalist betrayal after another, that's what it was."
The "outrage" that followed included reporters claiming that Trump's words were
"unprecedented".
But that's far from the truth, as Glen Greenwald reminded his fellow journalists:
https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=true&id=1303109722468429824&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fafter-trump-lambasted-endless-wars-enriching-defense-firms-dod-confirms-10-20-billion&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=219d021%3A1598982042171&width=550px
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Well over a half-century ago, Eisenhower warned, "In the councils of government, we must
guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex . The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists
and will persist."
And further: "We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry
can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our
peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
Creepy Joe used to be a stanch neoliberal, who promoted open militarism, empowerment of
multinationals at the expense of working people; two feature of neofascism.
The Left justifies extreme and violent action by framing Trump as an existential threat to
America...
It might not seem immediately apparent that Joe Biden would have anything in common with
insurrectionary anarchists. After all, Biden has been deeply entrenched in the uppermost
echelons of American political power for nearly five decades straight -- whereas
insurrectionary anarchists generally seek to overthrow those systems, by violent force if
necessary.
The former Vice-President is not exactly the type you would imagine clad in all-black
combat-style street apparel, hurling commercial-grade fireworks at police officers. Rather, he
drafted the infamous 1994 omnibus crime bill in concert with the National Association of Police
Organizations. He is even known to venerate the arcane institutionalist ethos of the US Senate
-- whereas to insurrectionary anarchists, such institutions could only be tools of
oppression.
But the Trump Era has an odd way of bringing about unexpected ideological convergences. In
the announcement video that formally kicked off his 2020 presidential campaign, Biden
paid homage to what he called the "courageous group of Americans" who descended upon
Charlottesville, VA in August 2017 to confront an assembly of Right-wing rally-goers. Among
that "courageous group" were Left-wing activist factions broadly classified under the banner of
"antifa".
For Biden, what transpired in Charlottesville was a "defining moment," and formed the basis
for his decision to launch a third campaign for the presidency at age 76. While Biden did
herald generic American idealism in that announcement video -- which would be anathema to most
insurrectionary anarchists -- in the gravity he assigned to the Charlottesville episode, he
also affirmed a core tenet of the "antifa" worldview: the notion that a uniquely pressing
fascistic threat has gripped the country, and crushing this threat is a matter of unparalleled
world-historic urgency.
Certainly, if you picked any "antifa" member at random, there'd be an almost 0% chance that
they would express any kind of personal enthusiasm for Joe Biden. But there'd be a virtually
100% chance that they'd express a great deal of enthusiasm for the theory that "fascism" is an
accurate characterisation of America's current state of governance. Biden would be similarly
enthused to present a variation of this analysis, albeit from a slightly different ideological
angle. He typically intones things like, "This is not who we are", rather than "All Cops Are
Bastards".
Still, where Biden is united with "antifa" is in assigning such outsized importance to the
role of small-time "fascist" agitators like the ones who gathered that weekend three years ago
in Charlottesville (despite ultimately being outnumbered by Left-wing activists) on account of
the validation they are purported to have received from Donald Trump. For both Biden and
"antifa," this dynamic constitutes the chief prism through which contemporary American
political affairs must be viewed.
And for both Biden and "antifa," this mode of analysis has been hugely successful. "Antifa"
has succeeded in stoking nationwide insurrectionary fervour on a scale unseen in decades. Given
their opposition to Trump as the alleged fascist-in-chief, as well as their appropriation of
the "Black Lives Matter" protest mantle, they've received an extraordinary amount of mainstream
liberal legitimation.
Democratic Party operatives have even gone so far as to exalt "antifa" activists as the
modern-day equivalents of US soldiers fighting in World War II -- while apparently exhibiting
no embarrassment for invoking this comparison.
Another clear beneficiary of the "fascism" panic, somewhat paradoxically, has been Biden. A
supreme irony of the outsized role that "anti-fascism" has played in post-2016 US political
discourse -- as popularised by both liberals and leftists, who often claim to be at odds with
each other but nonetheless overwhelmingly agree on the underlying "fascism" prognosis -- is
that it has ultimately limited the possibility of actual Left-wing policy reform.
Democratic presidential primary voters had been traumatised by the non-stop barrage of
Trump-related hysteria churned out each and every day by profit-driven corporate media outlets,
and laboured under the sincere belief that Trump's America bears some bonafide relation to
Weimar Germany. As such, a plurality were understandably uninterested in foundational reform to
the Democratic Party.
That was bad news for socialist Bernie Sanders, who ended up losing handily in the 2020
primaries to a former Vice President whose entire campaign was predicated on little more than
restoring the pre-2016 Democratic Party to power.
And in a way, you can't particularly blame those Biden voters. Because if your main sources
of information tell you for years on end that the reins of state have been seized by an
out-and-out fascist, who is fuelling a siege of "Nazi" street agitators, whatever deficiencies
the Democratic Party might have at the moment are of little or no concern. Now even Sanders
himself has called for a "united front" against Trump ahead of the election, seeming to suggest
that the precedent of Francisco Franco is historically apt. Wasn't the whole problem with
Franco that he couldn't be voted out?
Never mind that Trump would have to be quite a feckless fascist to allow himself to be
constantly maligned in the country's major media, plotted against by his own administration
underlings, and impeached. The decidedly unsexy reality is that Trump has been a fairly weak
executive, at least relative to his predecessors in the postwar era.
But his radically unorthodox communications style belies any dispassionate assessment of
this record, thus the fascism-mongering persists more-or-less unabated. And for all the
warnings of a Reichstag Fire moment always supposedly being around the corner, the past six
months of Covid and riots were a missed opportunity for any genuine fascist seeking to
consolidate power. Trump appears largely content with issuing inflammatory tweets.
So as riots continue around the country, and corporate news networks describe post-protest
scenes with raging infernos as "mostly peaceful", the temptation can be to write this off as
mere partisan side-taking. Certainly there's an element of that -- most journalists desperately
don't want to see Trump win in November.
But thanks to the prevailing "fascism" framework, their opposition to Trump isn't just a
matter of ordinary election-year preference. It's imbued with existential,
civilisation-altering significance. How could anyone in their right mind not do everything
within their capacity to ensure the defeat of fascism? Once you accept the premise that fascism
does in fact accurately describe the current state of American governance, all bets are off --
journalistically and otherwise.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
So even if the "anti-fascists" in the equation are burning down cities, they will still
never exist on the same moral plane as the actual "fascists" whose champion occupies the White
House. Hence, riots which result in the destruction of huge swaths of Kenosha, WI magically
become a "mostly peaceful" affair according to CNN and the New York Times .
Yes, journalists also presumptively ascribe a certain virtue to any protests that occur with
the imprimatur of "Black Lives Matter". But racial disparities have been a fact of American
life since the dawn of the republic. The unavoidable explanation for why they've taken on such
frantic energy in the past several months is the alleged spectre of fascism, namely Trump. With
a Democratic President, even one as vanilla as Biden, there will doubtless be future race-based
controversies. But they won't have the cosmic weight as those that occur when a "fascist"
president also looms.
Adding to the growing list of ironies, Trump's primary conception of the presidency has less
been Fuhrer, than "Pundit-in-Chief", whereby he proudly brandishes the role of world's loudest
media critic -- with media criticism having been one of his life-long passions. Given that
experience, Trump knows how to expertly pry at tensions in how pundit narratives get
constructed, and the "peaceful protest" cliché provides all the material that could ever
be desired in that respect. Kayleigh McEnany, in tweeting a photo of a
recent Trump air hanger rally in Pennsylvania, described the attendees (only half-jokingly) as
"peaceful protesters".
The reason she did this is because if one follows the recent patterns of media nomenclature,
any and all "peaceful protesters" should be painstakingly accommodated, even if their
gatherings produce widespread arson attacks or increase the Covid-19 infection rate. There is
no impartial explanation for why the "peaceful protests" of this past summer deserved praise,
adulation, and rousing defences from the standpoint of pandemic mitigation. Again, only does
this make sense when inserted into the blinkered fascism vs. anti-fascism context.
One wonders if these protesters and rioters have ever paused to consider why it is that so
many establishment media outlets are so consistently eager to advocate on their behalf, with
the phrase "largely peaceful" having been stretched well past the point of absurdity. And one
also wonders why so many powerful forces are so willing to join in affirming their
"anti-fascism" worldview -- up to and including, in his own way, Joe Biden. For all the talk
about dismantling systems of oppression, those who actually wield power in 2020 America seem to
view the "fascism vs. antifascism" dichotomy as awfully convenient to their own self-preserving
interests.
If after reading the headline you thought that is is one of the Russian universities got
financing from NED and is preparing to teach our grant-eaters "the science of color
revolutions", then you are mistaken.
It is the USA Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia, which now offers 101 of
color revolution preparation in a course called "Overthrow the State" for its American students
and the subject of the course is the USA, not the xUSSR space.
According to the course description, it "puts every student at the head of a popular
revolutionary movement that seeks to overthrow the current government and create a better
society." Among questions discussed:
How will you gain power?"
How will you communicate with the masses?
How do you plan to improve people's lives?
How will you deal with the past?
These are the questions that the University course answers. To get a diploma in the course
"how to overthrow the state" you will need to pass 3 tests. It will be necessary to write your
"Manifesto" after studying historical examples and revolutionary thought from Franz Fanon to
Che Guevara, Mahatma Gandhi and representatives of the revolutionary movement. You will also
have to "write a compelling essay about rewriting history" and a "white paper" (white paper is
a kind of business plan, but it is written for an audience that is not related to
business).
Univrsity of Washington and Lee is so
progressive, that in July the faculty voted to remove the name of Robert Li from the name of
the University.
Will we ever return to a time when USSID 18 was adhered to by NSA? Sadly, our politicians or those who quest for power and stroke
won't let U.S. go back to that time of protections for all Americans.
9th Circuit Court of Appeals found the activity regarding NSA and its metadata collections, illegal.
Doug Valentine's new book, The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal
Operations Corrupt America and the World , is a compilation of newly updated articles
and recent interviews. The book, which discusses a part of history that is rarely mentioned
nowadays but is vital to understand as we enter the Trump era, is divided into four sections.
The first covers the CIA's Phoenix program in Vietnam; the second looks at how the agency
manages the War on Drugs; the third reviews how the Phoenix program became the model for
Homeland Security and the War on Terror; and the fourth takes a look at the the CIA's influence
on the media.
The CIA created the Phoenix program in South Vietnam in 1967 as a means of identifying,
capturing, detaining, interrogating and assassinating the civilian leaders of the insurgency.
As detailed in the book, the program has become the template for Homeland Security, as well as
for waging the War on Terror and the War on Drugs.
The following edited excerpt, which focuses on the CIA's illegal domestic spying program,
Chaos, was omitted from the book. It is taken from an interview Valentine did with Guillermo
Jimenez in November 2014, originally titled "The CIA Has Become the Phoenix."
Cloaked in secrecy, the CIA is rarely written about and poorly understood. But while
researching the infamous Phoenix program, Valentine managed to penetrate the agency and
interview dozens of agency officers. His
Phoenix research materials are available to the public at the National Security Archive.
His interviews with several CIA officers are available online here and here
.
GUILLERMO JIMENEZ: The Phoenix Program has recently been republished by Open Road
Media as part of their Forbidden Bookshelves series. Would you mind sharing with us how your
book was chosen for the series? What do you make of this new-found interest in Phoenix; what
the CIA was up to in Vietnam; and what the CIA is up to generally?
VALENTINE: When the book came out in 1990, it got a terrible review in The New York
Times . Morley Safer, who'd been a reporter in Vietnam, wrote the review. Safer and the
Times killed the book because in it I said Phoenix never would have succeeded if the
reporters in Vietnam hadn't covered for the CIA.
Several senior CIA officers said the same thing, that "So and so was always in my office.
He'd bring a bottle of scotch and I'd tell him what was going on." The celebrity reporters knew
what was going on, but they didn't report about it in exchange for having access. I said that
in the book specifically about The New York Times . So I not only got the CIA angry at
me, I also got the Vietnam press corps angry at me too.
Between those two things, the book did not get off to an auspicious start. The Times
gave Safer half a page to write his review, which was bizarre. The usual response is just to
ignore a book like The Phoenix Program . But The New York Times Book Review
serves a larger function; it teaches the media elite and "intelligentsia" what to think and how
to say it. So Safer said my book was incoherent, because it unraveled the bureaucratic networks
that conceal the contradictions between policy and operational reality. It exposed Bill Colby
[who ran Phoenix for the agency and later became CIA director] as a liar. Safer was upset that
I didn't portray his friend and patron as a symbol of the elite, as a modern day Odysseus.
Luckily, with the Internet revolution, people aren't bound by the Times and network
news anymore. They can listen to Russia Today and get another side of the story. So Mark
Crispin Miller and Philip Rappaport at Open Road chose The Phoenix Program to be the
first book they published. And it's been reborn. Thanks to the advent of the e-book, we've
reached an audience of concerned and knowledgeable people in a way that wasn't possible 25
years ago.
It's also because of these Internet developments that John Brennan, the director of CIA,
thought of reorganizing the the agency. All these things are connected. It's a vastly different
world than it was in 1947 when the CIA was created. The nature of the American empire has
changed, and what the empire needs from the CIA has changed. The CIA is allocated about $30
billion a year, so the organizational changes are massive undertakings. If you want to
understand the CIA, you have to understand how it's organized.
JIMENEZ: I want to talk to you about that but first I'd like to touch upon the CIA's
infiltration of the US media. I find it curious, because the way that you describe it, it's not
so much a deliberate attempt to censor the media. There's a lot of self-censorship as a result
of that already existing relationship. Is that how you see this?
VALENTINE: Yes. The media organizes itself the way the CIA does. The CIA has case
officers running around the world, engaged in murder and mayhem, and the media has reporters
covering them. The reporter and the case officer both have bosses, and the higher you get in
each organization, the closer the bosses become.
The ideological guidelines get more restrictive the higher up you go. To join the CIA,
you have to pass a psychological assessment test. They're not going to hire anybody who is
sympathetic towards poor people. These are ruthless people who serve capitalist bosses .
They're very rightwing, and t he media's job is to protect them. Editors only hire reporters
who are ideologically pure, just like you can't get into the CIA if you're a Communist or think
the CIA should obey the law.
It's the same thing in the media. You can't get a job at CNN if you sympathize with the
Palestinians or report how Israel has been stealing their land for 67 years. The minute you say
something that is anathema or upsets the Israelis, you're out. The people who enforce these
ideological restraints are the editors and the publishers. For example, while covering the
merciless Israeli bombardment of civilians in Gaza in 2014, Diana Magnay was harassed and
threatened by a group of bloodthirsty Israelis who were cheering the slaughter. Disgusted,
Magnay later referred to them as "scum" in a tweet. She was forced to apologize, transferred to
Moscow, and banished forever from Israel.
In a similar case, NBC correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin was playing soccer with four young boys
in Gaza when Israel shelled the playing field. Mohyeldin witnessed their murders, which he
reported in a series of tweets. Without ever providing a reason, NBC pulled Mohyeldin from Gaza
and prevented him from ever returning. NBC replaced Mohyeldin with Israeli sympathizer Richard
Engel.
Any dictator would be happy with the way American media is organized. The minute you step
out of the box, they fire you or send you off to Siberia . It's a homogenous system. Not
just the media and CIA, but politicians too. As the 2016 primaries proved, you can't be a
candidate for either party unless you pass the ideological test. You must be a freewheeling
capitalist. You must support Israel with billions of tax payer dollars. You must give the
military whatever weapons it wants. That's the nature of the American state. These things
naturally work together because that is the way it has been structured for 240 years.
JIMENEZ: We've seen pseudo alternatives emerge in the Internet posing as adversarial or
anti-establishment when they're anything but. We've seen this growing trend, and it's something
to be mindful of as we look for these sources on the Internet.
VALENTINE: The Internet is a free for all, so you have to approach it the way any
enlightened person approaches every part of America, which is buyer beware. Capitalism is not
designed to protect poor people or make sure people lead healthy, fulfilling lives. It's
designed to make sure the super-rich can steal from the poor. There's only so much wealth and
the rich want it.
The rich want to monopolize information too. Is a particular piece of information on the
Internet coming from a reliable source? Who knows? Just because some of it is true doesn't mean
that all of it is true. To be able to discern whether the information is accurate or complete,
you must be grounded in the reality that the capitalist system are organized to oppress you,
keep you in the dark and off balance as much as possible. It's a game of wits and you've got to
be smart about it. Buyer beware.
JIMENEZ: Now I'd like to talk about the recent organizational changes in the CIA. It stems
from an article in The Washington Post by Greg Miller. The headline is "CIA Director
John Brennan Considering Sweeping Organizational Changes." What the article is saying is that
Brennan wants to restructure the CIA using the model of their Counterterrorism Center; merging
different units and divisions, combining analysts with operatives into hybrid teams that will
focus on specific regions of the world. This sounds to me like the organizational changes that
were born out of Phoenix and that were exported to other parts of the world over the years. The
CIA appears to be applying the same structure to all of its operations. Is that how you read
this?
VALENTINE: Yes, and it's something that, from my perspective, was predictable, which is why
The Phoenix Program was re-released now, because what I predicted 25 years ago has
happened. And you can only predict accurately if you know the history.
The CIA initially, and for decades, had four directorates under an executive management
staff: Administration, Intelligence, Operations, and Science and Technology. Executive
management had staff for congressional liaison, legal issues, security, public relations,
inspections, etc. Administration is just that: staff for finance, personnel, and support
services like interrogators, translators and construction companies. Science and Technology is
self-explanatory too, but with a typical CIA twist – science for the CIA means better
ways to kill and control people, like the MKULTRA program. And now there's a fifth directorate,
Digital, that keystrokes and hacks foreign governments and corporations.
The Operations people overthrew foreign governments the old fashioned way, through sabotage
and subversion. The Operations Directorate is now the National Clandestine Service. The
Intelligence Directorate, which is now called Analysis, studied political, economic and social
trends around the world so that executive management could mount better operations to control
them.
The Operations Directorate was divided into several branches. The Counterintelligence (CI)
branch detected foreign spies. Foreign Intelligence (FI) staff "liaison" officers worked with
secret policemen and other officials in foreign nations. They collected "positive intelligence"
by eavesdropping or by recruiting agents. The Covert Action branch engaged in deniable
political action. The Special Operations Division (now the Special Activities Division)
supplied paramilitary officers. There was also a Political and Psychological branch that
specialized in all forms of propaganda.
These branches and directorates were career paths for operations officers (operators)
assigned to geographical divisions. An FI staff officer might spend his or her entire career in
the Far East Asia Division. The managers could move people around, but those things, generally
speaking, were in place when the CIA began. The events that led to the formation of the
current Counterterrorism Center began in 1967, when US security services began to suspect that
the Cubans and the Soviets were infiltrating the anti-war movement. Lyndon Johnson wanted to
know the details, so his attorney general, Ramsay Clark, formed the Interdepartmental
Intelligence Unit (IDIU) within the Department of Justice. The IDIU's job was to coordinate the
elements of the CIA, FBI and military that were investigating dissenters. The White House
wanted to control and provide political direction to these investigations.
The Phoenix program was created simultaneously in 1967 and did the same thing in Vietnam.
It brought together 25 agencies and aimed them at civilians in the insurgency. It's political
warfare. It's secret. It's against the rules of war. It violated the Geneva Conventions. It's
what Homeland Security does in the US: bringing agencies together and focusing them on
civilians who they think look like terrorists.
The goal of this kind of bureaucratic centralization is to improve intelligence collection
and analysis so reaction forces can leap into the breach more quickly and effectively. In 1967,
the CIA already had computer experts who were traveling around by jet. The world was getting
smaller and the CIA, which had all the cutting edge technology, was way out in front. It hired
Ivy Leaguers like Nelson Brickham to make the machine run smoothly.
Brickham, as I've explained elsewhere, was the Foreign Intelligence staff officer who
organized the Phoenix program based on principles Rensis Likert articulated in his book New
Patterns of Management . Brickham believed he could use reporting formats as a tool to
shape the behavior of CIA officers in the field. In particular, he hoped to correct "the grave
problem of distortion and cover-up which a reporting system must address."
Likert organized industries to be adaptable, and the CIA organized itself the same way. It
was always reorganizing itself to adapt to new threats. And in 1967, while Brickham was forming
Phoenix to neutralize the leaders of the insurgency in South Vietnam, James Angleton and the
CIA's Counterintelligence staff were creating the MHCHAOS program in Langley, Virginia, to spy
on members of the anti-war movement, and turn as many of them as possible into double
agents.
Chaos was the codename for the Special Operations Group within Angleton's
Counterintelligence staff. The CIA's current Counterterrorism Center, which was established in
1986, is a direct descendent of Chaos.
The CIA's CT Center evolved from the Chaos domestic spying mechanism into the nerve center
of the CIA's clandestine staff. Same thing happened with the CIA's Counter-Narcotics Center at
the same time. Both are modeled on Phoenix, and both are wonderful tools for White House cadres
to exercise political control over the bureaucracies they coordinate. These "centers" are the
perfect means for policing and expanding the empire; they make it easier than ever for the CIA
to track people and events in every corner of the world. The need for the old-fashioned
directorates is fading away. You don't need an entire directorate to understand the political,
social and economic movements around the world anymore, because the United States is
controlling them all.
The US has color revolutions going everywhere. It's got the World Bank and the IMF
strangling countries with debt, like the banks are strangling college students and home owners
here. The War on Terror is the best thing that ever happened to US capitalists and their secret
police force, the CIA. Terrorism is the pretext that allows the CIA to coordinate and transcend
every government agency and civic institution, including the media, to the extent that we don't
even see its wars anymore. Its control is so pervasive, so ubiquitous; the CIA has actually
become the Phoenix.
JIMENEZ: Right.
VALENTINE: It's the eye of god in the sky; it's able to determine what's going to happen
next because it's controlling all of these political, social and economic movements. It pits
the Sunnis against the Shiites. It doesn't need slow and outdated directorates. These Phoenix
centers enable it to determine events instantaneously anywhere. There are now Counterterror
Intelligence Centers all over the world. In Phoenix they were called Intelligence Operations
Coordinating Centers. So it's basically exactly the same thing. It's been evolving that way and
everybody on the inside was gearing themselves for this glorious moment for 30 years. They even
have a new staff position called Targeting Officers. You can Google this.
JIMENEZ: Right, right, exactly.
VALENTINE: The centers represent the unification of military, intelligence and media
operations under political control. White House political appointees oversee them, but the
determinant force is the CIA careerists who slither into private industry when their careers
are over. They form the consulting firms that direct the corporations that drive the empire.
Through their informal "old boy" network, the CIA guys and gals keep America at war so they can
make a million dollars when their civil service career is over.
JIMENEZ: The Washington Post and subsequent articles frame it as if these changes are
drastic. But to hear you, it's a natural progression. So what does this announcement mean? Is
the CIA putting out its own press release through the Washington Post just to give
everyone the heads up?
VALENTINE: Well, everybody in the CIA was worried that if the directorates were reorganized,
it would negatively affect their careers. But executive management usually does what its
political bosses tell them to do, and Brennan reorganized in 2015. He created a fifth
directorate, the Directorate for Digital Innovation (DDI) ostensibly as the CIA's
"mantelpiece". But, as the Washington Times reported, "it is the formation of the new
'mission' centers – including ones for counterintelligence, weapons and
counter-proliferation, and counterterrorism – that is most likely to shake up the
agency's personnel around the world."
The CIA's "ten new Mission Centers" are designed to "serve as locations to integrate
capabilities and bring the full range of CIA's operational, analytic, support, technical and
digital skill sets to bear against the nation's most pressing national security problems."
This modernization means the CIA is better able to control people politically, starting with
its own officers, then everyone else. That's the ultimate goal. Politicians, speaking in a
unified voice, create the illusion of a crime-fighting CIA and an America with a responsibility
to protect benighted foreigners from themselves. But they can't tell you what the CIA does,
because it's all illegal. It's all a lie. In order for the politicians to hold office, they
have to cover for the CIA. Their concern is how to explain the reorganization and exploit it.
They squabble among themselves and cut the best deals possible.
"... 'Mostly peaceful protests' are like the 'moderate rebels' in Syria - propaganda constructs that do not exist in the real world. The people who owned the burning cars and whose businesses were destroyed will not be relieved by such phrasing. ..."
"... Joe Biden's attempt to swing Republican voters to his side has failed . At the same time he has rejected many of the issues progressives favored. This will hurt the election turn out the Democrats will need. Add to that the unrest which plays into Trump's hands. The Democrats who fear that are right ..."
"... he sole focus on Antifa as the problem Imo just shows the power of the media and politicians to shape the narrative. ..."
Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler said Wednesday he hasn't done enough to focus on damages caused
by some city protests over the last three months and the fallout from coronavirus. He
called on the community to help him come up with better solutions to city issues.
During the last months the Magnificent Mile in Chicago
was looted - twice. Yesterday new riots and looting occurred in Minneapolis after a rumor
of another police killing incited some people :
Police Chief Medaria Arradondo tried to dispel rumors that spread on social media about the
death of the unidentified Black man, who was suspected in a Wednesday afternoon homicide
and fatally shot himself on the Nicollet Mall as officers approached several hours later.
His death, which was captured on city surveillance video and released by police within 90
minutes, nonetheless sparked protests and unrest in the heart of downtown.
The video confirmed the police account of what happened and showed the man glancing over
his shoulder before pulling out the gun and firing, then collapsing to the ground as a
half-dozen witnesses ran away with their hands in the air. The officers, one of whom had
his gun drawn, shooed a remaining witness away and kicked the suspect's gun away before
performing chest compressions.
Last Sunday police in Kenosha, Wisconsin proved to be too incompetent to arrest a man
they had already had under control . They shot him 7 times into the back when he was
trying to get into his car. Nights of rioting followed. Buildings were burned down and businesses
were looted.
Yesterday a white teen with a semi-automatic weapon had the stupid idea to join others in
'protecting the businesses' in Kenosha from further looting. He ended up killing two people
and wounding more after he was attacked by some of
the rioters. The teen was arrested and he is facing charges but I doubt that he is guilty of
more than sheer stupidity and manslaughter in self defense.
The cycle of violence will likely continue. There are too many racist in the police and the level
of U.S. police training seems to be abysmal. There is also too much tolerance for violence
within the general community.
Politically this plays into Trump's law and order campaign. The Democrats have lauded
Black Live Matters and the protests but have hardly spoken out against the rioting and
looting that comes with them.
This CNN chyron from yesterday
evening is an expression of their position:
'Mostly peaceful protests' are like the 'moderate rebels' in Syria - propaganda
constructs that do not exist in the real world. The people who owned the burning cars and
whose businesses were destroyed will not be relieved by such phrasing.
Joe Biden's attempt to swing Republican voters to his side
has failed . At the same time he has rejected many of the issues progressives favored.
This will hurt the election turn out the Democrats will need. Add to that the unrest which
plays into Trump's hands. The Democrats who
fear that are right :
"There's no doubt it's playing into Trump's hands," said Paul Soglin, who served as mayor
of Madison, on and off, for more than two decades. "There's a significant number of
undecided voters who are not ideological, and they can move very easily from Republican to
the Democratic column and back again. They are, in effect, the people who decide elections.
And they are very distraught about both the horrendous carnage created by police officers
in murdering African Americans, and ... for the safety of their communities."
Trump, of course, is positioning himself as the antidote to urban unrest. "So let me be
clear: The violence must stop, whether in Minneapolis, Portland or Kenosha," Vice President
Mike Pence declared in his Republican convention speech Wednesday night, with Trump looking
on. "We will have law and order on the streets of this country for every American of every
race and creed and color."
Republicans had chided Joe Biden and other Democrats for not calling out the violence in
the aftermath of the Blake shooting. Biden immediately addressed the shooting, but didn't
condemn the ensuing violence until Wednesday in a video posted on social media.
Despite Trump's failure to bring the pandemic under control his job approval rating
continues to be high
while Biden's lead in the polls
is shrinking . The United States seem to have a higher tolerance for avoidable death by
guns or viruses than other societies have. It is not the only point that makes it exceptional .
Posted by b on August 27, 2020 at 17:39 UTC |
Permalink
thanks b... it really looks like an empire in fast decline.... i don't believe the usa
constitution took into consideration the idea of corporations... also as you note - the
tolerance for violence or death as with covid is indeed much greater... i guess more people
have to have guns as it is in their constitution, and so much for public medicare... it is
like a dream about public finance and somewhere way off in the distant future... i don't
believe it is going to matter who wins this coming election, as the divisiveness is so
pronounced, it will be hard to build bridges.. it seems like no one is interested in building
bridges between the opposing sides either... all the politicians are mostly looking after
corporations and special interest lobbies - israel and etc. etc... sad kettle of fish...
Very fair analysis, I enjoyed this piece. You are absolutely right, the terrible training
and general ineptitude of the police is at the core of the problem. The protesters recognize
this and there are many salient examples to fuel the outrage. However, the solutions they
call for don't address this root problem and alienate many moderate voters. Defund the
police? This will make the police more responsible? The whole thing is a mess with no real
solutions in sight.
In my opinion, the problem is the hiring and personnel practices in US police departments.
Police officer is a critical job, you must often make snap judgments in tense situations, and
you have the power to do violence to others. But police officers are paid similarly to car
mechanics, not even as much as many private security guards! The most responsible and wise
Americans do not become police officers, they pursue other careers where their talents are
better rewarded. Then, if a great person makes it into the police force, there is no way to
distinguish themselves by excellent performance and rise quickly through the ranks. The red
tape in the personnel system is suffocating. The best officers leave for private
opportunities, leaving the police force to make do with the rest.
Given the US political system, where decisions are made based on which simple slogan can
rally the crowd, I don't see any hope of this improving. It would take a redesign of the org
structure and personnel management of the entire system. Far more likely that leaders make
some symbolic, token changes so they can claim to have "done something." The dysfunction of
the US government is starting to be noticeable in almost every area...
Thanks for this insightful essay and thanks for the last link to the chilling must read
essay by Larry Romanoff on the Unz Review. I simply don't know the answer to the multiple
problems faced by the US but isn't that the job of the professional politicians? It seems
none would even begin to address any of the mind blowing issues raised by Romanoff. In a
previous era many of those crucial issues would be career ending third rail, touch and die.
Times have been forever changed by events. I have the feeling the general populace won't put
up with the present archaic and parasitical structures for long. Hang on for a bumpy
ride.
The conclusion is unfortunately correct, but t he sole focus on Antifa as the problem
Imo just shows the power of the media and politicians to shape the narrative. Who do you
believe is more dangerous, Antifa or White Supremacist militias? The Feds are well aware that
WS groups are using the protests to destroy property and trying to set off a race war, but
the media and politicians are remarkably silent about the role of White Supremacists in the
violence, unless something happens that is too hard to ignore, like 'Umbrella Man.'
... as for antifa, what exactly have they done? who are they? is there an
organization?
My pet theory is that they are an off-shoot of JDL. Ready to turn any legitimate protest into
a riot for the evening news. Because Zionists need to protect the Zionist asshats that run
USA/Empire.
That's why they're (still) so mysterious. That's why the US government can never seem to
understand who they are. Antifa are the domestic "White Helmets" ready to support YOUR
protest. Except not.
the problem is
a. the hiring and personnel practices in US police departments by sabre <= @ 5.
b. the inner economic contradictions arising from secular decline. <= vk @ 7
c. media focus on Antifa <= according to B.
d. events and failures orchestrated to heightened economic oppression <= norecovery @
21
e. Business as usual while the country burns AU1 @ 34
f. repressive authoritarian state militancy and Trump @ 37..
g. All three shooting victims <= self-defense<= white, <= felons. gm 48
h. A JDL offshoot.. Jackrabbit @ 58
I say the problem of "unsatisfied rising discontent" is to be expected When anyone in a
democratic society fails to be heard, by all concerned, little recourse remains to those with
a grievance but to ....XXXXX
A very strong constitutional issue exists in these riots =>. The First Amendment
<=was not in the Federalist construct of Aristocrats and the corporate empires they owned.
The effort to control America is hidden deep inside the words and court interpretations since
the Constitution of the United States of America was imposed on Americans.
The Aristocrats in America wanted a British Colonial government without British
Aristocrats ; they wanted a government with a strong army so it could protect them from
Angry Americans! The Aristocrats and their corporations still in America after Britain was
defeated wanted to control the profits that could be made in America, much in the same
fashion as the British Colonial Government had helped its corporations, investors, and
bankers before the war to control who got the profits that were made in America.
The Federalist wanted a government the Aristocracy could use to exploit America ;
the federalist wanted to govern the behaviors and direct the toils of those in America in
such a way that only one federal government could do. In fact the so called Framers wanted a
royal government, tried to make George Washington, King.
Remember the Declaration of Independence was in 1776 , the America states defeated
the British Government in 1778, the Constitution of the USA did not come into being until
1788. During that 10 years John Hanson was the first President of the United States of
America.. Samuel Huntington, Thomas McKeeny, and others were President of the United States
of America. The British were gone, George Washington was appointed general to remove the
British corporations, Investors, and bankers from America, that was accomplished in 1778. The
American Aristocrats wanted to own America. George Washington was selected to be the general
of the Army because his wealth made him famous enough to attract mercenaries to fight the
British at Valley Forge. At the time the Constitution in Philadelphia was developed, George
was in Mt. Vernon.
The Aristocratic Convention in Philadelphia, was a meeting, designed to terminate
involvement by the newly emancipated American in American politics. The result of the
Convention in Philadelphia was a document which outlined how control of America could be
returned to the American Aristocrats, a document which would make the Aristrocrat powerful
again, the same Aristocrats who had previously used the British Government, to control
Americans. Check it out what were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and the
like doing in America while America was a British Colony (before 1776)? The Aristocrats
wanted a government that would allow America Aristocrats to direct and a government they
could use to control Americans.
The anti-federalist tried to refuse ratification of the denial to be against the
peoples involvement in their own government but the best the anti-federalist could do
against, the strong powers behind the Constitution, was to force the Federalist to add to
their regime change Constitution ten basic promises, <=these promises were in the form of
amendments and are known as the Bill Of Rights [BOR]: Anyway the first amendment of the BOR
reads.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of
grievances.. But, but but it does not say Congress will make every law necessary to
enforce the protection of the first Amendment.
So why can't those who are protesting be allowed to live so they can be heard? Why can't
their grievances be listed and placed on the national ballot? Let everyone be heard.. explore
every aspect of their concerns and accommodate those with a Grievance to rejoin our
democratic society, ask the nation to settle the issues dissenters have ? When the
Aristocrats use the government to impose their will on risings, they do so by eliminating
bystander awareness and deny everyone but a few to be involved; worse, they allow media to
promote, one side of the issue (no must carry rule).. this narrowing of participants happens
until nothing remains but conflict between bottom up grievance . . and top down power.. and
believe me that is the goal.. to divide and conquer.
"... BLM and Antifa having corporate sponsers makes them a little fascist, too, not to mention ideologically intolerant. The daughtets and sons of the spoiled upper-middle class. ..."
"... he sole focus on Antifa as the problem Imo just shows the power of the media and politicians to shape the narrative. ..."
BLM is not a protest movement, it's not even a civil rights movement. It's a Trojan
Horse funded by sinister globalist troublemakers
BLM is blamed for Antifa violence.
The Democrats and the media have encouraged this madness from the very beginning by
praising the protests while downplaying the magnitude of the damage.
That the rioting helps Trump and that establishment Democrats (Republican-lite)
support Trump is completely overlooked.
But it will change and change won't be pretty. The state will deploy all its assets
to reclaim its monopoly on violence. You can bet on that. Security will be reestablished
with brute force and an iron fist. A Crackdown is coming and the innocent are going to be
crushed along with the guilty.
Just as I said @Aug28 13:47 #199. Antifa+militia violence are a prescription for a
stronger police state.
@102 Karlof...i agree, your analysis is spot on, but where does a leftist put their
political energy when the two options are right-wing fascist and right-wing fascist-lite?
BLM and Antifa having corporate sponsers makes them a little fascist, too, not to
mention ideologically intolerant. The daughtets and sons of the spoiled upper-middle
class.
I would love a more sharing society, don't know how to get there. USA is probably a lost
cause, and as VK states, that is probably a good thing for the rest of the world.
Here is something to chew on. I live in portland and the first time I saw Antifa spring up
was back in 2009. Rose City Antifa organized a boycott of a local cooperatively owned bike
shop. They plastered the town and all the bike racks in the city saying to boycott the worker
owned business. What was it's crime you ask?, to get such treatment. The bike shop hosted a
meeting and speakers forum held by Portlanders for 911 truth. Draw your own conclusions
here.
What many are doing here, in the heat of battle, is forgetting that this is not a "civil
war," it is class war. The ruling class is pursuing its classic tactic of "divide and
conquer." Those divided are under the influence of the propaganda of the ruling class, and
continue to damage each other, rather than their true enemy the ruling class. This must be
made clear, in order to unite the working class, that they may exercise there true power and
crush the ruling class. There is no other way.
The conclusion is unfortunately correct, but t he sole focus on Antifa as the problem
Imo just shows the power of the media and politicians to shape the narrative. Who do you
believe is more dangerous, Antifa or White Supremacist militias? The Feds are well aware that
WS groups are using the protests to destroy property and trying to set off a race war, but
the media and politicians are remarkably silent about the role of White Supremacists in the
violence, unless something happens that is too hard to ignore, like 'Umbrella Man.'
... as for antifa, what exactly have they done? who are they? is there an
organization?
My pet theory is that they are an off-shoot of JDL. Ready to turn any legitimate protest into
a riot for the evening news. Because Zionists need to protect the Zionist asshats that run
USA/Empire.
That's why they're (still) so mysterious. That's why the US government can never seem to
understand who they are. Antifa are the domestic "White Helmets" ready to support YOUR
protest. Except not.
actually, there is NO such thing as "Antifa". Antifa is as made up as ISIS/Ali Queda is.
Antifa is a vague term loosely applied toward a group of people who are fed up with all the
fake "Capitalism" and are willing to fight against it.
Some may even not be "Antifa" but fake "Antifa" created for propaganda purposes. Exactly how
the notorious "red brigade" in Italy who kidnapped Aldo Moro and killed him. And the Red
Brigade was supposed to be Communist also; finny that, since Aldo Moro was about to create a
coalition with the Communists and he is prevented from accomplishing that by
"Communists".
But b is essentially correct, the average American moron™ is now fed up with all the
riots and looting and is siding with trump. But that's only because the Average American
moron™ (I have trademarked it, so dont try to steal it) is so stupid, they cannot even
think about anything, they live in a very simple good vs bad world.
"... The neo-liberal ideology, like many of its predecessor bodies of ideas and alibis for theft, teaches people that poverty is a mark of personal failure and moral turpitude. It also teaches that crime pays and that it is a constant temptation for the poor who, left unregulated, would help themselves to the wealth that members of the ruling class worked so hard for, from the very earliest age, by choosing the right fallopian tubes to crawl into. ..."
"... If such a reaction takes place it will lead to the formation of self defence militias where they are needed on the communities of the poor. And the failure of Biden /Harris would be a positive development in the discrediting of the corrupt "misleadership" class exemplified in the campaign to defeat Sanders and nominate Biden, which was based on the sense, in the Black community, that the Democrats- headed by the author of incarceration laws and one of the most evil prosecutors California has seen in the modern era-are their only protection. ..."
"...the terrible training and general ineptitude of the police is at the core of the
problem."
You are missing the point: the Police are very well trained, and indoctrinated. There is
nothing accidental in their behaviour. And the police culture is pretty well
internationalised. It is very similar in Canada and the UK for example. And, as we have seen
during the past year in France too.
It is a fascistic culture in which racism is an inherited and central but by no means
essential part. The Police are an crucial part of the neo-liberal system. And part of the
reward they get for doing as they are told, busting strikes, kettling demonstrators,
terrorising poor neighbourhoods and protecting private property, is a loose rein: they can do
more or less anything that they want. No Judge will do more than slap their wrists, the
Juries will thank them for their service. For certain personalities, in which US culture is
richly endowed, the right to run wild as part of the biggest biker gang in the world, is a
marvellous reward.
They are not only heavily armed but recruited, in large measure from the imperial armed
forces; there is nothing like a tour of duty in Afghanistan or Iraq to demonstrate impunity
in action.
The cops are the iron fist in the class system, defended by the judiciary, the
legislatures and the broad ideological apparatus, from the media to the educational system.
And backed up by armed and civilian militias, in most of which off duty cops and 'veterans'
of imperial adventures play leading roles. The police stations are gang headquarters in which
violence and contempt for democracy and legality are celebrated. And bullying is the secret
to success and advancement.
To put the matter in perspective- cops shoot about 1000 US civilians a year, about 25 a
week. And most of them are poor people, a constituency in which Black people are over
represented after centuries of discrimination and exploitation regimes enforced by
violence.
The neo-liberal ideology, like many of its predecessor bodies of ideas and alibis for
theft, teaches people that poverty is a mark of personal failure and moral turpitude. It also
teaches that crime pays and that it is a constant temptation for the poor who, left
unregulated, would help themselves to the wealth that members of the ruling class worked so
hard for, from the very earliest age, by choosing the right fallopian tubes to crawl
into.
It may be that b is right in his analysis. But it is also possible that-given the stark
nature of the facts surrounding these cases- public opinion will recognise that the one
constant in all these problems is the police system and the Gulags for private profit which
not only dwarf anything the Soviet Union ever developed, in terms of numbers, but in terms of
licence, unregulated violence and disregard for natural law hark back to the worst days of
the plantation culture.
If such a reaction takes place it will lead to the formation of self defence militias
where they are needed on the communities of the poor. And the failure of Biden /Harris would
be a positive development in the discrediting of the corrupt "misleadership" class
exemplified in the campaign to defeat Sanders and nominate Biden, which was based on the
sense, in the Black community, that the Democrats- headed by the author of incarceration laws
and one of the most evil prosecutors California has seen in the modern era-are their only
protection.
I agree with whoever wrote that it come down to culture.
The culture in the US and the West are the the result of the social contract that has
finance be a private owned and controlled element. It created the top/bottom class structure
which has been glossed over with left/right brainwashing.
The elite have manufactured the ignorance underpinning the misdirected protesting we are
seeing and all the "undesirables" who have been created by the system of inequality of
opportunity. The manufacturing of ignorance is called agnotology and came out of the study of
the decades long propaganda by the nicotine industry about cancer......are we sure, we are
sure, we are sure, we are sure that smoking causes cancer?
There are a few of us out here saying that private banking causes the culture you are
seeing in America and China is showing the way with purely sovereign central banking and
finance. We see the rest of you as victims of agnotology.
Among the most notable highlights at last night's Republican National Convention, Senator
Rand Paul delivered a blistering take down of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's
foreign policy, which Paul linked to multiple wars under Democrat administrations spanning
decades (going back to Clinton's bombing of Serbia).
"I fear Biden will choose war again," Paul
asserted . "He supported war in Serbia, Syria, Libya. Joe Biden will continue to spill our
blood and treasure. President Trump will bring our heroes home."
"If you hate war like I hate war, if you want us to quit sending $50 billion every year to
Afghanistan to build their roads and bridges instead of building them here at home , you need
to support President Trump for another term," said Paul, who has long been a fierce critic of
former President Obama's foreign policy, including overt intervention in Libya, and covert
action toward destabilizing Syria.
He slammed Biden as a hawk who has "consistently called for more war" and with no signs
anything would be different.
Interestingly, Sen. Paul has also in the recent past led foreign policy push back against
President Trump - especially over the two times Trump has bombed Syria following alleged Assad
chemical attacks, which Paul along with other anti-interventionists across the aisle like Tulsi
Gabbard questioned to begin with.
But it appears Paul is firmly supportive of Trump's newly
released 50-point agenda for his second term outlining the Commander-in-Chief will "stop
endless war" and ultimately bring US troops "home." The plan still emphasized, however, the
administration will "maintain" US military strength abroad while 'wiping' out global
terrorism.
"President Trump is the first president in a generation to seek to end war rather than start
one. He intends to end the war in Afghanistan. He is bringing our men and women home. Compare
President Trump with the disastrous record of Joe Biden, who has consistently called for more
war ," Paul
said further.
Back during the primaries in 2016, Paul and Trump sparred intensely over national security
questions:
He also highlighted Biden's unrepentant yes vote to go to war in Iraq .
"I'm supporting President Trump because he believes as I do that a strong America cannot
fight endless wars. We must not continue to leave our blood and treasure in Middle East
quagmires," Paul concluded.
Elsewhere in the approximately four-minute speech, Paul said Trump will fight "socialists
poisoning our schools and burning our cities."
Cluster_Frak , 7 hours ago
Obama was a warmonger and so is Biden. They love war and doing everything possible for the
next war to be on the home ground.
Davidduke2000 , 7 hours ago
Obama had skeletons in his closet, he did what the neocons want, Trump gave them the
embassy and other shenanigans.
Izzy Dunne , 2 hours ago
And so is Trump. They are all warmongers, because war is what the US does...
Weihan , 7 hours ago
Paul is right.
Biden knows who butters his bread. At least candidate Trump - in principle - stood for
opposition to the deep state's monstrous agenda.
Biden, Clinton, Bush, Obama are despicable warmongers. Their administrations were
responsible for the slaughter of tens of thousands in Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and the list
would have gone on and on had it not been for Trump.
Remember Biden's 1992 Wall Street Journal article titled:
"How I Learned to Love the New World Order."
JUICE E SMALL IT EMPIRE , 7 hours ago
Rand was the only guy I watched last night and he was on point. I did not disagree with
anything he said.
kulkarniravi , 8/26/2020, 2:33:07 PM
You can diss Obama all you want, but he signed a peace accord with Iran and Trump reneged
on it. Iran is not the villain, at least not when compared to the likes of Saudi Arabia. And
what's the deal with Cuba?
d_7878 , 6 hours ago
Rand on Trump:
"Are we going to fix the country through bombast and empty blather?
"Unless someone points out the emperor has no clothes, they will continue to strut about,
and then we'll end up with a reality TV star as our nominee."
"Donald Trump is a delusional narcissist and an orange-faced windbag"
"Have you ever had a speck of dirt fly into your eye?""[It is] annoying, irritating and
might even make you cry.
"If the dirt doesn't go away, it will keep scratching your cornea until eventually it
blinds you with all its filth. A speck of dirt is way more qualified to be president."
Trump is a "fake conservative."
mike_1010 , 7 hours ago
Trump might be talking peace, but he has increased US military spending significantly more
than previous presidents. He also tore up the US peace agreement with Iran and nearly
triggered a US war with Iran by assassinating one of their top generals.
If any president is going to start a war with Iran, then it's Trump. And such a war would
dwarf any recent wars USA has fought. Because Iran is three times bigger than Iraq in terms
of their population, and they've been preparing for a possible US attack for decades.
Perhaps Biden might start a small war here or there. But Trump goes big on anything he
does. If he starts a war, then it's going to be either with China or Iran.
So, neither Biden nor Trump is to be trusted, when it comes to war. But I'd say that Trump
is the bigger danger compared to Biden. Because if Trump starts a war, then it might end up
being a nuclear war.
Airstrip1 , 6 hours ago
Rand Paul needs to ask himself if the pot is blacker than the kettle.
How can he expect people to believe this disingenuous claptrap ?
The USA is an Empire-building Crime Cartel.
Dims or Reps are just frontmen managers for the Mob.
chopsuey , 7 hours ago
Ron and Rand. The dog and pony show. The alternative. They say what you want to hear.
I say
Phuck OFF Ron and Rand. You had many many years to do something (anything) about the
endless "wars" and in reality, they are not really wars. They are ruthless invasions of
vulnerable countries whereupon natural resources are contained, the culture and its symbolic
treasures are destroyed/stolen and thousands to millions are killed in the name of USA. These
unwarranted invasions are justified with lies and fraud and deceit.
Washington DC is the military capital of the world doing the dirty work of the elite. And
its soldier are your kids and grandkids.
Wake the Phuck UP people. It will not end until they have achieved their objectives. You
are fodder for their cannon.
Dragonlord , 7 hours ago
Biden voted for war in Iraq and supported Obama aggression in Libya, Syria, etc and he is
disappointed that Trump did not help Kurd to wage war against Turks for their
independence.
ConanTheContrarian1 , 7 hours ago
Not sure. Trump has to play ball with established Deep State interests while he tries (I
hope) to set things right. So, yes, questions will abound for some time.
takefive , 7 hours ago
whatever the reason, he is now part of the swamp. and that's why he's in a tough
re-election battle with a stiff.
Ex-Oligarch , 3 hours ago
You have it exactly wrong. If Trump were really part of the swamp, they wouldn't be
fighting so desperately to prevent his re-election. They wouldn't have spent three years on
the Russiagate failed coup, they wouldn't have gone through the ridiculous partisan
impeachment exercise, they wouldn't have torpedoed the economy over coronavirus, and we
wouldn't have organized race riots in all the democrat strongholds.
LaugherNYC , 3 hours ago
Rand Paul is just about the only grown-up in American politics.
How much bettter off would the USA be with a Paul/Gabbard ticket?
But ANYTHING is better than Joe Biden. Literally ANYTHING.
Well...assuming Hillary were dead or incapacitated,
DaVinciCode , 7 hours ago
It's happening. Yugoslavian girl give dire warning to Americans.
This all happened in her country the same way.
PLEASE LISTEN - it is coming to the USA and the West
I agree with the Yugoslav girl's premise that the powers that be have been deceptively
employing a divide-and-conquer strategy to get the American people to fight among themselves
rather than confront their own corrupt government, but I do not buy into the conclusion drawn
that the solution lies in trusting the head of the government (in this case Trump) to do
right by the people.
As George Carlin famously said, "it's a big club, and you ain't in it!" The American
people are not going to be able to fix the problems now confronting them by voting for one
uniparty politician over another any more than the Yugoslav people were
wick7 , 7 hours ago
The Democrats will get their regime change war no matter what. If Biden is elected they'll
continue the Syrian war that has cost 800,000 innocent lives so far. If Trump is elected
they'll try to have one here to take him down.
yojimbo , 7 hours ago
Afghani GDP - $20bn. US military spending - $50bn.
They must have the best services in the world!
yesnomaybe , 7 hours ago
That video clip from the 2016 GOP debate is classic... as Paul questions Trump attacking
personal appearances, Trump flat out denies it, and then proceeds to do just that in his next
breath.
In all seriousness, Rand is a stand up guy and would make a great president.
Maghreb2 , 7 hours ago
Ru Paul has as much chance of stopping this war as Rand Paul. If he was a threat to the
people starting it he would be getting the **** bashed out of him or shot dead by a mad man.
Don't see many people talking about auditing the Fed outside of Texas anymore.
He's got a point. Biden's son is in Ukraine milking it high on crack cocaine like a
senators son should in the new Roman Emperor. Ukrainian color revolution and CIA long war
strategy means he has set up shop there permanently like a little princeling. Same as
princess Kushners wonderful tour of the Middle Eastern courts to meet his boyfriends. Old
days they would both have be poisoned to death or strangled as children for disrespecting the
senate.
Real rules of Eastern European politics are Nationalist winding up dead in dust bins
behind the American Embassy and Russians threatening to switch of the gas and freeze everyone
to death every winter. Footage of hard man dictator Lukashenko showing up at opposition
protests with an assault rifle is broadcast to school children. I'd like to see Hunter Biden
and Jared Kushner show up to something like that.
Truth is Trump is a ******* liar. the Moment they started to shut down Rammenstein airbase
they moved forces close to the Belarus border to pull another color revolution right in front
of Putin. Trump and the Republicans are just stooges for the Zionist mafia. They are playing
war scare but its too piss take for anyone now. Polish and Baltic States are NATO and have
their own prerogative. They just push people closer to war.
Rand Paul should worry about the Civil War that should come after the election.
Aint no senators sons for that game....
DEDA CVETKO , 5 hours ago
Thank you, Rand, for remembering the little Serbia -- twice (in both World Wars) America's
fiercest and most loyal ally, and now a roadkill of the Clinton Foundation and Madeleine
Albright,
the new owner of Kosovo.
The nations that sadistically massacre and dismember their friends and allies do not have
a future, nor the right to claim any.
Scipio Africanuz , 5 hours ago
Again Senator Paul, we don't do self deception..
In almost four years, how many legions have been repatriated home, or how many of the
existing wars have been ended?
All we've observed, is an escalation of hybrid wars, reducing in some, kinetism, and
increasing death tolls via other means, and in some, increased covert kinetism..
Your candidate brazenly murdered a top general of a nation not at war with the US..
Imagine Senator Paul, if Iran had murdered Petraeus, would the US not have declared
war?
That the Iranians didn't significantly escalate, was NOT due to fear, but back channel
advocacy and energetic remonstrations by adult folks..
If you believe Biden is worse than your candidate who's done worse, in terms of brazen law
abrogation, then why aren't you a candidate, or is it that you'd prefer partisanship to
patriotism?
Look within your party for corollary and accomplice warmongers, and leave Biden alone
after all, you do have a rabid warmongering Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton as party
colleagues, no?
Senator Paul, there's principle, character, and integrity and then there's opportunism,
partisanship, and betrayal..
Of nobility..
Anyhow, you're sovereign and thus, fully entitled to your choices, we simply point out
inconsistencies between what you espouse, and what you support..
Character, Senator Paul, is destiny..
Cheers...
Anthraxed , 4 hours ago
Trump has dropped more bombs than Obama at the same time in his term.
You're in complete denial if you think Trump has stopped any of the wars. And yes, he is
expanding the wars to a much larger country.
Trump's first veto was a bill that would have stopped the Yemen war.
Reality is like Cryptonite for Trumptards.
quanttech , 4 hours ago
lol, 10 minutes ago I was being accused of being Antifa, and now I'm a Trumptard.
Definitely doing something right.
Yes, Trump is a war criminal extraordinaire. He dropped a MOAB. He removed controls on
civilian casualties. He dropped 7400+ bombs on Afghanistan in 2019.... 60% of the casualties
were civilians, mostly children.
He also stupidly listened to his generals when they told him to kill Sulemani. BUT... when
the Iranians retaliated (and they DID retaliate, injuring dozens of US soldiers) Trump
de-escalated. Similarly, when the Iranians downed a drone, the generals wanted to retaliate -
Trump asked how many Iranians would die. The generals said 150. Trump said it didn't make
sense to kill 150 people for downing a drone.
Trump is a moron who is completely out of it most of the time. But when he pays attention
for a moment, he's against a a war with Iran.
Now, if I'm a Trumptard, then you're a Hillaryhead. My question to you is... where would
we be if Hillary was president? Answer: at war with Iran. Another question: where will we be
if Biden is president?
Dull Care , 3 hours ago
How much authority do you think Trump has over the foreign policy? Not a rhetorical
question but I have yet to see an American president run for office advocating a more
interventionist foreign policy yet it doesn't change greatly no matter who is in office.
Trump often carries a big stick but he's nowhere near as reckless as his predecessors.
The one thing we know is Trump is hostile to the Chinese government and hasn't turned
around relations with Russia.
quanttech , 1 hour ago
"... I have this feeling that whoever's elected president when you win, you go into this
smoky room with the twelve industrialists capitalists scum-***** who got you in there. And a
big guy with a cigar goes: 'Roll the film.' And it's a shot of the Kennedy Assassination from
an angle you've never seen before - It looks suspiciously off the grassy knoll. Then the
screen comes up, and they go to the new president: 'Any questions?'"
- Bill Hicks, Rant in E-Minor (1993)
Observer 2020 , 5 hours ago
The spiritual, moral, ethical, philosophical, intellectual and cultural bankruptcy of
Biden and his fellow death cult reprobates is depthless. One need know nothing more about
them that they have become so detached from reality as to regard abortion, partial birth
abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, generational genocide, genocide, of the white race,
unremitting sociocultural warfare and the balkanization of this nation as being virtues.
Anyone who would even begin to contemplate supporting Biden or any of his fellow Fifth
Columnists should be regarded as being too demented or otherwise Bidenesque to be competent
to vote.
12Doberman , 5 hours ago
Biden has a record showing him to be a Neocon...and that's why we see the neverTrumpers
supporting him.
Musum , 5 hours ago
And Pompeous is 10X worse than Biden. And he serves as Trump's Sec. of State.
Of course, he's just a viceroy serving on behalf of the kosher people.
ted41776 , 8 hours ago
it's not what the president chooses
it's what chooses the president
conraddobler , 8 hours ago
This has lost all it's entertainment value.
Hollywood and the Postman was a more realistic view, in that movie I believe the warlord
was a former copier either salesman or technician, can't remember but it's more likely a guy
like that would have leadership capabilities than these clowns would.
invention13 , 1 hour ago
It saddens me that people can just go about their business in this country without giving
a thought about the men and women who are getting injured and coming home stressed out and
addicted to painkillers. Also that the real motive for continued military involvement in the
ME is that some people are making tons of money off it. We need our own version of Smedley
Butler these days.
It is all decadent beyond belief.
mrjinx007 , 1 hour ago
That MF no good SOB war mongering no good neocon SOB Shawn did everything he could to get
RP to agree with him that we need to continue with the policy of regime change.
Rand just basically told him to shut the f up and stop blowing the Neo-cons' erections. It
was precious. You know how people like this ******* Hannity get their funding from. Deep
state, MIC, and all the f'king Rino's like Tommy Cotton.
gm_general , 2 hours ago
Thanks to Hillary and Obama, Libya is a complete mess and black people are being sold as
slaves there. Let that sink in.
"... It therefore appears that elements of the Defense Intelligence Agency were aware of the deadly viral outbreak in Wuhan more than a month before any officials in the Chinese government itself. ..."
For forty years I carefully read the New York Times in hard copy each and every
morning, eager to discover what had transpired since the previous day. But just in the last few
months, my commitment has begun to flag, and my eyes often only lightly glance at half or more
of the articles and their columnar headlines.
I'd never thought much of Donald Trump, but can't seem to work up the enthusiasm to read yet
another article headlining the "lies" of our Great Satan or his coterie of lesser Satans. The
endless villainies of his Luciferian ally Vladimir Putin have grown dull to my mental tongue.
The diabolical wickedness of China, whom Trump had supposedly so recently courted, elicits
little interest. Closer to home, my eyes skip over another "social distancing" advice column
about Covid-19, or further explanations of how "peaceful protesters" had recently set a
government building on fire in Portland, Oregon, or destroyed Chicago's wealthiest downtown
shopping district.
The Business Section reports that the worst disease outbreak in a century, the worst
unemployment since the Great Depression, and the worst national rioting in two generations has
produced unprecedented gains in share prices on Wall Street, but the staff writers have
apparently forgotten the word "bubble." Many days the Arts Section seems to have become almost
monochromatically black. So my daily regular morning ritual now takes much less time than it
did in the past.
I can't exactly plot the trajectory of this sharp drop in my recent interest. But I
certainly noticed the change not longer after
a Twitter-mob forced the Times to summarily purge for insufficient "wokeness" its
highly-regarded Editorial Page Editor, widely considered a leading contender to run the paper,
perhaps suggesting that the journalists changed their coverage and writing style to avoid a
similar fate. I had always read my morning newspapers at a local coffee-shop, but the
Coronavirus outbreak ended that possibility, thereby disrupting my routine. And my years of
denouncing the dishonesty of "Our American Pravda" in my own articles
may have finally begun to register in my own mind.
There are occasional exceptions to this pattern. Earlier this month the Times
carefully tabulated our national mortality figures and determined that our "excess deaths"
from early March to the end of July had already exceeded 200,000 , indicating that the
American body-count from our Covid-19 epidemic was considerably larger than generally assumed,
and might even reach the half million mark by the end of the year. But examples of such solid
reporting seem few and far between these days.
The obvious decline of the Times is especially apparent to me each morning when I
compare it with the rival Wall Street Journal , which I read immediately afterward.
After Rupert Murdoch acquired the Journal in 2007, most observers predicted a sad fate
at the hands of the proprietor whose early Fleet Street media empire had been built upon on the
frontal nudity of the Page Three Girls of his tabloid Sun . But Murdoch totally
confounded those skeptics, providing his new flagship broadsheet with huge financial backing
and a hands-off editorial policy, thereby elevating it from a business-focused publication to a
near-peer rival to the Gray Lady at a time when so many other papers were about to begin
shriveling from massive loss of advertising. Within a couple of years, even such inveterate
Murdoch-haters as The Nationacknowledged this
surprising reality .
Superb journalist resources unshackled by extreme "political correctness" allow an
outstanding product, and this has certainly been demonstrated by the Journal 's
regular front-page investigative reports. A few days ago, our continuing Covid-19 disaster
prompted yet another of these, which I think lacked only a few crucial elements to be worthy of
a Pulitzer Prize.
Numerous publications have documented America's severe mistakes in combating the disease,
but
this 4,500 word WSJ report focused upon the serious mishandling of the original
outbreak by Chinese authorities.
The article revealed that top public health officials at China's Center for Disease Control
only became aware of the situation on December 30th, when they learned that at least 25
suspected cases of a mysterious illness had already occurred in Wuhan during that month. But as
the writers noted, the outbreak had certainly begun somewhat earlier:
Even a fully empowered China CDC would likely have missed the very first cases of the
coronavirus, which probably began spreading around Wuhan in October or November, most likely
in people who never showed symptoms, or did but never saw a doctor, researchers say.
All of this new information seems quite consistent with what had previously been discovered
by America's leading media outlets. But the Journal writers seem to have missed one
additional fact that could have elevated this important story from a mundane investigation to a
sensational expose. Although they documented that the Chinese government only learned of the
Wuhan outbreak at the end of December, they seemed unaware that more than a month earlier
American intelligence officials had distributed a secret report to our military allies
describing the "cataclysmic" disease outbreak then underway in Wuhan.
A few months ago, I
had noted the clear implications of this bizarre discrepancy in timing:
For obvious reasons, the Trump Administration has become very eager to emphasize the early
missteps and delays in the Chinese reaction to the viral outbreak in Wuhan, and has
presumably encouraged our media outlets to direct their focus in that direction.
As an example of this, the Associated Press Investigative Unit recently published a rather
detailed analysis of those early events purportedly based upon confidential Chinese
documents. Provocatively entitled "China Didn't Warn Public of Likely
Pandemic for 6 Key Days" , the piece was widely distributed, running
in abridged form in the NYT and elsewhere. According to this reconstruction, the
Chinese government first became aware of the seriousness of this public health crisis on Jan.
14th, but delayed taking any major action until Jan. 20th, a period of time during which the
number of infections greatly multiplied.
Last month, a team of five WSJ reporters produced a very detailed and thorough
4,400 word analysis of the same period, and the NYT has published a helpful
timeline of those early events as well. Although there may be some differences of
emphasis or minor disagreements, all these American media sources agree that Chinese
officials first became aware of the serious viral outbreak in Wuhan in early to mid-January,
with the first known death occurring on Jan. 11th, and finally implemented major new public
health measures later that same month. No one has apparently disputed these basic facts.
But with the horrific consequences of our own later governmental inaction being obvious,
elements within our intelligence agencies have sought to demonstrate that they were not the
ones asleep at the switch. Earlier this month,
an ABC News story cited four separate government sources to reveal that as far
back as late November, a special medical intelligence unit within our Defense Intelligence
Agency had produced a report warning that an out-of-control disease epidemic was occurring in
the Wuhan area of China, and widely distributed that document throughout the top ranks of our
government, warning that steps should be taken to protect US forces based in Asia. After the
story aired, a Pentagon spokesman officially denied the existence of that November report,
while various other top level government and intelligence officials refused to comment. But a
few days later,
Israeli television mentioned that in November American intelligence had indeed shared
such a report on the Wuhan disease outbreak with its NATO and Israeli allies, thus seeming to
independently confirm the complete accuracy of the original ABC News story and its several
government sources.
It therefore appears that elements of the Defense Intelligence Agency were aware of
the deadly viral outbreak in Wuhan more than a month before any officials in the Chinese
government itself. Unless our intelligence agencies have pioneered the technology of
precognition, I think this may have happened for the same reason that arsonists have the
earliest knowledge of future fires.
An entirely new disease that spreads in silent, asymptomatic fashion can easily escape
initial detection, and we should not be surprised that no one in China noticed the Wuhan
outbreak when it first began in October or November. But America's intelligence operatives were
entirely aware of what was happening from the very beginning, and began informing all our
allies. This seems about as close to a "smoking gun" as we can ever likely to encounter in the
annals of the murky world of intelligence operations.
Moreover, I
have also noted the very unusual international pattern the deadly disease immediately began
to follow:
As the coronavirus gradually began to spread beyond China's own borders, another
development occurred that greatly multiplied my suspicions. Most of these early cases had
occurred exactly where one might expect, among the East Asian countries bordering China. But
by late February Iran had become the second epicenter of the global outbreak. Even more
surprisingly, its political elites had been especially hard-hit, with
a full 10% of the entire Iranian parliament soon infected and at least
a dozen of its officials and politicians dying of the disease, including some who were
quite
senior . Indeed, Neocon activists on Twitter began gleefully noting that their hatred
Iranian enemies were now dropping like flies.
Let us consider the implications of these facts. Across the entire world the only
political elites that have yet suffered any significant human losses have been those of Iran,
and they died at a very early stage, before significant outbreaks had even occurred almost
anywhere else in the world outside China. Thus, we have America assassinating Iran's top
military commander on Jan. 2nd and then just a few weeks later large portions of the Iranian
ruling elites became infected by a mysterious and deadly new virus, with many of them soon
dying as a consequence. Could any rational individual possibly regard this as a mere
coincidence?
So if the journalists at the WSJ had merely taken note of what had previously been
reported by ABC News and confirmed by Israeli television, they would surely have
earned themselves a Pulitzer Prize. But earning and receiving are two separate matters, and
they might easily have instead been purged for treading upon such touchy national security
matters. After all, our own webzine was banned by both
Facebook and Google just days after we raised these same matters.
Such retaliation helps explain why our American mainstream media has long since concluded
that discretion is the better part of valor.
@HarvardSqEddy pinion, because of all the wars and belligerence plus the undeniable fact
that DOD and HUD have stolen $21 Trillion ( https://missingmoney.solari.com/ ) in recent decades
and there's no recognition of this fact on the evening news and there are no congressional
hearings to find out where that currency went. That tells me the figureheads in the visible
gov't are just actors and they aren't interested because they were told to ignore it.
What comes out the other end, according to what they want, is a much lower standard of
living for the masses, a much reduced population and much more corporate/fascist control.
Think North Korea.
Wow. a very precise shot at America's most underlying problem:
These individuals are vital for the success of the transformation of the US to a fascist
state, with the elites dependent upon them to execute their policies, yet they also
profit from their positions in terms of attractive salaries and protection from much of the
law . These are the people who best know of all the crimes and social injustices, being
in fact a willing part of their execution process, but least likely to blow the whistle for
fear of damaging their careers.
It is the middle level of educated executives, lawyers, accountants and managers in
government, criminal corporations, Foundations, think tanks, the media, and so many others,
who are directly responsible for knowingly inflicting the vast damage on their own people
and nation
A very illuminating description of modern day America, no punches pulled by Larry
Romanoff.
Another fact goes unmentioned: the US has the largest number of unindicted war criminals
in the post-WW II world, a fact that allows for an escalation of war crimes committed. For
those here who refuse to accept the racist nature of our country, they need only look at the
ethnic makeup of the millions of victims of our unprovoked foreign wars of aggression.
"... The fresh orgy of anti-Russian invective in the lickspittle media (LSM) has the feel of fin de siècle . The last four reality-impaired years do seem as though they add up to a century. And no definitive fin is in sight, as long as most people don't know what's going on. ..."
"... The LSM should be confronted: "At long last have you left no sense of decency?" But who would hear the question -- much less any answer? ..."
"... Thus the reckless abandon with which The New York Times is leading the current full-court press to improve on what it regards as Special Counsel Robert Mueller's weak-kneed effort to blame the Russians for giving us Donald Trump. The press is on, and there are no referees to call the fouls. ..."
"... Incidentally, Mueller's report apparently was insufficient, only two years in the making, and just 448 pages. The Senate committee's magnum opus took three years, is almost 1,000 pages -- and fortified. So there. ..."
"... is a good offense, and the Senate Intelligence Committee's release of its study -- call it "Mueller (Enhanced)" -- and the propaganda fanfare -- come at a key point in the Russiagate/Spygate imbroglio. It also came, curiously, as the Democratic Convention was beginning, as if the Republican-controlled Senate was sending Trump a message. ..."
"... The cognoscenti and the big fish themselves may be guessing that Trump/Barr/Durham will not throw out heavier lines for former FBI Director James Comey, his deputy Andrew McCabe, CIA Director John Brennan, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, for example. But how can they be sure? What has become clear is that the certainty they all shared that Hillary Clinton would be the next president prompted them not only to take serious liberties with the Constitution and the law, but also to do so without taking rudimentary steps to hide their tracks. ..."
"... The incriminating evidence is there. And as Trump becomes more and more vulnerable and defensive about his ineptness -- particularly with regard to Covid-19 -- he may summon the courage to order Barr and Durham to hook the big fish, not just minnows like Clinesmith. The neuralgic reality is that no one knows at this point how far Trump will go. To say that this kind of uncertainty is unsettling to all concerned is to say the obvious. ..."
"... None of that takes us much beyond the Mueller report and other things generally well known -- even in the LSM. Nor does the drivel about people like Paul Manafort "sharing polling data with Russians" who might be intelligence officers. That data was "mostly public" the Times itself reported , and the paper had to correct a story that the data was intended for Russian oligarchs, when it was meant for Ukrainian oligarchs instead. That Manafort was working to turn Ukraine towards the West and not Russia is rarely mentioned. ..."
"... On the Steele Dossier, the committee also missed a ruling by a British judge against Christopher Steele, labeling his dossier an attempt to help Hillary Clinton get elected. Consortium News explained back in October 2017 that both CrowdStrike and Steele were paid for by the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign to push Russiagate. ..."
"... the description of #WikiLeaks ' publishing activities by this #SenateIntelligenceCommittee 's Report appears a true #EdgarHoover 's disinformation campaign to make a legitimate media org completely radioactive ..."
"... And that's not the half of it. In September 2018, Mazzetti and his NYT colleague Scott Shane wrote a 10,000-word feature, "The Plot to Subvert an Election," trying to convince readers that the Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) had successfully swayed U.S. opinion during the 2016 election with 80,000 Facebook posts that they said had reached 126 million Americans. ..."
"... That turned out to be a grotesquely deceptive claim. Mazzetti and Shane failed to mention the fact that those 80,000 IRA posts (from early 2015 through 2017, meaning about half came after the election), had been engulfed in a vast ocean of more than 33 trillion Facebook posts in people's news feeds – 413 million times more than the IRA posts. Not to mention the lack of evidence that the IRA was the Russian government, as Mueller claimed. ..."
"... "Liberals are embracing every negative claim about Russia just because elements of the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency produced a report last Jan. 6 that blamed Russia for 'hacking' Democratic emails and releasing them to WikiLeaks ." ..."
The New York Times is leading the full-court press to improve on what it regards as Special Counsel Robert Mueller's weak-kneed
effort to blame the Russians for giving us Donald Trump...
The fresh orgy of anti-Russian invective in the lickspittle media (LSM) has the feel of fin de siècle . The last four reality-impaired
years do seem as though they add up to a century. And no definitive fin is in sight, as long as most people don't know what's going
on.
The LSM should be confronted: "At long last have you left no sense of decency?" But who would hear the question -- much less any
answer? The corporate media have a lock on what Americans are permitted or not permitted to hear. Checking the truth, once routine
in journalism, is a thing of the past.
Thus the reckless abandon with which The New York Times is leading the current full-court press to improve on what it regards
as Special Counsel Robert Mueller's weak-kneed effort to blame the Russians for giving us Donald Trump. The press is on, and there
are no referees to call the fouls.
The recent release of a 1,000-page, sans bombshells and already out-of-date report by the Senate Intelligence Committee has provided
the occasion to "catapult the propaganda," as President George W. Bush once put it.
As the the Times 's Mark Mazzetti put it in his
article Wednesday:
"Releasing the report less than 100 days before Election Day, Republican-majority senators hoped it would refocus attention
on the interference by Russia and other hostile foreign powers in the American political process, which has continued unabated."
Mazzetti is telling his readers, soto voce : regarding that interference four years ago, and the "continued-unabated" part, you
just have to trust us and our intelligence community sources who would never lie to you. And if, nevertheless, you persist in asking
for actual evidence, you are clearly in Putin's pocket.
Incidentally, Mueller's report apparently was insufficient, only two years in the making, and just 448 pages. The Senate committee's
magnum opus took three years, is almost 1,000 pages -- and fortified. So there.
Iron Pills
Recall how disappointed the LSM and the rest of the Establishment were with Mueller's anemic findings in spring 2019. His report
claimed that the Russian government "interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" via a social
media campaign run by the Internet Research Agency (IRA) and by "hacking" Democratic emails. But the evidence behind those charges
could not bear close scrutiny.
You would hardly know it from the LSM, but the accusation against the IRA was thrown out of court when the U.S. government admitted
it could not prove that the IRA was working for the Russian government. Mueller's ipse dixit did not suffice, as we
explained a year ago
in "Sic Transit Gloria Mueller."
The Best Defense
is a good offense, and the Senate Intelligence Committee's release of its study -- call it "Mueller (Enhanced)" -- and the propaganda
fanfare -- come at a key point in the Russiagate/Spygate imbroglio. It also came, curiously, as the Democratic Convention was beginning,
as if the Republican-controlled Senate was sending Trump a message.
Durham
One chief worry, of course, derives from the uncertainty as to whether John Durham, the US Attorney investigating those FBI and
other officials who launched the Trump-Russia investigation will let some heavy shoes drop before the election. Barr has said he
expects "developments in Durham's investigation hopefully before the end of the summer."
FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith already has decided to plead guilty to the felony of falsifying evidence used to support a warrant
from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to surveillance to spy on Trump associate Carter Page. It is abundantly clear that
Clinesmith was just a small cog in the deep-state machine in action against candidate and then President Trump. And those running
the machine are well known. The president has named names, and Barr has made no bones about his disdain for what he calls spying
on the president.
The cognoscenti and the big fish themselves may be guessing that Trump/Barr/Durham will not throw out heavier lines for former
FBI Director James Comey, his deputy Andrew McCabe, CIA Director John Brennan, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper,
for example. But how can they be sure? What has become clear is that the certainty they all shared that Hillary Clinton would be
the next president prompted them not only to take serious liberties with the Constitution and the law, but also to do so without
taking rudimentary steps to hide their tracks.
The incriminating evidence is there. And as Trump becomes more and more vulnerable and defensive about his ineptness -- particularly
with regard to Covid-19 -- he may summon the courage to order Barr and Durham to hook the big fish, not just minnows like Clinesmith.
The neuralgic reality is that no one knows at this point how far Trump will go. To say that this kind of uncertainty is unsettling
to all concerned is to say the obvious.
So, the stakes are high -- for the Democrats, as well -- and, not least, the LSM. In these circumstances it would seem imperative
not just to circle the wagons but to mount the best offense/defense possible, despite the fact that virtually all the ammunition
(as in the Senate report) is familiar and stale ("enhanced" or not).
Black eyes might well be in store for the very top former law enforcement and intelligence officials, the Democrats, and the LSM
-- and in the key pre-election period. So, the calculation: launch "Mueller Report (Enhanced)" and catapult the truth now with propaganda,
before it is too late.
No Evidence of Hacking
The "hacking of the DNC" charge suffered a fatal blow three months ago when it became known that Shawn Henry, president of the
DNC-hired cyber-security firm CrowdStrike,
admitted under oath that his firm had no evidence that the DNC emails were hacked -- by Russia or anyone else.
(YouTube)
Henry gave his testimony on Dec. 5, 2017,
but House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff was able to keep it hidden until May 7, 2020.
Here's a brief taste of how Henry's testimony went: Asked by Schiff for "the date on which the Russians exfiltrated the data",
Henry replied, "We just don't have the evidence that says it actually left."
You did not know that? You may be forgiven -- up until now -- if your information diet is limited to the LSM and you believe The
New York Times still publishes "all the news that's fit to print." I am taking bets on how much longer the NYT will be able to keep
Henry's testimony hidden; Schiff's record of 29 months will be hard to beat.
Putting Lipstick on the Pig of Russian 'Tampering'
Worse still for the LSM and other Russiagate diehards, Mueller's findings last year enabled Trump to shout "No Collusion" with
Russia. What seems clear at this point is that a key objective of the current catapulting of the truth is to apply lipstick to Mueller's
findings.
After all, he was supposed to find treacherous plotting between the Trump campaign and the Russians and failed miserably. Most
LSM-suffused Americans remain blissfully unaware of this, and the likes of Pulitzer Prize winner Mazzetti have been commissioned
to keep it that way.
In Wednesday's
article , for example, Mazzetti puts it somewhat plaintively:
"Like the special counsel the Senate report did not conclude that the Trump campaign engaged in a coordinated conspiracy with
the Russian government -- a fact that the Republicans seized on to argue that there was 'no collusion'."
How could they!
Mazzetti is playing with words. "Collusion," however one defines it, is not a crime; conspiracy is.
'Breathtaking' Contacts: Mueller (Enhanced)
Mark Mazzetti (YouTube)
Mazzetti emphasizes that the Senate report "showed extensive evidence of contacts between Trump campaign advisers and people tied
to the Kremlin," and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the intelligence committee's vice chairman,
said the committee report details "a breathtaking level of contacts between Trump officials and Russian government operatives
that is a very real counterintelligence threat to our elections."
None of that takes us much beyond the Mueller report and other things generally well known -- even in the LSM. Nor does the drivel
about people like Paul Manafort "sharing polling data with Russians" who might be intelligence officers. That data was "mostly public"
the Times itself
reported
, and the paper had to correct
a story that the data was intended for Russian oligarchs, when it was meant for Ukrainian oligarchs instead. That Manafort was working
to turn Ukraine towards the West and not Russia is rarely mentioned.
Recent revelations regarding the false data given the FISA court by an FBI lawyer to "justify" eavesdropping on Trump associate
Carter Page show the Senate report to be not up to date and misguided in endorsing the FBI's decision to investigate Page. The committee
may wish to revisit that endorsement -- at least.
On the Steele Dossier, the committee also missed a ruling by a British judge against Christopher Steele,
labeling his dossier an attempt to help Hillary Clinton get elected. Consortium News
explained back in October 2017 that both CrowdStrike and Steele were paid for by the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign to
push Russiagate.
Also missed by the intelligence committee was a document released by the Senate Judiciary Committee last month that
revealed that Steele's "Primary Subsource and his friends peddled warmed-over rumors and laughable gossip that Steele dressed
up as formal intelligence memos."
Smearing WikiLeaks
The Intelligence Committee report also repeats thoroughly
debunked
myths about WikiLeaks and, like Mueller, the committee made no effort to interview Julian Assange before launching its smears.
Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi, who partnered with WikiLeaks in the publication of the Podesta emails, described the report's
treatment of WikiLeaks in this Twitter thread
:
2. the description of #WikiLeaks ' publishing activities
by this #SenateIntelligenceCommittee
's Report appears a true #EdgarHoover 's disinformation
campaign to make a legitimate media org completely radioactive
3. Clearly, to describe #WikiLeaks and its publishing activities the #SenateIntelligenceCommittee's Report completely rely
on #US intelligence community+ #MikePompeo's characterisation of #WikiLeaks. There is not even any pretense of an independent
approach
4. there are also unsubstantiated claims like:
– "[WikiLeaks'] disclosures have jeopardized the safety of individual Americans and foreign allies" (p.200)
– "WikiLeaks has passed information to U.S. adversaries" (p.201)
5. it's completely false that "#WikiLeaks does not seem to weigh whether its disclosures add any public interest value" (p.200)
and any longtime media partner like me could provide you dozens of examples on how wrong this characterisation [is].
Titillating
Mazzetti did add some spice to the version of his article that dominated the two top right columns of Wednesday's Times with the
blaring headline: "Senate Panel Ties Russian Officials to Trump's Aides: G.O.P.-Led Committee Echoes Mueller's Findings on Election
Tampering."
Those who make it to the end of Mazzetti's piece will learn that the Senate committee report "did not establish" that the Russian
government obtained any compromising material on Mr. Trump or that they tried to use such materials [that they didn't have] as leverage
against him." However, Mazzetti adds,
"According to the report, Mr. Trump met a former Miss Moscow at a party during one trip in 1996. After the party, a Trump associate
told others he had seen Mr. Trump with the woman on multiple occasions and that they 'might have had a brief romantic relationship.'
"The report also raised the possibility that, during that trip, Mr. Trump spent the night with two young women who joined him
the next morning at a business meeting with the mayor of Moscow."
This is journalism?
Another Pulitzer in Store?
The Times appends a note reminding us that Mazzetti was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for reporting on Donald
Trump's advisers and their connections to Russia.
And that's not the half of it. In September 2018, Mazzetti and his NYT colleague Scott Shane wrote a 10,000-word
feature, "The Plot to Subvert an Election," trying to convince readers that the Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) had successfully
swayed U.S. opinion during the 2016 election with 80,000 Facebook posts that they said had reached 126 million Americans.
That turned out to be a grotesquely deceptive claim. Mazzetti and Shane failed to mention the
fact that those 80,000 IRA posts (from early 2015 through 2017, meaning about half came after the election), had been engulfed
in a vast ocean of more than 33 trillion Facebook posts in people's news feeds – 413 million times more than the IRA posts. Not to
mention the lack of evidence that the IRA was the Russian government, as Mueller claimed.
In exposing that chicanery, prize-winning investigative reporter Gareth Porter
commented :
"The descent of The New York Times into this unprecedented level of propagandizing for the narrative of Russia's threat to
U.S. democracy is dramatic evidence of a broader problem of abuses by corporate media Greater awareness of the dishonesty at the
heart of the Times' coverage of that issue is a key to leveraging media reform and political change."
Nothingburgers With Russian Dressing: the Backstory
The late Robert Parry.
"It's too much; it's just too much, too much", a sedated, semi-conscious Robert Parry kept telling me from his hospital bed in
late January 2018 a couple of days before he died. Bob was founder of Consortium News .
It was already clear what Bob meant; he had taken care to see to that. On Dec. 31, 2017 the reason for saying that came in what
he titled "An Apology
& Explanation" for "spotty production in recent days." A stroke on Christmas Eve had left Bob with impaired vision, but he was able
to summon enough strength to write an Apologia -- his vision for honest journalism and his dismay at what had happened to his profession
before he died on Jan. 27, 2018. The dichotomy was "just too much".
Parry rued the role that journalism was playing in the "unrelenting ugliness that has become Official Washington. Facts and logic
no longer mattered. It was a case of using whatever you had to diminish and destroy your opponent this loss of objective standards
reached deeply into the most prestigious halls of American media."
What bothered Bob most was the needless, dishonest tweaking of the Russian bear. "The U.S. media's approach to Russia," he wrote,
"is now virtually 100 percent propaganda. Does any sentient human being read The New York Times ' or The Washington Post 's coverage
of Russia and think that he or she is getting a neutral or unbiased treatment of the facts? Western journalists now apparently see
it as their patriotic duty to hide facts that otherwise would undermine the demonizing of Putin and Russia."
Parry, who was no conservative, continued:
"Liberals are embracing every negative claim about Russia just because elements of the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency
produced a report last Jan. 6 that blamed Russia for 'hacking' Democratic emails and releasing them to WikiLeaks ."
Bob noted that the 'hand-picked' authors "evinced no evidence and even admitted that they weren't asserting any of this as fact."
It was just too much.
Robert Parry's Last Article
Peter Strzok during congressional hearing in July 2018. (Wikimedia Commons)
Bob posted his last substantive article on Dec. 13, 2017, the day after text exchanges between senior FBI officials Peter Strzok
and Lisa Page were made public. (Typically, readers of The New York Times the following day would altogether
miss the
importance of the text-exchanges.)
Bob Parry rarely felt any need for a "sanity check." Dec. 12, 2017 was an exception. He called me about the Strzok-Page texts;
we agreed they were explosive. FBI Agent Peter Strzok was on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's staff investigating alleged Russian
interference, until Mueller removed him.
Strzok reportedly was a "hand-picked" FBI agent taking part in the Jan 2017 evidence-impoverished, rump, misnomered "intelligence
community" assessment that blamed Russia for hacking and other election meddling. And he had helped lead the investigation into Hillary
Clinton's misuse of her computer servers. Page was Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's right-hand lawyer.
His Dec. 13, 2017 piece
would be his fourth related article in less than two weeks; it turned out to be his last substantive article. All three of the earlier
ones are worth a re-read as examples of fearless, unbiased, perceptive journalism. Here
are the links .
Bob began his article
on the Strzok-Page bombshell:
"The disclosure of fiercely anti-Trump text messages between two romantically involved senior FBI officials who played key
roles in the early Russia-gate inquiry has turned the supposed Russian-election-meddling "scandal" into its own scandal, by providing
evidence that some government investigators saw it as their duty to block or destroy Donald Trump's presidency.?
"As much as the U.S. mainstream media has mocked the idea that an American 'deep state' exists and that it has maneuvered to
remove Trump from office, the text messages between senior FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok and senior FBI lawyer
Lisa Page reveal how two high-ranking members of the government's intelligence/legal bureaucracy saw their role as protecting
the United States from an election that might elevate to the presidency someone as unfit as Trump."
Not a fragment of Bob's or other Consortium News analysis made any impact on what Bob used to call the Establishment media. As
a matter of fact, eight months later during a talk in Seattle that I titled "Russia-gate: Can You Handle the Truth?", only three
out of a very progressive audience of some 150 had ever heard of Strzok and Page.
Lest I am accused of being "in Putin's pocket," let me add the explanatory note that we Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity included in our
most explosive Memorandum for President Trump, on "Russian hacking."
Full Disclosure: Over recent decades the ethos of our intelligence profession has eroded in the public mind to the point that
agenda-free analysis is deemed well nigh impossible. Thus, we add this disclaimer, which applies to everything we in VIPS say
and do: We have no political agenda; our sole purpose is to spread truth around and, when necessary, hold to account our former
intelligence colleagues.
We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians
and pundits say is purely coincidental. The fact we find it is necessary to include that reminder speaks volumes about these highly
politicized times.
somecallmetimmah , 1 hour ago
Only brain-washed losers read the new york times. Garbage propaganda for garbage people.
AtATrESICI , 43 minutes ago
"developments in Durham's investigation hopefully before the end of the summer." What summer? The summer of 2099.
Mouldy , 1 hour ago
So in a nutshell.. They just called half the USA too stupid to make an informed decision for themselves.
ominous , 1 hour ago
the disagreement is over which half is the stupid half
homeskillet , 25 minutes ago
The MIC's bogey man. What a crock of **** this whole country has become. Pravda puts out more truth than our MSM. I trust
Putin more than the Dem leaders at this point.
Demeter55 , 1 hour ago
The Globalist/New World Order/Deep State/Elitists (or whatever other arrogant subsection of the psychopaths among us you
wish to consider) have one great failing which will defeat them utterly in the end:
They do not know when to cut their losses.
As a result of that irrational stubbornness, born of a "Manifest Destiny" assumption of an eternal lock on the situation,
they will go too far.
Having more wealth than anyone is temporary.
Having more power than anyone is temporary.
Life is temporary.
And we outnumber them by several billion.
Even if they systematically try to destroy us, they will not have the ability unless we are complicit in our own destruction.
While there are many who have "taken the knee" to these tyrants in training, there are more who have no intention of doing
so.
Most nations are not so buffaloed as to fall for this propaganda, but the United States especially was created with the
notion that all men are created equal, and this is ingrained in the national character. We don't buy it.
And our numbers are growing daily, as people wake up and realize they have to take a side for themselves, their families,
their communities.
The global covid-panic was a masterful attack, but it will fail. Indeed, it has failed already. The building counter-attack
will take out those who chose to declare war on humanity. There really is no alternative for us, the humans. Live Free or Die,
as they say in New Hampshire.
And despite the full support of the MSM and the DNC, the Would-Be Masters of the Universe will not succeed.
sborovay07 , 1 hour ago
Sad Assange wasn't granted immunity to testify and was silenced just prior to the release of the Mueller report. Little
has been heard since except his health is horrific. Now, all the Deep State figures on both sides are just throwing as much
mud against Trump as possible to hide the truth. If Durnham does not indict the Deep State figures who participated in the
Obama led coup, all is for not. Only the foot soldiers marching in lock step will be charged.
wn , 1 hour ago
To sum it up.
Conclusion of the Democrats.
Americans need Russian brains to decide their leader in order to move forward.
nokilli , 25 minutes ago
Once the MO for "Russian hacking" is published to the international intelligence community, any (((party))) can pose as
a "Russian hacker."
This is the way computers work. Sybil is eponymous.
KuriousKat , 35 minutes ago
Mazzeti looks like the typical Gopher boy for the CIA Station Chiefs around the world..they retire or become contributors
to NewsWeek Wapo or NYT. ..not Any major network w/o one...Doing **** like this is mandatory..not elective.
I hope I live to see the day when the "New York Times" is deemed the same caliber of
"journalism" as the "National Inquirer". Of course, those with two brain cells to rub
together already know that this is the case. However, by "deemed", I mean by the
one-brain-celled masses.
homeskillet , 23 minutes ago
The National Enquirer actually has many more believable articles.
Pernicious Gold Phallusy , 20 minutes ago
The National Enquirer broke the story of Presidential candidate John Edwards cheating on
his wife, who was undergoing breast cancer treatment at the time. Other media organizations,
including the NYT, knew about it and refused to cover it.
Stu Pedassle , 1 hour ago
Glad to see Operation Mockingbird is still going strong after 60 years
Former Congressman Ron Paul and his colleague Dan McAdams recently conducted a fascinating interview with
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which focused in part on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy,
who was Kennedy Jr.'s uncle. The interview took place on their program the Ron Paul Liberty
Report.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/_kJdOtnBUcw
Owing to the many federal records that have been released over the years relating to the
Kennedy assassination, especially through the efforts of the Assassination Records Review Board
in the 1990s, many Americans are now aware of the war that was being waged between President
Kennedy and the CIA throughout his presidency . The details of this war are set forth in FFF's
book
JFK's War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas
Horne.
In the interview, Robert Kennedy Jr. revealed a fascinating aspect of this war with which I
was unfamiliar. He stated that the deep animosity that the CIA had for the Kennedy family
actually stretched back to something the family patriarch, Joseph P. Kennedy, did in the 1950s
that incurred the wrath of Allen Dulles, the head of the CIA.
Kennedy Jr. stated that his grandfather, Joseph P. Kennedy, had served on a commission that
was charged with examining and analyzing CIA covert activities, or "dirty tricks" as Kennedy
Jr. put them. As part of that commission, Kennedy Jr stated, Joseph Kennedy (John Kennedy and
Bobby Kennedy's father) had determined that the CIA had done bad things with its regime-change
operations that were destroying democracies, such as in Iran and Guatemala.
Consequently, Joseph Kennedy recommended that the CIA's power to engage in covert activities
be terminated and that the CIA be strictly limited to collecting intelligence and empowered to
do nothing else.
According to Kennedy Jr.,
"Allen Dulles never forgave him -- never forgave my family -- for that."
I assumed that the war between President Kennedy and the CIA had begun with the CIA's
invasion at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba. The additional information added by Kennedy Jr. places
things in a much more fascinating and revealing context.
Upon doing a bit of research on the Internet, I found that the commission that Kennedy Jr.
must have been referring to was the President's Board of Consultants on Foreign Intelligence
Activities, which President Eisenhower had established in 1956 through
Executive Order 10656 . Eisenhower appointed Joseph Kennedy to serve on that
commission.
That year was three years after the CIA's 1953 regime change operation in Iran which
destroyed that country's democratic system. It was two years after the CIA's regime-change
operation in Guatemala that destroyed that country's democratic system.
Keep in mind that the ostensible reason that the CIA engaged in these regime-change
operations was to protect "national security," which over time has become the most important
term in the American political lexicon. Although no one has ever come up with an objective
definition for the term, the CIA's power to address threats to "national security," including
through coups and assassinations, became omnipotent.
Yet, here was Joseph P. Kennedy declaring that the CIA's power to exercise such powers
should be terminated and recommending that the CIA's power be strictly limited to intelligence
gathering.
It is not difficult to imagine how livid CIA Director Dulles and his cohorts must have been
at Kennedy. No bureaucrat likes to have his power limited. More important, for Dulles and his
cohorts, it would have been clear that if Kennedy got his way, "national security" would be
gravely threatened given the Cold War that the United States was engaged in with the Soviet
Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, and other communist nations.
Now consider what happened with the Bay of Pigs. The CIA's plan for a regime-change invasion
of Cuba, was conceived under President Eisenhower. Believing that Vice President Nixon would be
elected president in 1960, the CIA was quite surprised that Kennedy was elected instead. To
ensure that the invasion would go forth anyway, the CIA assured Kennedy that the invasion would
succeed without U.S. air support. It was a lie. The CIA assumed that once the invasion was
going to go down in defeat at the hands of the communists, Kennedy would have to provide the
air support in order to "save face."
But Kennedy refused to be played by the CIA. When the CIA's army of Cuban exiles was going
down in defeat, the CIA requested the air support, convinced that their plan to manipulate the
new president would work. It didn't. Kennedy refused to provide the air support and the CIA's
invasion went down in defeat.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Now consider what happened after the Bay of Pigs: Knowing that the CIA had played him and
double-crossed him, John Kennedy fired Allen Dulles as CIA director, along with his chief
deputy, Charles Cabell. He then put his younger brother Bobby Kennedy in charge of monitoring
the CIA, which infuriated the CIA.
Now jump ahead to the Cuban Missile Crisis, which Kennedy resolved by promising that the
United States would not invade Cuba for a regime-change operation. That necessarily would leave
a permanent communist regime in Cuba, something that the CIA steadfastly maintained was a grave
threat to "national security" -- a much bigger threat, in fact, than the threats supposedly
posed by the regimes in Iran in 1953 and Guatemala in 1954.
And then Kennedy did the unforgivable, at least insofar as the CIA was concerned . In his
famous Peace Speech at American University in June 1963, he declared an end to the entire Cold
War and announced that the United States was going to establish friendly and peaceful relations
with the communist world.
Kennedy had thrown the gauntlet down in front of the CIA. It was either going to be his way
or the CIA's way. There was no room for compromise, and both sides knew it.
In the minds of former CIA Director Allen Dulles and the people still at the CIA, what
Kennedy was doing was anathema and, even worse, the gravest threat to "national security" the
United States had ever faced, a much bigger threat than even that posed by the democratic
regimes in Iran and Guatemala. At that point, the CIA's animosity toward President Kennedy far
exceeded the animosity it had borne toward his father, Joseph P. Kennedy, several years
before.
Joe A , 2 hours ago
And Allen Dulles, the CIA director that Kennedy fired, was on the Warren Commission that
concluded that Kennedy was killed by a lone assassin who was a poor marksman using a crappy
rifle.
USGrant , 2 hours ago
The Warren Commission exhibits show that the Carcano after the scope was shimmed to make
it usable, shot about 10 inches to the right and high at 25 yards with terrible accuracy.
Presumably this was one of the carbines whose barrel was cut down from rifle length taking
much of the progressive rifling with it. The cartridges placed on the 6th floor were
clearly reloads not the supposed new Western cartridges of circa 1953. As reloads then the
question arises where were .267 bullets to be obtained since only .264 were manufactured at
the time which would make accuracy suffer.
Joe A , 1 hour ago
Yes, but these bullets were magic bullets according to the Warren Commission. There was
one bullet that entered Kennedy's throat and left it, then traversed through air, changing
course, hanged suspended in mid air for about a second or so and then continued to hit the
governor that was sitting in front to the left of Kennedy. That bullet traversed 15 layers
of clothing, seven layers of skin, and approximately 15 inches of muscle tissue, struck a
necktie knot, removed 4 inches of rib, and shattered a radius bone and was found virtually
intact. Some bullet!
USGrant , 1 hour ago
And the found bullet changed from a spitzer according to the first hospital worker who
was alerted to it, to a round nose.
WingedMessenger , 19 minutes ago
You have missed several TV episodes that have successfully recreated the magic bullet
scenario, including Myth Busters. The bullet is not magic, the actual seating geometry and
sight line of the shooter all contribute to the bullet path being actually very straight.
The 6.5mm 150-160 grain bullets have a very high sectional density that gives them a lot of
penetration. In one test the spent bullet was found resting on the leg of the second ("John
Connally") dummy just like it did in real life.
They used the same Cacarno rifle for the tests. The shot is not difficult. The car is
moving directly away from the shooter at the time of this shot, so no real lead is
required. The range is less than a 100 yards so you just aim dead on and shoot. Hunters do
it all the time.
ThirteenthFloor , 1 hour ago
When Allen Dulles passed away, the CIA sent someone to Dulles' Georgetown home to get
'missing' and incriminating JFK autopsy photos from his safe and destroy them. That person
was James Jesus Angleton, who admitted late in his life. Read last chapter in "Devils
Chessboard" - David Talbot.
USGrant , 1 hour ago
If I recall, he was the one found searching in her studio for Mary Pinchot Meyer's diary
after she was killed . (Cord Meyer's ex-wife)
cornflakesdisease , 10 minutes ago
He also had a huge hand in the political beginings of the UN.
Bay of Pigs , 2 hours ago
Allen Dulles, LBJ and the CIA murdered JFK. It's that fu#king simple.
MontCar , 1 hour ago
LBJ likely abetted the cover up. Placing Allen Dulles, recently fired from the CIA
directorship by JFK, on the since disgraced Warren Commission. Mossad may have partnered
with CIA in the assassination. JFK evidently opposed Israel's nuclear weapons acquisition
efforts - an existential issue for Israel. Clear motive.
USGrant , 1 hour ago
Allan Dulles then danced on JFK's grave.
Angular Momentum , 1 hour ago
Kennedy also supported the right of return for the Palestinians refugees who left Israel
for Jordan. Also an existential issue for Israel. I think in Ben Gurian's mind either
Kennedy lived or Israel survived as a Jewish state. It was one or the other. I have no
doubt the CIA covered for Israel because they had their own beef with Kennedy.
Yen Cross , 1 hour ago
It wasn't some flunkie Soviet reject from the bell tower.
There's no way Oswald could bounce a high velocity round of lead off a light post, in
front of the Limousine, still carrying enough muzzle velocity to cave in the back side of
POTUS cranium.
There were other players, at the very least.
WingedMessenger , 5 minutes ago
I have been to the 6th floor museum in Dallas several times and reviewed the various
theories on where other shooters might have been located. All of the them are worse than
the 6th floor of the Book Depository. Some are down right stupid, like the one supposed in
the sewer by the curb. It would be impossible to shoot a rifle in there at the angle needed
to hit above the wheel well of the limo, much less be able to see the limo before it was
right on you. You could not even see Kennedy from there, You would have to shoot through
the bottom of a door or the floor boards just to hit him in the leg or foot.
The 6th floor is the only location that allows the shooter to see the limos coming
before they arrive in the target zone and allow him to prepare to shoot. All the other
locations give only a tiny window to ID the target and loose off a round before the limo
disappears out of view. A competent assassin would have chosen the 6th floor window. If
Oswald was not the best shot, there is always the possibility that he just got lucky on
some easy shots, or maybe someone else was in the 6th floor window. We don't have any
evidence for either case.
NewDarwin , 3 hours ago
The CIA has it in for anyone who tries to dismantle the deep state...
sj warrior , 2 hours ago
jfk tried to stop izzy from getting nuclear bombs
rfk tried to force the forerunner to aipac to register as foreign agent, thus subject to
gov monitoring
both of these stances failed after the assassinations
Pandelis , 26 minutes ago
plus the Secret Societies speech ... that was a biggie showing he was into them (cia was
just one of octopus arms)....
and the executive order issued by Kennedy on using silver as currency ... that was
really going after the owners ... in all fairness, not sure he knew what he was up against
... his son was killed without giving him a chance to shine yet ...
desertboy , 2 hours ago
The CIA is the direct product of, and works directly for, the same parties that own the
Fed (the primary shareholders of its shareholders).
The CIA is even typically headed by bankers.
This is simply the history.
eatapeach , 2 hours ago
Nope, Trump is an insider. Should be pretty obvious given his behavior toward Syria,
Iran, and Israel. He's no different than all those in the long line since after
Kennedy.
Dzerzhhinsky , 2 hours ago
The CIA Versus The Kennedys
We all know who won that fight. Not a single American President has dared to disobey the
CIA since.
revjimbeam , 2 hours ago
Nixon ended Viet nam and opened China- liddy(FBI) and hunt(CIA) set the administration
up by breaking into the watergate then finished him of with anonymous leaks to the
Washington post by felt (deepthroat) the no.2 at fbi....sound familar?
Impeachment doesn't leave agency fingerprints and is less messy than Dallas Memphis and
LA
Gospel According To Me , 2 hours ago
Interesting theory and very plausible.
That is why to this day the Deep State poses such a grave danger to our democracy. They
want Trump out of their way, period. If Trump pardons Snowden he better head for his WH
bomb shelter. They will really go after him with everything they have. And they still have
plenty of sick like-minded people in place in every agency. They spy on Trump and work to
sabotage every good idea he has to Make America Great Again. Pray he prevails and the USA
survives.
eatapeach , 2 hours ago
Please. Snowden is a feeble US analog of Baryshnikov et al and Russia knows it.
Moreover, the contrived Trump v. Deep State narrative reads like a Hardy Boys novel, soft
and weak. If 'deep state' wants someone gone, they don't dilly dally. What are you, 13
years old?
2hangmen , 2 hours ago
Well, that explains the CIA involvement with the Deep State in trying to take down
candidate Trump, then President Trump. Whether someone can bring them into line will
determine if we keep our nation as founded.
ComradePuff , 22 minutes ago
Kennedy didn't even make one full term, let alone stand for re-election. In the
meantime, the CIA has only gotten stronger and spun off into a dozen other agencies. You're
deluding yourself.
FlKeysFisherman , 2 hours ago
WTF, I like a Kennedy now!!!
Earth Ling , 2 hours ago
Then you'll love this!
RFK JR's org Children's Health Defense is suing Zuckerberg and Facebook:
I fear for RFK Jr, to be perfectly honest. It's amazing he can even walk with balls that
big.
Eastern Whale , 2 hours ago
shows that politicians are all rotten to the core even in a "democratically" elected
government
communism in 20th century is a joke, Oligarch from Russia is buying soccer teams in UK,
Chinese is lined up at Chanel and LV in every city. communism is just a concept and name
now.
anyhow, all politicians should be at the bottom of the ocean
presterjohn1198 , 2 hours ago
The cia has always been the shadow government of the USSA. Those clever Ivy League boys
think that they always knew better about screwing up world affairs than our elected
government. Pretty much the same kind of club as the legacy media, whom the cia frequently
collaborates with.
Fools!
Arising , 1 hour ago
... the CIA's 1953 regime change operation in Iran which destroyed that country's
democratic system.
There's one for all the Republican fan boys that hate Iran because their leaders tell
them to.
buckboy , 1 hour ago
Pres. Trump are well aware of these facts. Main reason why he has his own private
security. Amazing he is getting this far. This man knows how to win than anyone else.
He made Brennan, Clapper, Comey Clintons like real clowns instead.
Call it conspiracy, the terrorism, blm antifa racism and non sense chaos are supported
by the cia. CIA is the main and most dangerous enemy of the world. To control is the main
objective.
Like the JFK family and now Trump, if you are against them, they'll discredit you
through the history.
USGrant , 2 hours ago
Listen to Douglas Horne's interview of Dino Brugioni and how the Zupruder film was
doctored to make it seem that the head shot came from the back. No surprise with the head
movement-it came from the front.
USGrant , 2 hours ago
Those frames were cut out which not only exaggerated the head movement but it made it
impossible for 3 shots to come from the crappy Carcano in the shortened time as gauged from
the film. So there is only one frame of the head shot but Dino remembered several as he was
the one charged with making the briefing board on Saturday night prior to the film being
altered on Sunday at the Kodak Hawkeye Works.
Wild Bill Steamcock , 1 hour ago
Richard
Dolan has a nice set of interviews with Phillip Lavelle (a walking JFK encyclopedia) on
the topic at his youtube channel. ...
Wild Bill Steamcock , 1 hour ago
And Tracey too, being that smart and good looking is almost unfair
fucking truth , 1 hour ago
And yet trump promised and reneged on releasing all the Kennedy docs, it's a big swamp
and i think Trump's in it, ribbit.
Wild Bill Steamcock , 1 hour ago
It's like trying to drain an ocean. Eventually you fall in
mcmich , 1 hour ago
The people in power now is the people behind JFK's murder..
Soloamber , 38 minutes ago
So does everyone else . Jackie Kennedy knew too . She said they finally got him . Johnson told his mistress the same day .
DEDA CVETKO , 1 hour ago
The only worthwhile human beings in the entire Kennedy clan were JFK and Jr.
(notwithstanding Jackie, whom I count as Onassis). The rest - particularly Bobby Kennedy -
were scum of the earth and sycophants of the Matrix, the lowliest kind of elitist
wire-carrying police informants and apron-wearers. To this day I don't understand how
anyone in the right mind could venerate Bobby Kennedy. The man was three tiers below even
his fuhrer-sucking daddy.
Would United States have been better off had Kennedy survived? Probably, but not by much
and only in the short term. We might have avoided Vietnam (highly questionable - JFK had
already sent our troops there and the whole thing was already on the verge of dangerous
escalation). But as soon as his second term ended, the Deep State would have installed a
more desirable and obedient puppet (most likely Nixon, possibly LBJ) in the White House and
we would have continued where LBJ left off in January 1969.
"... To understand the risk that Julian Assange represented to CIA interests, it is important to understand just how extensive the operations of the CIA were in 2016. It is within this network of foreign and domestic operations where FBI Agent Peter Strzok is clearly working as a bridge between the CIA and FBI operations. ..."
"... By now people are familiar with the construct of CIA operations involving Joseph Mifsud, the Maltese professor now generally admitted/identified as a western intelligence operative who was tasked by the CIA (John Brennan) to run an operation against Trump campaign official George Papadopoulos in both Italy (Rome) and London. { Go Deep } ..."
"... In a similar fashion the CIA tasked U.S. intelligence asset Stefan Halper to target another Trump campaign official, Carter Page. Under the auspices of being a Cambridge Professor Stefan Halper also targeted General Michael Flynn. Additionally, using assistance from a female FBI agent under the false name Azra Turk, Halper also targeted Papadopoulos . ..."
"... The initial operations to target Flynn, Papadopoulos and Page were all based overseas. This seemingly makes the CIA exploitation of the assets and the targets much easier. ..."
"... In short, Peter Strzok appears to be the very eager, profoundly overzealous James Bond wannabe, who acted as a bridge between the CIA and the FBI. The perfect type of FBI career agent for CIA Director John Brennan to utilize. ..."
"... It was also Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson who was domestically tasked with a Russian lobbyist named Natalia Veselnitskya. A little reported Russian Deputy Attorney General named Saak Albertovich Karapetyan was working double-agents for the CIA and Kremlin. Karapetyan was directing the foreign operations of Natalia Veselnitskaya, and Glenn Simpson was organizing her inside the U.S. ..."
"... All of this context outlines the extent to which the CIA was openly involved in constructing a political operation that settled upon anyone in candidate Donald Trump's orbit. ..."
"... Additionally, Christopher Steele was a British intelligence officer, hired by Fusion-GPS to assemble and launder fraudulent intelligence information within his dossier. And we cannot forget Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch, who was recruited by Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe to participate in running an operation against the Trump campaign and create the impression of Russian involvement. Deripaska refused to participate . ..."
"... The key point of all that background is to see how committed the CIA and FBI were to the constructed narrative of Russia interfering with the 2016 election. The CIA, FBI, and by extension the DOJ, put a hell of a lot of work into it. Intelligence community work that Durham is now unraveling. ..."
"... Rohrabacher recounted his conversation with Assange to The Hill. "Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] emails during last year's presidential election," Rohrabacher said, "Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails." ..."
"... Knowing how much effort the CIA and FBI put into the Russia collusion-conspiracy narrative, it would make sense for the FBI to take keen interest after this August 2017 meeting between Rohrabacher and Assange; and why the FBI would quickly gather specific evidence (related to Wikileaks and Bradley Manning) for a grand jury by December 2017. ..."
"... The Weissmann/Mueller report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central element to the Russia interference narrative in the U.S. election. This claim is directly disputed by WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, as outlined during the Dana Rohrabacher interview, and by Julian Assange on-the-record statements. ..."
"... The predicate for Robert Mueller's investigation was specifically due to Russian interference in the 2016 election. The fulcrum for this Russia interference claim is the intelligence community assessment; and the only factual evidence claimed within the ICA is that Russia hacked the DNC servers; a claim only made possible by relying on forensic computer analysis from Crowdstrike, a DNC contractor. ..."
"... The CIA holds a massive conflict of self-interest in upholding the Russian hacking claim. The FBI holds a massive interest in maintaining that claim. All of those foreign countries whose intelligence apparatus participated with Brennan and Strzok also have a vested self-interest in maintaining that Russia hacking and interference narrative. ..."
"... This Russian "hacking" claim is ultimately so important to the CIA, FBI, DOJ, ODNI and U.K intelligence apparatus ..."
According to reports in November of 2019, U.S Attorney John Durham and U.S. Attorney General
Bill Barr were spending time on a narrowed focus looking carefully at CIA activity in the 2016
presidential election. One recent quote from a
media-voice increasingly sympathetic to a political deep-state notes:
"One British official with knowledge of Barr's wish list presented to London commented
that "it is like nothing we have come across before, they are basically asking, in quite
robust terms, for help in doing a hatchet job on their own intelligence services"". (
Link )
It is interesting that quote came from a British intelligence official, as there appears to
be evidence of an extensive CIA operation that likely involved U.K. intelligence services. In
addition, and as a direct outcome, there is an aspect to the CIA operation that overlaps with
both a U.S. and U.K. need to keep Wikileaks founder Julian Assange under tight control. In this
outline we will explain where corrupt U.S. and U.K. interests merge.
To understand the risk that Julian Assange represented to CIA interests, it is important to
understand just how extensive the operations of the CIA were in 2016. It is within this network
of foreign and domestic operations where FBI Agent Peter Strzok is clearly working as a bridge
between the CIA and FBI operations.
By now people are familiar with the construct of
CIA operations involving Joseph Mifsud, the Maltese professor now generally
admitted/identified as a western intelligence operative who was tasked by the CIA (John
Brennan) to run an operation against Trump campaign official George Papadopoulos in both Italy
(Rome) and London. {
Go Deep }
In a similar fashion the CIA tasked
U.S. intelligence asset Stefan Halper to target another Trump campaign official, Carter
Page. Under the auspices of being a Cambridge Professor Stefan Halper also targeted General
Michael Flynn. Additionally, using assistance from a female FBI agent under the false name Azra
Turk, Halper also targeted Papadopoulos
.
The initial operations to target Flynn, Papadopoulos and Page were all based overseas. This
seemingly makes the CIA exploitation of the assets and the targets much easier.
One of the more interesting aspects to the Durham probe is a possibility of a paper-trail
created as a result of the tasking operations. We should watch closely for more evidence of a
paper trail as some congressional reps have hinted toward documented evidence (transcripts,
recordings, reports) that are exculpatory to the targets (Page & Papadop). HPSCI Ranking
Member Devin Nunes has strongly hinted that
very specific exculpatory evidence was known to the FBI and yet withheld from the FISA
application used against Carter Page that also mentions George Papadopoulos. I digress
However, there is an aspect to the domestic U.S. operation that also bears the fingerprints
of the CIA; only this time due to the restrictive laws on targets inside the U.S. the CIA
aspect is less prominent. This is where FBI Agent Peter Strzok working for both agencies starts
to become important.
Remember, it's clear in the text messages Strzok has a working relationship with what he
called their "sister agency", the CIA. Additionally, Brennan
has admitted Strzok helped write the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA)
which outlines the Russia narrative; and it is almost guaranteed the July 31st, 2016,
"Electronic Communication" from the CIA to the FBI that originated FBI operation "Crossfire
Hurricane" was co-authored from the CIA by Strzok . and Strzok immediately used that EC to
travel to London to debrief intelligence officials around Australian Ambassador to the U.K.
Alexander Downer.
In short, Peter Strzok appears to be the very eager, profoundly overzealous James Bond
wannabe, who acted as a bridge between the CIA and the FBI. The perfect type of FBI career
agent for CIA Director John Brennan to utilize.
Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson hired CIA Open Source analyst Nellie Ohr toward the
end of 2015 ; at appropriately the same time as "
FBI Contractors " were identified exploiting the NSA database and extracting information on
a specific set of U.S. persons.
It was also Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson who was domestically tasked with a Russian
lobbyist named Natalia Veselnitskya. A little reported Russian Deputy Attorney General named
Saak Albertovich Karapetyan was working double-agents for the CIA and Kremlin. Karapetyan was
directing the foreign operations of Natalia Veselnitskaya, and Glenn Simpson was organizing
her inside the U.S.
Glenn Simpson managed Veselnitskaya through the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump
Jr. However, once the CIA/Fusion-GPS operation using Veselnitskaya started to unravel with
public reporting back in Russia Deputy AG Karapetyan
fell out of a helicopter to his death (just before it crashed).
Simultaneously timed in late 2015 through mid 2016, there was a domestic FBI operation using
a young Russian named Maria Butina
tasked to run up against republican presidential candidates . According to Patrick Byrne,
Butina's handler, it was FBI agent Peter Strzok who was giving Byrne the instructions on where
to send her. {
Go Deep }
All of this context outlines the extent to which the CIA was openly involved in constructing
a political operation that settled upon anyone in candidate Donald Trump's orbit.
International operations directed by the CIA, and domestic operations seemingly directed by
Peter Strzok operating with a foot in both agencies. [ Strzok gets CIA service
coin ]
Recap :
Mifsud tasked against Papadopoulos (CIA).
Halper tasked against
Flynn (CIA), Page (CIA), and Papadopoulos (CIA).
Azra Turk , pretending to be Halper
asst, tasked against Papadopoulos (FBI).
Veselnitskaya tasked against Donald Trump Jr
(CIA, Fusion-GPS).
Butina tasked against Trump, and Donald Trump Jr (FBI).
Additionally, Christopher Steele was a British intelligence officer, hired by Fusion-GPS to
assemble and launder fraudulent intelligence information within his dossier. And we cannot
forget Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch, who was
recruited by Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe to participate in running an operation
against the Trump campaign and create the impression of Russian involvement. Deripaska
refused to participate .
All of this engagement directly controlled by U.S. intelligence; and all of this intended to
give a specific Russia impression. This predicate is presumably what John Durham is currently
reviewing.
The key point of all that background is to see how committed the CIA and FBI were to the
constructed narrative of Russia interfering with the 2016 election. The CIA, FBI, and by
extension the DOJ, put a hell of a lot of work into it. Intelligence community work that Durham
is now unraveling.
We also know specifically that John Durham is looking at the construct of the Intelligence
Community Assessment (ICA); and
talking to CIA analysts who participated in the construct of the January 2017 report that
bolstered the false appearance of Russian interference in the 2016 election. This is important
because it ties in to the next part that involves Julian Assange and Wikileaks.
On April 11th, 2019, the Julian Assange
indictment was unsealed in the EDVA. From the indictment we discover it was under seal
since March 6th, 2018 : (Link to pdf)
On Tuesday April 15th more
investigative material was released . Again, note the dates: Grand Jury, * December of 2017
* This means FBI investigation prior to .
The FBI investigation took place prior to December 2017, it was coordinated through the
Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) where Dana Boente was U.S. Attorney at the time. The grand
jury indictment was sealed from March of 2018 until after Mueller completed his investigation,
April 2019 .
Why the delay?
What was the DOJ waiting for?
Here's where it gets interesting .
The FBI submission to the Grand Jury in December of 2017 was four months after congressman
Dana Rohrabacher talked to Julian Assange in August of 2017: "Assange told a U.S. congressman
he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents did not come from Russia."
(
August 2017, The Hill Via John Solomon ) Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on
Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year's
election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks
in the near future.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican who is friendly to Russia and chairs an
important House subcommittee on Eurasia policy, became the first American congressman to meet
with Assange during a three-hour private gathering at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where
the WikiLeaks founder has been holed up for years.
Rohrabacher recounted his conversation with Assange to The Hill. "Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure
of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] emails during last year's presidential election,"
Rohrabacher said, "Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the
hacking or disclosure of those emails."
Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents, Rohrabacher said he had
information to share privately with President Trump. (
read more )
Knowing how much effort the CIA and FBI put into the Russia collusion-conspiracy narrative,
it would make sense for the FBI to take keen interest after this August 2017 meeting between
Rohrabacher and Assange; and why the FBI would quickly gather specific evidence (related to
Wikileaks and Bradley Manning) for a grand jury by December 2017.
Within three months of the grand jury the DOJ generated an indictment and sealed it in March
2018. The EDVA sat on the indictment while the Mueller probe was ongoing.
As soon as the Mueller probe ended, on April 11th, 2019, a planned and coordinated effort
between the U.K. and U.S. was executed; Julian Assange was forcibly arrested and removed from
the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and the EDVA indictment was unsealed (
link ).
As a person who has researched this three year fiasco; including the ridiculously false 2016
Russian hacking/interference narrative: "17 intelligence agencies", Joint Analysis Report
(JAR) needed for Obama's anti-Russia narrative in December '16; and then a month later the
ridiculously political Intelligence Community
Assessment (ICA) in January '17; this timing against Assange is too coincidental.
It doesn't take a deep researcher to see the aligned Deep State motive to control Julian
Assange because the Mueller report was dependent on Russia cybercrimes, and that narrative is
contingent on the Russia DNC hack story which Julian Assange disputes.
This is critical. The Weissmann/Mueller
report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central element to the
Russia interference narrative in the U.S. election. This claim is directly disputed by
WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, as outlined during the Dana Rohrabacher interview, and by Julian
Assange on-the-record statements.
The predicate for Robert Mueller's investigation was specifically due to Russian
interference in the 2016 election. The fulcrum for this Russia interference claim is the
intelligence community assessment; and the only factual evidence claimed within the ICA is that
Russia hacked the DNC servers; a claim only made possible by relying on forensic computer
analysis from Crowdstrike, a DNC contractor.
The CIA holds a massive conflict of self-interest in upholding the Russian hacking claim.
The FBI holds a massive interest in maintaining that claim. All of those foreign countries
whose intelligence apparatus participated with Brennan and Strzok also have a vested
self-interest in maintaining that Russia hacking and interference narrative.
Julian Assange is the only person with direct knowledge of how Wikileaks gained custody of
the DNC emails; and Assange has claimed he has evidence it was not from a hack.
This Russian "hacking" claim is ultimately so important to the CIA, FBI, DOJ, ODNI and U.K
intelligence apparatus . Well, right there is the obvious motive to shut Assange down as soon
intelligence officials knew the Mueller report was going to be public.
Now, if we know this, and you know this; and everything is cited and factual well, then
certainly AG Bill Barr knows this.
The $64,000 dollar question is: will they say so publicly?
Non-Corporate Entity , 7 minutes ago
Former NSA chief Bill Binney has forensic evidence that it was a download not a hack!!!
Hello?!?!
exige42 , 22 seconds ago
I believe this all holds true. My only hesitation is why Assange hasn't retaliated. He
was holed up in an Embassy for how many years because of these bastards? He had to have
known they were going to make a move on him sooner or later. Where is his dead plan? I hate
how these corrupt evil bastards have gotten their way forever. There has got to be a turn
on these SOBs. Where is the fight from these people who they are destroying
ffs???!!!
play_arrow
Dolar in a vortex , 1 minute ago
Jabba Barr and Bulldog Durham are a complete joke until they prove otherwise with
significant indictments. And no, Steve Bannon doesn't count.
If 'liberal' dogs can't bark at Jews and Deep State, they bark at Russia.
The Origins of Mass Manipulation of the Public Mind
Many years ago, the American political commentator Walter Lippmann realised that
political ideology could be completely fabricated, using the media to control both presentation
and conceptualisation, not only to create deeply-ingrained false beliefs in a population, but
also to entirely erase undesirable political ideas from the public mind. This was the beginning
of not only the American hysteria for freedom, democracy and patriotism, but of all
manufactured political opinion, a process that has been operative ever since. Lippmann created
these theories of mass persuasion of the public, using totally fabricated "facts" deeply
insinuated into the minds of a gullible public, but there is much more to this story. An
Austrian Jew named Edward Louis Bernays who was the nephew of Sigmund Freud, was one of
Lippmann's most precocious students and it was he who put Lippmann's theories into practice.
Bernays is widely known in America as the father of Public Relations, but he would be much more
accurately described as the father of American war marketing as well as the father of mass
manipulation of the public mind.
Bernays claimed "If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind" it will be
possible "to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing
about it". He called this scientific technique of opinion-molding the 'engineering of
consent', and to accomplish it he merged theories of crowd psychology with the psychoanalytical
ideas of his uncle Sigmund Freud. [10] [11]
Bernays regarded society as irrational and dangerous, with a "herd instinct", and that if the
multi-party electoral system (which evidence indicates was created by a group of European
elites as a population control mechanism) were to survive and continue to serve those elites,
massive manipulation of the public mind was necessary. These elites, "invisible people", would
have, through their influence on government and their control of the media, a monopoly on the
power to shape thoughts, values, and responses of the citizenry. His conviction was that this
group should flood the public with misinformation and emotionally-loaded propaganda to
"engineer" the acquiescence of the masses and thereby rule over them. According to Bernays,
this manufactured consent of the masses, creating conformity of opinion molded by the tool of
false propaganda, would be vital for the survival of "democracy". Bernays wrote:
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the
masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen
mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our
country. People are governed, their minds molded, their tastes formed, their ideas suggested,
largely by men they have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our
democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner
. In almost every act of our daily lives we are dominated by the relatively small number
of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they
who pull the wires which control the public mind."[12]
In his main work titled 'Propaganda', [13] which he
wrote in 1928, Bernays argued that the manipulation of public opinion was a necessary part of
democracy because individuals were inherently dangerous (to the control and looting of the
elites) but could be harnessed and channeled by these same elites for their economic benefit.
He clearly believed that virtually total control of a population was possible, and perhaps easy
to accomplish. He wrote further that:
"No serious sociologist any longer believes that the voice of the people expresses any
wise idea. The voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up
for it by those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion. It is composed of
inherited prejudices and symbols and clichés and verbal formulas supplied to them by
the leaders. Fortunately, the politician is able, by the instrument of propaganda, to mold
and form the will of the people. So vast are the numbers of minds which can be regimented,
and so tenacious are they when regimented, that [they produce] an irresistible pressure
before which legislators, editors, and teachers are helpless. "
And it wasn't only the public masses that were 'inherently dangerous', but a nation's
leaders fit this description as well, therefore also requiring manipulation and control.
Bernays realised that if you can influence the leaders of a nation, either with or without
their conscious cooperation, you can control the government and the country, and that is
precisely where he set his sights. Bernays again:
"In some departments of our daily life, in which we imagine ourselves free agents, we are
ruled by dictators exercising great power. There are invisible rulers who control the
destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions
of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the
scenes. Nor, what is still more important, the extent to which our thoughts and habits
are modified by authorities. The invisible government tends to be concentrated in the
hands of the few because of the expense of manipulating the social machinery which
controls the opinions and habits of the masses."
And in this case, the "few" are the wealthy industrial elites, their even wealthier banker
friends, and their brethren who control the media, publishing and entertainment industries.
Until the First World War, these theories of creating an entirely false public opinion based
on misinformation, then manipulating this for population control, were still only theories, but
the astounding success of propaganda by Bernays and his group during the war laid bare the
possibilities of perpetually controlling the public mind on all matters. The "shrewd" designers
of Bernays' "invisible government" developed a standard technique for what was essentially
propaganda and mind control, or at least opinion control, and infiltrated it throughout the US
government, its departments and agencies, and its leaders and politicians. Coincident with
this, they practiced infecting the leaders of every identifiable group – fraternal,
religious, commercial, patriotic, social – and encouraging these men to likewise infect
their supporters.
Many have noted the black and white mentality that pervades America. Much of the blame must
be laid on Bernays' propaganda methods. Bernays himself asserted that propaganda could produce
rapid and strong emotional responses in the public, but that the range of these responses was
limited because the emotional loading inherent in his propaganda would create a kind of binary
mentality, eventually forcing the population into a programmed black and white world –
which is precisely what we see in the US today. This isn't difficult to understand. When
Bernays flooded the public with fabricated tales of Germans shiskababbing babies, the range of
potential responses was entirely emotional and would be limited to either abhorrence or perhaps
a blocking of the information. In a sense, our emotional switch will be forced into either
an 'on' or 'off' position , with no other reasonable choices.
The elite few, as Bernays called them, realised early on the potential for control of
governments, and in every subsequent US administration the president and his White House staff,
the politicians, the leaders of the military and intelligence agencies, all fell prey to this
same disease of shrewd manipulation. Roosevelt's "intense desire for war" in 1939 [14] [15]
[16] was the result of this same infection process and, once infected, he of course
approved of the infection of the entire American population. Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays
succeeded beyond their wildest expectations.
Bernays – Marketing War
In the discovery of propaganda as a tool of public mind control and in its use for war
marketing, it is worthwhile to take a quick look at the historical background of Bernays' war
effort. At the time, the European Zionists had made an agreement with England to bring the US
into the war against Germany, on the side of England, a favor for which England would grant
them the possession of Palestine as a location for a new homeland. [19]
Palestine did not 'belong' to England, it was not England's to give, and England had no legal
or moral right to make such an agreement, but it was made nevertheless.
US President Wilson was desperate to fulfill his obligations to his handlers by putting the
US into the First World War as they wished, but the American population had no interest in the
European war and public sentiment was entirely against participating. To facilitate the desired
result, Wilson created the Committee on Public Information (The Creel Commission), [20] to
propagandise the war by the mass brainwashing of America, but Creel was merely the 'front' of a
group that consisted of specially hand-picked men from the media, advertising, the movie
industry, and academia, as well as specialists in psychology. The two most important members
were Walter Lippman, whom Wilson described as "the most brilliant man of his age", and Bernays
who was the group's top mind-control expert, both Jews and both aware of the stakes in this
game. Bernays planned to combine his uncle Freud's psychiatric insights with mass psychology
blended with modern advertising techniques, and apply them to the task of mass mind control. It
was Bernays' vast propaganda schemes and his influence in promoting the patently false idea
that US entry to the war was primarily aimed at "bringing democracy to all of Europe", that
proved so successful in altering public opinion about the war. Thanks to Edward Bernays,
American war marketing was born and would never die.
Note to Readers: Some portion of the immediately following content which details the
specifics of the propaganda of Lippman and Bernays for World War I is not my own work. It was
extracted some years ago from a longer document for which I cannot now locate the original
source. If a reader is able to identify this source, I would be grateful to receive that
information so I can properly credit the author for his extensive research.
"Wilson's creation of the CPI was a turning point in world history, the first truly
scientific attempt to form, manipulate and control the perceptions and beliefs of an entire
population." With Wilson's authority, these men were given almost unlimited scope to work
their magic, and in order to ensure the success of their program and guarantee the eventual
possession of Palestine, these men and their committee carried out "a program of
psychological warfare against the American people on a scale unprecedented in human history and
with a degree of success that most propagandists could only dream about".
Having received permission and broad authority from the US President and the White House to
"lead the public mind into war"[21] and,
with their success threatened by widespread anti-war sentiment among the public, these men
determined to engineer what Lippman called "the manufacture of consent" . The committee
assumed the task to "examine the different ways that information flowed to the population and
to flood these channels with pro-war material". Their effort was unparalleled in its scale and
sophistication, since the Committee had the power not only to officially censor news and
withhold information from the public, but to manufacture false news and distribute it
nationally through all channels. In a very short time, Lippman and Bernays were well enough
organised to begin flooding the US with anti-German propaganda consisting of hate literature,
movies, songs, media articles and much more.
... ... ...
Everything we have read above about the marketing of war during preparation for the two
World Wars, is from a template created by Lippman and Bernays exclusively to support the
creation of a Jewish state in Palestine and to promote the agenda of Zionism. That template
has been in constant use by the US government (as the Bankers' Private Army) since the Second
World War, 'engineering consent and ignorance' in the American and Western populations to mask
almost seven decades of atrocities, demonising innocent countries and peoples in preparation
for 60 or 70 politically-inspired color revolutions or 'wars of liberation' fought exclusively
for the financial and political benefit of a handful of European bankers using the US military
as a private army for this purpose, resulting in the deaths and miseries of hundreds of
millions of innocent civilians.
... ... ...
We can easily think of George W. Bush's demonisation of Iraq, the sordid tales of mass
slaughters, the gassing of hundreds of thousands and burial in mass graves, the nuclear weapons
ready to launch within 15 minutes, the responsibility for 9-11, the babies tossed out of
incubators, Saddam using wood shredders to eliminate political opponents and dissidents. We can
think of the tales of Libyan Viagra, all proven to have been groundless fabrications –
typical atrocity propaganda. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran and dozens of other wars and
invasions followed this same template to get the public mind onside for an unjustified war
launched only for political and commercial objectives.
Fast Forward to 2020
We are at the same place today, with the same people conducting the same "anger campaign"
against China in preparation for World War III. John Pilger agrees with me , evidenced in
his recent article "Another Hiroshima is coming – unless we stop it now." [43] And so
does Gordon Duff . [44] The
signs now are everywhere, and the campaign is successful. It is necessary to point out the need
for an 'anger campaign' as opposed to a 'hate campaign'. We are not moved to action from hate,
but from anger. I may thoroughly despise you, but that in itself will do nothing. It is only if
I am moved to anger that I want to punch your lights out. And this, as Lippman and Bernays so
clearly noted, requires emotionally-charged atrocity propaganda of the kind used so well
against Germany and being so well used against China today. Since we need atrocity propaganda
to start a war, there seems to be no shortage.
... ... ...
Then, Mr. Pompeo tells us, "The truth is that our policies . . . resurrected China's
failing economy, only to see Beijing bite the international hands that were feeding it."[55] Further,
that (due to COVID-19) China "caused an enormous amount of pain, loss of life," and the
"Chinese Communist Party will pay a price". [56] Of
course, we all know that "China" stole the COVID-19 virus from a lab in Winnipeg, Canada, then
released it onto the world – and Pompeo has proof [57] , and
even "A Chinese virologist has proof" that "China" engaged in a massive cover-up while
contaminating the world [58] and then
"fleeing Hong Kong" because "I know how they treat whistle-blowers." [59] And of
course, "China needs to be held accountable for Covid-19's destruction"[60] which is
why everyone in the US wants to sue "China". "Australia" demands an international criminal
investigation of China's role in COVID-19. [61] What a
surprise.
And of course we have an almost unlimited number of serious provocations , from Hong
Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan, the South China Seas, to Chinese consulates, media reporters,
students, researchers, visa restrictions, spying, Huawei, the trade war, all done in the hope
of making the Chinese leaders panic and over-react, the easiest way to justify a new war.
The list could continue for several hundred pages. Never in my life have I seen such a
continuous, unabating flood of hate propaganda against one nation, surely equivalent to what
was done against Germany as described above to prepare for US entry into the First World War.
And it's working, doing what it is intended to do. Canada, Australia, the UK, Germany, India,
Brazil, are buying into the war-mongering and turning against China. More will follow. The
Global Times reported "Mutual trust between Australia and China at all-time low". [62]
"Boycott China" T-shirts and caps are flooding India, Huawei is being increasingly banned
from Western nations, Chinese social media APPs like Tik-Tok are being banned, and Bryan
Adams recently slammed all Chinese as "Bat-eating, wet-market-animal-selling, virus-making,
greedy bastards".[63] [64] In
a recent poll (taken because we need to measure the success of our handiwork in the same way
Bernays and the Tavistock Institute did as noted earlier), half of all ethnic Chinese in
Canada have been threatened and harassed over COVID-19.
About 45% of Chinese in Canada said they had been " threatened or intimidated in some
way", fully 50% said they had recently been insulted in public, 30% said they had experienced
. . . "some kind of physical altercation", and 60% said the abuse was so bad "they had to
reorganise their daily routine to avoid it". One woman in her 60s said a man told her and her
daughter "Every day I pray that you people die".[65]
... ... ...
Several years ago, CNN was sued by one of their news anchors for being ordered to lie in the
newscasts. CNN won the case. They did not deny ordering the news anchor to lie. Their defense
was based simply on the position that American news media have "no obligation to tell the
truth". And RT recently reported that nearly 9 out of 10 Americans see a "medium or
high" bias in all media coverage,[65] yet, as
we can see, most of those same people, and a very large portion of the population of many
nations still succumb to the same hate propaganda.
Democrats are in bed with the deep state, take billions from the largest corporations, and
conduct the most undemocratic nominating process ever seen in the US, but thank god they are
not fascists!
Trezrek500 , 2 hours ago
It is amazing, Bezos becomes the richest guy in the world and the delivery of his packages
is subsidized by tax payers. The USPS should triple their rates to AMZN. Problem solved.
Mass media throughout the western world are uncritically passing along a press release from
the US intelligence community, because that's what passes for journalism in a world where God
is dead and everything is stupid.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has voiced his opposition to a proposed Russian rule that
would require labeling of propaganda content, saying it would burden "independent" information
work by outlets such as Voice of America.
"This decree will impose new burdensome requirements that will further inhibit RFE/RL's
and VOA's ability to operate within Russia," Pompeo said
Monday, commenting on the draft rule published by the media regulator Roskomnadzor.
Pompeo called VOA and its sister outlet Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty "vital sources
of independent news and information for the people of Russia" for "more than 70
years."
Far from independent, however, they were both established as US propaganda outlets at the
dawn of the Cold War. They are fully funded by the government, and the charter of their parent
organization – now known as US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) – mandates that they
"be consistent with the broad foreign policy objectives of the United States" and
"provide a surge capacity to support United States foreign policy objectives during crises
abroad."
The 1948 law that established these outlets outright prohibited their content from being
broadcast in the US itself, until the Obama administration amended it in 2013.
The proposed rule would require all content produced by designated "foreign agents"
in the Russian Federation to be clearly labeled. When the draft of it was made public last
month, acting RFE/RL president Daisy Sindelar protested that its purpose was to
"intimidate" her audience and make them "feel like criminals, or believe that they
are in danger when they watch or read our materials."
Yet the Russian regulation is the mirror image of the requirement imposed under the US
Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) on RT, Sputnik and China Global Television Network
(CTGN) since 2017, which only a handful of groups such as the Committee to Protect Journalists
(CPJ) condemned as
an attack on free speech. The USAGM remained conspicuously silent even as the designated
outlets were denied credentials to access government press conferences.
US-based social media companies have also bowed to political pressure and labeled Russian-
and Chinese-based outlets as "state-affiliated," while refraining from using that
descriptor for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), German outlet Deutsche Welle, the
French AFP, Turkish TRT, or any of the USAGM outlets, once again showcasing the double
standard.
jangosimba 10 August, 2020
He cheats, he lies, he murders, he steals.
Zogg jangosimba 11 August, 2020
That's a small part of CIA job description.
Harbin
William Johnson 1 hour ago
Mike reminds me that character from "Godfather" series, the old , dumb henchman ready to
follow any order...
Is not Q-anon a disinformation operation run by intelligence againces?
From comments: "Being a true believer in "Q" is literally no different than being a true believer in the
Democrat-Republican kosher sandwich." and "After almost four years of Trump's presidency, QAnon is an attempt to explain the
President's failure to "Make America Great Again.""
Notable quotes:
"... This doesn't mean there's a Satanic cabal running the government. It does mean some bureaucrats opposed or even sabotaged President Trump's agenda. They investigated his subordinates or leaked information to the press. If we substitute "the permanent bureaucracy" for the more ominous sounding term "Deep State," this "conspiracy theory" becomes plausible. ..."
"... What is truly implausible about QAnon is the idea that President Trump knows about everything and will destroy this vast conspiracy. ..."
"... If you desperately want to believe something, you'll find evidence for it . This is confirmation bias at best, schizophrenia at worst. If President Trump truly is about to reveal a vast Satanic conspiracy, he's taking his time. ..."
"... What is especially dangerous about QAnon is not that it promotes dangerous extremism, but that it urges complacency. Its core message is that Donald Trump knows all about the secret conspiracy running the world and has the power to crush it; after all, he's President. ..."
"... After almost four years of Trump's presidency, QAnon is an attempt to explain the President's failure to "Make America Great Again." ..."
"... QAnon isn't dangerous. Conspiracy theories are as old as the Anti-Masonic Party , maybe older. Some unstable people may latch on to them, but they are not notably violent. If anything, if they really believe a Satanic cabal runs the world, they are showing remarkable restraint. ..."
"... I suspect the real reason journalists don't like QAnon is because at its core, it tells people the media are lying. It encourages independent investigation and citizen journalism. ..."
"... Journalists promote a conspiracy far more dangerous and deadly than QAnon. That is the "white privilege" conspiracy theory . ..."
"... Liberals are right to think QAnon is dangerous, but not in the way they think. QAnon is dangerous to whites. It tells them that everything is under control, that an evil conspiracy will be exposed, and that we just need to trust President Trump. We can't be under any illusions that President Trump will save us . "The Storm" is not coming, the cavalry won't ride over the hill, and there isn't a secret military force ready to scoop up our foes and liberate America. It's up to us. ..."
"... The Qanon phenomenon exploits the most fundamental psychological need which is hope, that hope dies last. The hope in order not to die will accept and forgive anything including the greatest nonsense. The hopeful ones can be strung along for ever because hope wants to last as it is the last to die. You just have to keep giving them a dose and keep stringing them alone. ..."
"... Sadly, the author is pretty much on-the-money. If Trump is for real, that is, if he believes what he says, he has been completely incompetent at accomplishing anything. ..."
"... I came late to the QAnon crap and saw it was the same soup as Black Lives Matter. Why, in fact, wouldn't the same crooks behind the one not foment the other? One says "blacks gonna make you kneel and take away all your stuff" while the other says, "don't worry, the least effective president in history has got us covered." ..."
"... They're all in show biz and Americans just happen to be an unusually gullible audience. ' ..."
"... I believe Trump is just another minion of the Deep State and is acting in accordance with their wishes. He is helping play out a charade a good cop (Trump) against a bad cop (Deep State). At any rate, he is not fulfilling his promises to those that elected him whether through incompetence or scheme. ..."
"... The logic of Hood's article is hard to beat either way. Trump/QAnon are just there for show, dangling hope in front of people that there's some person or entity that cares about them. It's the same as the infamous Pentagon Papers fifty years ago: Even after Americans knew the fix was in, the Vietnam War didn't stop until the plutocrats were good and ready to end it. ..."
"... The first sign of trouble was back when they adopted that ridiculous slogan, 'Trust the plan.' Sorry: this is politics. And in politics, I trust no one. The Q ought to be putting pressure on Trump (and the Republican Party generally), not sitting around waiting for them to grow a pair and save the country. ..."
"... The school system is promoting liberal indoctrination, and a whole bunch of kids are dropping out. Why? Because they like weed and don't like math. I see QAnon the same way. Sure, the media can't be trusted. But the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. ..."
"... I'm not prepared to defend the Qanon thing but, clearly, it is more than a pysop. It has revealed enormous amounts of sordid detail about what really goes on this country/ world and who many of the crooks are. The vast majority of the readers would not have learned that info any other way. Period. ..."
"... Great article. It covers the good and the bad and the hopelessly implausible very well. In times of a pandemic of lying generated by the USA Media Leviathan, the vulture capitalism of Wall Street, the exponentiating hate-Whitey rhetoric, the economy-killing Covid Scamdemic,the dwindling Euro-demographic numbers, along with a vurulent virus called Cultural Marxism, "extremism is no vice" ..."
"... A very insightful analysis and I think I now understand Q Anon. This seems to be an evolution from the people who early on were claiming that Trump was playing 4 (or 5 or 6) dimensional chess. I never supported him and don't now. He couldn't play one dimensional checkers if he wanted to and he probably doesn't. ..."
"... It has taken on a life of its own, constantly adapting to changes in situation. I kind of follow it as an unintentional experiment in human psychology. It's also interesting that it has absorbed a great deal of Christian mythology without actually being a Christian religion. ..."
What is QAnon? This question is harder to answer than you might think. There are several
books about QAnon, including QAnon and The Great Awakening by Michael Knight, QAnon: An Invitation to The Great Awakening by "WWG1WGA," and Revolution Q by "Neon Revolt." After reading these and other books and websites, I'd
identify three main points.
"Q," an anonymous, highly placed government official, knows that President Trump is planning
a series of dramatic events that will expose crimes and even treason implicating many
Democrats and government bureaucrats. Q communicates what's coming by posting on various
forums, including 4chan and 8kun (formerly 8chan). He says there's a fierce battle over this
at the highest levels of the government.
President Trump himself communicates with followers
of the movement through code phrases, gestures, and imagery. He and his family also
occasionally retweet accounts linked to QAnon.
"The Storm," the righteous day of justice that
President Trump is bringing, is opposed by a cabal of financial and media elites who want to
keep people from learning the truth. Thus, people must do their own research and not trust
what the mainstream media tell them.
The initial post that spawned "Q" could have been made by anyone. Further "drops" by "Q" or
people in the movement could also be made by anyone. There is no way to verify any of their
claims, except through vague references to key phrases that will supposedly be uttered in the
days following the posts. For example, before President's rally in Tulsa, Eric Trump posted an
American-flag QAnon meme with the #WWG1WGA (this is supposed to stand for "Where We Go One, We
Go All") at the bottom to Instagram. Does this mean anything, or was Eric Trump simply passing
along an image he liked?
QAnon is so popular it has spawned its own "watchdog" groups. NPR's Michael Martin
interviewed
Travis View, the co-host of the QAnon Anonymous podcast. Mr. Martin prepped the
audience by calling QAnon "a group of people who adhere to some far-right conspiracies and
believe a number of absurd things." Mr. View obliged by saying that according to QAnon, "The
world is controlled by a Satanic cabal of pedophiles that they believe control everything like
the media, politics and entertainment." He adds that QAnon also thinks President Trump knows
all about this and will "defeat this global cabal once and for all and free all of us." "QAnon
Anonymous" host Travis View added that it is a "domestic extremist movement" and said President
Trump had "tweeted or retweeted QAnon accounts over 160 times." However, he also admitted "no
one in the current administration has ever done anything to endorse QAnon."
Nevertheless, it seems that at least some of President Trump's advisors know about the
movement and are playing to it. President Trump has directly retweeted
memes from accounts linked to QAnon. Republican congressional candidate Angela Stanton-King
tweeted , " THE STORM IS HERE ."
Tess Owen, Vice's reporter on the "far right" beat,
wrote , "Welp, the GOP Now Has 15 QAnon-Linked Candidates on the November Ballot."
"There is no evidence to these claims" about a "cabal of criminals run by
politicians like Hillary Clinton and the Hollywood elite."
However, after Jeffrey Epstein's
alleged "suicide" and news that powerful figures such as former President Bill Clinton and
Prince Andrew were part of Epstein's strange network, it's hardly absurd to claim there could
be sick stuff going on among the political and cultural elite.
Jimmy Saville was a well-known British media personality, knighted, and honored by many
institutions including the Vatican and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. After his death,
it emerged that he had sexually abused children
; some suggested hundreds of them. Most honors were rescinded posthumously.
A jury recently convicted Harvey
Weinstein, once the most powerful producer in Hollywood, of sexual crimes. Several actresses
including Allison Mack were alleged to be part of a bizarre sexual
cult called NXIVM, and she pleaded guilty to racketeering . During the 2016 election, Wikileaks
released email tying John Podesta's
brother to "artist" Marina Abramovic and her bizarre, occult performance piece "Spirit
Cooking."
If a crazy man approached you in the street raving about these plots, you'd run, but these
things happened. Non-whites sexually abused
thousands of young women in Rotherham, England. Police and local government officials did
nothing because they didn't want to be called racists. This is a sick world, and evildoers
often get away with evil. It's not absurd to think powerful men and women are no better than
middling Labour politicians who looked the other way instead of stopping rape and sex
slavery.
Is there a "Deep State" opposing President Trump? In 2019, the New York Times ran an
editorial called " The
'Deep State' Exists to Battle People Like Trump. " In 2018, an anonymous official wrote, "
I Am
Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration ." Recent evidence suggests that the
FBI bullied General Michael Flynn, President Trump's former national security advisor, and made
him confess he had lied to agents after they threatened his son. The Department of Justice
recently
concluded that the interview of General Flynn was not "conducted with a legitimate
investigative basis."
This doesn't mean there's a Satanic cabal running the government. It does mean some
bureaucrats opposed or even sabotaged President Trump's agenda. They investigated his
subordinates or leaked information to the press. If we substitute "the permanent bureaucracy"
for the more ominous sounding term "Deep State," this "conspiracy theory" becomes plausible.
Incidentally, General Flynn recently posted a
video that uses QAnon slogans.
What is truly implausible about QAnon is the idea that President Trump knows about
everything and will destroy this vast conspiracy. The proof for such assertions lies in
gestures, vague statements, or even the background of where he is speaking. For example, in
QAnon and the Great Awakening, the author says that President Trump's phrases "this is
the calm before the storm" and "tippy top," his supposed circular motions with his hands, and
occasional pointing towards supposed Q supporters are proof that he is on to it. "Q offers
hundreds of data points that demonstrate Q is indeed linked to the Trump Administration," the
book says.
If you desperately want to believe something, you'll find evidence for it .
This is confirmation bias at best, schizophrenia at worst. If President Trump truly is about to
reveal a vast Satanic conspiracy, he's taking his time.
What is especially dangerous about QAnon is not that it promotes dangerous extremism, but
that it urges complacency. Its core message is that Donald Trump knows all about the secret
conspiracy running the world and has the power to crush it; after all, he's President. All we
have to do is wait. "Nothing can stop what is coming," says one popular slogan. If this were
true, President Trump and his followers have already won, and there's no reason to do anything
but scour the internet for clues about what's coming next.
After almost four years of Trump's presidency, QAnon is an attempt to explain the
President's failure to "Make America Great Again." It's true that he's hobbled by powerful
elites. However, President Trump's biggest personnel problems, from John Bolton to Anthony Scaramucci, were people he appointed himself. No one forced him to make Reince Priebus his
chief of staff, expel Steve Bannon, or pick a fight with Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Indeed, according to QAnon, Attorney General Sessions was the one who was supposed to
rout the evildoers .
QAnon assures Trump supporters that he has everything well in hand and that justice is
coming. It's far more terrifying to realize that he doesn't. He is politically isolated,
surrounded by foes, and losing the presidential campaign to a confused and
combative man who occasionally forgets what office he's running for or where he is . President Trump's
not mustering his legions. Instead, his own defense secretary publicly
opposed his plans to use soldiers to suppress riots. The brass
overruled his wishes to leave bases named after Confederate heroes alone. Unless President
Trump has a Praetorian Guard we don't know about (perhaps the Space Force?), there's nothing he
can use against domestic opponents.
The real question is why reporters fear QAnon. Some of its supporters have allegedly
committed crimes. One alleged QAnon believer killed
a Gambino mob boss. In February, another
blocked a bridge with an armored vehicle. Two
others had family troubles, which may or may not be related to their QAnon beliefs. If
these people did those things, they are criminals, but this is hardly a wave of violence. All
together, this would be a
peaceful weekend in Chicago .
QAnon isn't dangerous. Conspiracy theories are as old as the Anti-Masonic Party , maybe older. Some
unstable people may latch on to them, but they are not notably violent. If anything, if they
really believe a Satanic cabal runs the world, they are showing remarkable restraint.
I suspect the real reason journalists don't like QAnon is because at its core, it tells
people the media are lying. It encourages independent investigation and citizen journalism.
This occasionally leads to absurdities, such as building a worldview around 4chan posts.
However, it's healthy to distrust elites. Sometimes, journalists lie ,
stretch
the
truth , or hide
it entirely . Sometimes, they
demand citizens be silenced .
Ordinary Americans looking for truth are a threat. I believe mainstream journalists truly
regard themselves as a Fourth Estate, an independent political power . They
think they have the right to determine what Americans should and should not be allowed to hear
or say. Their efforts to censor and suppress QAnon only fuel the movement.
Journalists promote a conspiracy far more dangerous and deadly than QAnon. That is the
"white
privilege" conspiracy theory . Many journalists and academics tell non-whites that racist
whites hold them down. This implicitly justifies protests,
shakedowns, and even anti-white violence. When George Floyd died, Americans
weren't allowed to see the bodycam videos . Instead, many journalists told a fable about a
white policeman murdering an innocent black man. This was the spark, but journalists had soaked
the country in gasoline years before with endless
sensationalist coverage of race and "racism." Now, riots are destroying cities, ruining
businesses, probably spreading disease, and creating a huge crime wave
. I blame journalists for inciting this violence. It's not QAnon spreading a violent conspiracy
theory, but journalists at CNN
, the New York Times , the Washington Post, and others who manufactured
a fake crisis .
Liberals are right to think QAnon is dangerous, but not in the way they think. QAnon
is dangerous to whites. It tells them that everything is under control, that an evil conspiracy
will be exposed, and that we just need to trust President Trump. We can't be under any
illusions that President Trump will save us .
"The Storm" is not coming, the cavalry won't ride over the hill, and there isn't a secret
military force ready to scoop up our foes and liberate America. It's up to us.
Liberals should be thankful for a conspiracy theory that urges complacency. Our message is
more urgent: Our people, country, and civilization are at stake. You don't need to pore through
websites to see what's happening; just walk down any city street. Time is running out.
You have a duty to
resist . Don't look for a savior. Instead, join us, and be worthy of our ancestors .
"What is especially dangerous about QAnon is not that it promotes dangerous extremism,
but that it urges complacency . "
"We can't be under any illusions that President Trump will save us. "The Storm"
is not coming, the cavalry won't ride over the hill, and there isn't a secret military
force ready to scoop up our foes and liberate America."
The Qanon phenomenon exploits the most fundamental psychological need which is hope, that
hope dies last. The hope in order not to die will accept and forgive anything including the
greatest nonsense. The hopeful ones can be strung along for ever because hope wants to last
as it is the last to die. You just have to keep giving them a dose and keep stringing them
alone.
There is is a blogger Benjamin Fulford that precedes Qanon and uses exactly the same
technique and very similar narratives of hidden forces of Good and Evil fighting for the
dominance and the forces of Good always being very close to the final victory to give you
enough hope to keep you interested till the next installment.. There is a mixture of Free
Masons, Rockefellers, Rothschild, Zionists, Trump, Pope Sabbatean mafia, Khazarian mafia and
Asian Secret Societies. The latter are on the side of Good in Fulford's universe. Fulford, I
think, is located somewhere in Asia, most likely Japan. Fulford missed his calling of being a
script writer of the never ending TV series and dramas like TWD and so on. But I suspect he
makes some money from his series about the world in battle between forces of Good and Evil
and the victory being just around the corner.
From August 10, 2020. Benjamin Fulford installment:
"The Khazarian mafia is preparing the public for some form of alien disclosure or invasion
scenario as they struggle to stay in power, Pentagon and other sources claim. The most likely
scenario for this autumn is the cancellation of the U.S. Presidential election followed by a
UFO distraction, the sources say. U.S. President Donald Trump himself is saying the election
needs to be called off even as he continues to promote a "Space force.""
Or from August 3 installment:
"The P3 Freemasons are saying the Covid-19 campaign is only going to intensify until an
agreement is reached to set up a "World Republic." Certainly, the P3 lodge involvement is
easier to spot in Japan and Korea where all positive test results are being traced to either
Christian (P3) sects or Khazarian Mafia hedge funds."
"The other big theme being pushed by the Zionists is an escalating conflict between the
U.S. and China. The U.S. State Department propaganda machine is pushing a doctored document
known as "The Secret Speech of General Chi Haotian," which claims to contain secret Chinese
plans to invade the U.S., kill women and children and use biological warfare."
"Of course, the opposite is true, since everybody who read the Project for a New American
Century knows the Zionist regime has been touting race-specific or ethnic-specific biological
warfare as a "useful political tool." "
Or from July 27:
"The rest of the world, especially the main creditors Japan and China, are willing to
write off the debt but they want a change in management first. In other words, they want the
Americans to free themselves from the Babylonian debt slavery of the Khazarian mafia.
That process has started with arrests and extra-judicial killings of top Khazarian,
Satan-worshipping elites. The Bush family is gone, the Rockefellers lost the presidency when
Hillary Rockefeller was defeated, and many politicians and so-called celebrities have
vanished.
However, the situation is still like a lizard shaking off its tail in order to escape. The
real control of the United States is still in the hands of "
Sadly, the author is pretty much on-the-money. If Trump is for real, that is, if he
believes what he says, he has been completely incompetent at accomplishing anything. As for
the media, I'd disagree that they sometimes lie; they lie pretty much ALL the time.
What is especially dangerous about QAnon is not that it promotes dangerous extremism,
but that it urges complacency.
So does Trump and the GOP in general. The GOP, MAGA and NeverTrump alike, exists only to sap our will, acclimate us to defeat
and put us to sleep with the comforting illusion that some authority or institution is
fighting for us.
Until the American Right realizes this, it will never gain back one inch of ground. And no
one worth marching with or behind will join their ranks or rise from them.
I came late to the QAnon crap and saw it was the same soup as Black Lives Matter. Why, in
fact, wouldn't the same crooks behind the one not foment the other? One says "blacks gonna
make you kneel and take away all your stuff" while the other says, "don't worry, the least
effective president in history has got us covered."
There's no war in heaven. They're all in show biz and Americans just happen to be an
unusually gullible audience.
'
If Trump is for real, that is, if he believes what he says, he has been completely
incompetent at accomplishing anything.
That is the dilemma. I believe Trump is just another minion of the Deep State and is
acting in accordance with their wishes. He is helping play out a charade a good cop (Trump)
against a bad cop (Deep State). At any rate, he is not fulfilling his promises to those that
elected him whether through incompetence or scheme.
Uhhh, Donald Trump as well as Slickster Billy Bob was part of the Epstein network. This
piece jumps the shark and the rails right there at the start and goes further into PR
turd-polishing land after that.
The logic of Hood's article is hard to beat either way. Trump/QAnon are just there for
show, dangling hope in front of people that there's some person or entity that cares about
them. It's the same as the infamous Pentagon Papers fifty years ago: Even after Americans
knew the fix was in, the Vietnam War didn't stop until the plutocrats were good and ready to
end it.
The truth sets nobody free. Power is a vehicle to find truth and do something about it.
Truth without power just equals more frustration. And the world's full to bursting with
frustration already.
What is especially dangerous about QAnon is not that it promotes dangerous extremism,
but that it urges complacency. Its core message is that Donald Trump knows all about the
secret conspiracy running the world and has the power to crush it; after all, he's
President. All we have to do is wait.
Yup. The first sign of trouble was back when they adopted that ridiculous slogan, 'Trust
the plan.' Sorry: this is politics. And in politics, I trust no one. The Q ought to be
putting pressure on Trump (and the Republican Party generally), not sitting around waiting
for them to grow a pair and save the country.
The school system is promoting liberal indoctrination, and a whole bunch of kids are
dropping out. Why? Because they like weed and don't like math. I see QAnon the same way. Sure, the media can't be trusted. But the enemy of my enemy is
not my friend.
These guys are mostly mentally unstable white knights and while I'm not
much concerned that they will actually harm Justin Beiber by baselessly accusing him of rape,
their behavior contributes to the culture of white knighting and social media witch hunts I
mean citizen journalism which only strengthens the feminist movement.
"You have a duty to resist." The QAnon people, intellectual and moral descendants of the
Scofield Reference Bible, don't want to hear this. They just want to eat and watch TV. After
all, Ben Franklin and George Washington will save us just in time!
QAnon is just another Zionist-pro Israeli psyop. Q never talks about the Israel conspiracy
or how AIPAC controls America. Trump is always, about ready, to bring the hammer down on the
deep state, but never does as he appoints Neocon after Neocon, the latest is Elliott Abrams,
as bad or worse than John Bolton.
Remember back when Hillary was in chains, or Obama went to Gitmo and got executed? QAnon
is false hope being served up to Trump's conservative base who want the criminal government
exposed and prosecuted. But that never happens under Trump.
According to many researchers, including me, Beirut got nuked, and that story is already
gone, swept under the Jewmedia rug, written off as a fertilizer accident. Where's Q on that
one? No where to be found because Q is Jew protecting Israel at every turn.
You all listen to Q at your own peril. And oh yeah, have you noticed the world going to
hell? Where's Trump's secret plan you all? It's fake, Q Anon led you all into a blind alley,
it pacified you as your nation was stolen right in front of your eyes. Q is a pied piper for
adults who think like children. Q Anon was the latest hopium injected into the body politic,
Trump is the swamp, he is working for Israel, he is selling you out, he is the snake who
betrays you. But the q followers can't see that or even hear it because they need hope, and
the opposition is worse than Trump.
I'm not prepared to defend the Qanon thing but, clearly, it is more than a pysop. It has revealed enormous amounts of sordid detail about what really goes on this
country/ world and who many of the crooks are. The vast majority of the readers would
not have learned that info any other way. Period.
Now that a fair amount is exposed, it's up to Trump and Barr to indict and convict a slew
of high level people. If they don't then they are worthless and can go fvck themselves for
jerking the public around and not sealing the deal.
The Christians in the Repub Party are so easy to play. They are taught to 'follow the
leader' from Day 1 of their lives and Trump has provided himself as their golden savior to
worship and trust. God sent him to us, you know. (lol)
That segment of the Repub Party doesn't have a pair to grow. So, it won't happen. Marxism
is in our future, it's only a matter of time.
Very good.
A close friend of mine who I didn't consider too interested in these matters mentioned QAnon
to me while I was telling him how Trump is being sabotaged by some of his own people. I was
surprised he knew, probably more than me.
PS. I would wear a Q tee shirt except that I'm old school and 'Q' connotes queer. So maybe
an Anon one might do. (Big grin)
Great article. It covers the good and the bad and the hopelessly implausible very well. In
times of a pandemic of lying generated by the USA Media Leviathan, the vulture capitalism of
Wall Street, the exponentiating hate-Whitey rhetoric, the economy-killing Covid Scamdemic,the
dwindling Euro-demographic numbers, along with a vurulent virus called Cultural Marxism,
"extremism is no vice"
After laughing themselves silly over the gullible idiots who ran with their 911
'no-planes' psychological operation, the CIA bugmen cooked up a new one. They're laughing
themselves silly all over again.
"Journalists promote a conspiracy far more dangerous and deadly than QAnon. That is the
"white privilege" conspiracy theory. Many journalists and academics tell non-whites that
racist whites hold them down."
A very insightful analysis and I think I now understand Q Anon. This seems to be an
evolution from the people who early on were claiming that Trump was playing 4 (or 5 or 6)
dimensional chess. I never supported him and don't now. He couldn't play one dimensional
checkers if he wanted to and he probably doesn't.
...it
has awakened something of a frustration in a lot of people.
It has taken on a life of its
own, constantly adapting to changes in situation. I kind of follow it as an unintentional
experiment in human psychology. It's also interesting that it has absorbed a great deal of
Christian mythology without actually being a Christian religion. In the end though it is
people trying to feel they have some control (and indeed, considering the fear in the media)
that might be true.
[For fun, dig up and read Asimov's "I Spell My Name with an S" from 1958.]
There is no indication that anyone forced Trump into making any of the bad decisions
mentioned. Your first point is asking Hood to weave some fanciful alternative to what is
outright obvious. No serious author does that. If he were to have used "most likely" before
giving his sensible opinion, would that have satisfied you? The Easter Bunny holding a gun to
Trump's head and telling him to disavow Session is also a possibility, you know, but not a
likely one.
Frankly, I think you are the one who's intellectually deficient.
People who
actually have good instincts but just cannot bring themselves to face the harsh reality in
front of them.
The deplatforming of QAnon crap is not due to "Q" itself, but where "Q" supporters might
find themselves next, once this psyop has run its course. They wanna kill it now to keep the
delusion itself alive, lest all these "Q" true believer stumble into some anti-semitism and
other truths that actually challenge the status quo.
Being a true believer in "Q" is literally no different than being a true believer in the
Democrat-Republican kosher sandwich.
Correct. And when we're talking about the "Deep state," organized pedophilia, human
trafficking, etc, many of these "Q" people will inevitably find their way to the Rabbi behind
the curtain. It is the natural destination if one does not self-censor or cling to their
priors. There is no other destination, in fact.
William Binney is the former technical director of the U.S. National Security Agency who
worked at the agency for 30 years. He is a respected independent critic of how American
intelligence services abuse their powers to illegally spy on private communications of U.S.
citizens and around the globe.
Given his expert inside knowledge, it is worth paying attention to what Binney says.
In a media
interview this week, he dismissed the so-called Russiagate scandal as a "fabrication"
orchestrated by the American Central Intelligence Agency. Many other observers have come to
the same conclusion about allegations that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. elections with
the objective of helping Donald Trump get elected.
But what is particularly valuable about Binney's judgment is that he cites technical
analysis disproving the Russiagate narrative. That narrative remains dominant among U.S.
intelligence officials, politicians and pundits, especially those affiliated with the
Democrat party, as well as large sections of Western media. The premise of the narrative is
the allegation that a Russian state-backed cyber operation hacked into the database and
emails of the Democrat party back in 2016. The information perceived as damaging to
presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was subsequently disseminated to the Wikileaks
whistleblower site and other U.S. media outlets.
A mysterious cyber persona known as "Guccifer 2.0" claimed to be the alleged hacker. U.S.
intelligence and news media have attributed Guccifer as a front for Russian cyber
operations.
Notably, however, the Russian government has always categorically denied any involvement
in alleged hacking or other interference in the 2016 U.S. election, or elections
thereafter.
William Binney and other independent former U.S. intelligence experts say they can prove
the Russiagate narrative is bogus. The proof relies on their forensic analysis of the data
released by Guccifer. The analysis of timestamps demonstrates that the download of voluminous
data could not have been physically possible based on known standard internet speeds. These
independent experts conclude that the data from the Democrat party could not have been
hacked, as Guccifer and Russiagaters claim. It could only have been obtained by a leak from
inside the party, perhaps by a disgruntled staffer who downloaded the information on to a
disc. That is the only feasible way such a huge amount of data could have been released. That
means the "Russian hacker" claims are baseless.
Wikileaks, whose founder Julian Assange is currently imprisoned in Britain pending an
extradition trial to the U.S. to face espionage charges, has consistently maintained
that their source of files was not a hacker, nor did they collude with Russian intelligence.
As a matter of principle, Wikileaks does not disclose the identity of its sources, but the
organization has indicated it was an insider leak which provided the information on senior
Democrat party corruption.
William Binney says forensic analysis of the files released by Guccifer shows that the
mystery hacker deliberately inserted digital "fingerprints" in order to give the impression
that the files came from Russian sources. It is known from information later disclosed by
former NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden that the CIA has a secretive program – Vault 7
– which is dedicated to false incrimination of cyber attacks to other actors. It seems
that the purpose of Guccifer was to create the perception of a connection between Wikileaks
and Russian intelligence in order to beef up the Russiagate narrative.
"So that suggested [to] us all the evidence was pointing back to CIA as the originator
[of] Guccifer 2.0. And that Guccifer 2.0 was inside CIA I'm pointing to that group as the
group that was probably the originator of Guccifer 2.0 and also this fabrication of the
entire story of Russiagate," concludes Binney in his interview with Sputnik news
outlet.
This is not the first time that the Russiagate yarn has been debunked . But it is crucially important to make Binney's expert
views more widely appreciated especially as the U.S. presidential election looms on November
3. As that date approaches, U.S. intelligence and media seem to be intensifying claims about
Russian interference and cyber operations. Such wild and unsubstantiated "reports" always
refer to the alleged 2016 "hack" of the Democrat party by "Guccifer 2.0" as if it were
indisputable evidence of Russian interference and the "original sin" of supposed Kremlin
malign activity. The unsubstantiated 2016 "hack" is continually cited as the "precedent" and
"provenance" of more recent "reports" that purport to claim Russian interference.
Given the torrent of Russiagate derivatives expected in this U.S. election cycle, which is
damaging U.S.-Russia bilateral relations and recklessly winding up geopolitical tensions, it
is thus of paramount importance to listen to the conclusions of honorable experts like
William Binney.
The American public are being played by their own intelligence agencies and corporate
media with covert agendas that are deeply anti-democratic.
Well - who set up them up, converted from the OSS? The banksters.
"Wild Bill" Donovan worked for JP Morgan immediately after WWII.
"our" US intelligence agencies were set up by, and serve, the masters of high finance.
Is this in dispute?
meditate_vigorously , 11 hours ago
They have seeded enough misinformation that apparently it is. But, you are correct. It
is the Banksters.
Isisraelquaeda , 2 hours ago
Israel. The CIA was infiltrated by the Mossad long ago.
SurfingUSA , 15 hours ago
JFK was on to that truth, and would have been wise to mini-nuke Langley before his
ill-fated journey to Dallas.
Andrew G , 11 hours ago
Except when there's something exceptionally evil (like pedo/blackmail rings such as
Epstein), in which case it's Mossad / Aman
vova.2018 , 7 hours ago
Except when there's something exceptionally evil (like pedo/blackmail rings such as
Epstein), in which case it's Mossad / Aman
The CIA & MOSSAD work hand in hand in all their clandestine operations. There is not
doubt the CIA/MOSSAD are behind the creation, evolution, training, supplying weapons,
logistic-planning & financing of the terrorists & the destruction of the Middle
East. Anybody that believes the contrary has brain problems & need to have his head
examined.
CIA/MOSAD has been running illegal activities in Colombia: drug, arms, organs &
human (child-sex) trafficking. CIA/MOSAD is also giving training, logistic & arms to
Colombia paramilitary for clandestine operation against Venezuela. After Bolsonaro became
president, MOSSAD started running similar operation in Brazil. Israel & Brazil also
recognizes Guaido as the legit president of Venezuela.
CIA/MOSSAD have a long time policy of
assassinating & taking out pep who are a problem to the revisionist-zionist agenda, not
just in the M-East but in the world. The CIA/MOSSAD organizations have many connections in
other countries like the M-East, Saudi Arabia, UAE, et al but also to the UK-MI5.
The Israelis infiltrated the US to the highest levels a long time ago - Proof
Israel has & collects information (a database) of US citizens in coordination
with the CIA & the 5 eyes.
Israel works with the NSA in the liaison-loophole operations
Mossad undercover operations in WDC & all over the world
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee – AIPAC
People with 2 citizenships (US/Israel) in WDC/NYC (the real Power)
From Steve Bannon a christian-zionist: Collusion between the Trump administration and
Israel .
Funny how a number of the right wing conspiracy stories according to the MSM from a
couple years back were true from the get go. 1 indictment over 4 years in the greatest
attempted coup in this country's history. So sad that Binney and Assange were never
listened to. They can try to silence us who know of the truth, but as Winston Churchill
once said, 'Truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it. Ignorance may deride it. Malice
may distort it. But there it is.' KDP still censors my book on their advertising platform
as it
promotes conspiratorial theories (about the Obama led coup) and calls out BLM and Antifa
for what they are (marxists) . Yet the same platform still recommends BLM books stating
there is a pandemic of cops killing innocent blacks. F them!!!! #RIPSeth #FreeJulian
#FreeMillie
smacker , 11 hours ago
Yes, and we all know the name of the DNC leaker who downloaded and provided
WikiLeaks
with evidence of CIA and DNC corruption.
He was assassinated to prevent him from naming who Guccifer 2.0 was and where he is
located.
The Russia-gate farce itself provides solid evidence that the CIA and others are in bed
with DNC
and went to extraordinary lengths to prevent Trump being elected. When that failed, they
instigated
a program of x-gates to get him out of office any way they could. This continues to this
day.
This is treason at the highest level.
ACMeCorporations , 12 hours ago
Hacking? What Russian hacking?
In recently released testimony, the CEO of CrowdStrike admitted in congressional
testimony, under oath, that it actually has no direct evidence Russia stole the DNC
emails.
Nelbev , 9 hours ago
"The proof relies on their forensic analysis of the data released by Guccifer. The
analysis of timestamps demonstrates that the download of voluminous data could not have
been physically possible based on known standard internet speeds. ... a disgruntled
staffer who downloaded the information on to a disc. That is the only feasible way such a
huge amount of data could have been released. ... William Binney says forensic analysis
of the files released by Guccifer shows that the mystery hacker deliberately inserted
digital "fingerprints" in order to give the impression that the files came from Russian
sources. ... "
Any computer file is a bunch of 1s and 0s. Anyone can change anything with a hex editor.
E.g. I had wrong dates on some photographs once, downloaded as opposed to when taken, just
edited the time stamp. You cannot claim any time stamp is original. If true time stamps,
then the DNC files were downloaded to a thumb drive at a computer on location and not to
the internet via a phone line. However anyone can change the time stamps. Stating a
"mystery hacker deliberately inserted digital [Russian] 'fingerprints' " is a joke if
denying the file time stamps were not tampered with. The real thing is where the narrative
came from, political spin doctors, Perkins Coie law firm hired by DNC and Hillary campaign
who hired Crowdstrike [and also hired Fusion GPS before for pissgate dossier propaganda and
FISC warrants to spy on political opponents] and Perkins Coie edited Crowdstrike report
with Russian narrative. FBI never looked at DNC servers. This is like your house was broken
into. You deny police the ability to enter and look at evidence like DNC computers. You
hire a private investigator to say your neighbor you do not like did it and publicise
accusations. Take word of political consultants hired, spin doctor propaganda, Crowdstrike
narrative , no police investigation. Atlantic Council?
Vivekwhu , 8 hours ago
The Atlantic Council is another NATO fart. Nuff said!
The_American , 15 hours ago
God Damn traitor Obama!
Yen Cross , 14 hours ago
TOTUS
For the youngsters.
Teleprompter Of The United States.
Leguran , 6 hours ago
The CIA has gotten away with so much criminal behavior and crimes against the American
public that this is totally believable. Congress just lets this stuff happen and does
nothing. Which is worse - Congress or the CIA?
Congress set up the system. It is mandated to perform oversight. And it just sits on its
thumbs and wallows in it privileges.
This time Congress went further than ever before. It was behind and engaged in an
attempted coup d'état.
Know thy enemy , 10 hours ago
Link to ShadowGate (ShadowNet) documentary - which answers the question, what is the
keystone,,,,,
It's time for Assange and Wikileaks to name the person who they rec'd the info from. By
hiding behind the "we don't name names" Mantra they are helping destroy America by
polarizing its citizens. Name the damn person, get it all out there so the left can see
that they've been played by their leaders. Let's cut this crap.
freedommusic , 7 hours ago
...all the evidence was pointing back to CIA as the originator [of] Guccifer 2.0.
Yep, I knew since day one. I remember seeing Hillary Clinton talking about Guccifer . As
soon as uttered the name, I KNEW she with the CIA were the brainchild of this bogus
decoy.
They copy. They mimic. These are NOT creative individuals.
Perhaps hell is too good a place for them.
on target , 4 hours ago
This is old news but worth bringing up again. The CIA never wanted Trump in, and of
course, they want him out. Their fingerprints were all over Russiagate, The Kavanaugh
hearings, Ukrainegate, and on and on. They are just trying to cover their asses for a
string of illegal "irregularities" in their operations for years. Trump should never have
tried to be a get along type of guy. He should have purged the entire leadership of the CIA
on day one and the FBI on day 2. They can not be trusted with an "America First" agenda.
They are all New World Order types who know whats best for everyone.
fersur , 7 hours ago
Boom, Boom, Boom !
Three Reseachable Tweets thru Facebook, I cut all at once, Unedited !
"#SusanRice has as much trouble with her memory as #HillaryClinton. Rice testified in
writing that she 'does not recall' who gave her key #Benghazi talking points she used on
TV, 'does not recall' being in any meetings regarding Benghazi in five days following the
attack, and 'does not recall' communicating with anyone in Clinton's office about
Benghazi," Tom Fitton in Breitbart.
"Adam Schiff secretly subpoenaed, without court authorization, the phone records of Rudy
Giuliani and then published the phone records of innocent Americans, including
@realDonaldTrump 's lawyers, a member of Congress, and a journalist," @TomFitton .
BREAKING: Judicial Watch announced today that former #Obama National Security Advisor
and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, admitted in written responses given
under oath that she emailed with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Clinton's
non-government email account and that she received emails related to government business on
her own personal email account.
STONEHILLADY , 7 hours ago
It's not just the Democrats, the warmongering neocons of the Republican party are also
in on it, the Bush/Romney McCain/McConnell/Cheney and many more. It's called "Kick Backs"
Ever notice these so called retired Generals all end up working for all these spying
companies that span the 5eyes to Israel. It seems our POTUS has got his hands full swimming
up stream to get this stopped and actually get rid of the CIA. It's the number 1 reason he
doesn't trust these people, they all try to tell him stuff that is mis-directed.
Liars, leakers, and thieves are running not only our nation but the world, as George
Carlin said, "It's a Big Club, and we ain't in it." If you fall for this false narrative of
mail in voting and not actually go and vote on election day, you better start learning
Chinese for surely Peelosi and Schumer will have their way and mess up this election so
they can drag Trump out of office and possible do him and his family some serious harm, all
because so many of you listen to the MSM and don't research their phony claims.
Max21c , 7 hours ago
It's called "Kick Backs" Ever notice these so called retired Generals all end up
working for all these spying companies that span the 5eyes to Israel.
American Generals & Admirals are a lot more corrupt today than they were a few
generations back. Many of them are outright evil people in today's times. Many of these
people are just criminals that will steal anything they can get their banana republic
klepto-paws on. They're nothing but common criminals and thieves. No different than the
Waffen SS or any other group of brigands, bandits, and criminal gangsters.
Max21c , 7 hours ago
The CIA, FBI, NSA, Military Intelligence, Pentagon Gestapo, defense contractors are
mixed up in a lot of crimes and criminal activities on American soil against American
citizens and American civilians. They do not recognize borders or laws or rights of liberty
or property rights or ownership or intellectual property. They're all thieves and criminals
in the military secret police and secret police gangsters cabal.
BandGap , 7 hours ago
I have seen Binney's input. He is correct in my view because he
scientifically/mathematically proves his point.
The blinded masses do not care about this approach, just like wearing masks.
The truth is too difficult for many to fit into their understanding of the world.
So they repeat what they have been told, never stopping to consider the facts or how
circumstances have been manipulated.
It is frustrating to watch, difficult to navigate at times for me. Good people who will
not stop and think of what the facts show them.
otschelnik , 8 hours ago
It could have been the CIA or it could have been one of the cut-outs for plausible
deniability, and of all the usual suspects it was probably CrowdStrike.
- CGI / Global Strategy Group / Analysis Corp. - John Brennan (former CEO)
- Dynology, Wikistrat - General James L. Jones (former chairman of Atlantic Council, NSA
under Obama)
- CrowdStrike - Dmitri Alperovich and Shawn Henry (former chief of cyber forensics
FBI)
- Clearforce - Michael Hayden (former dir. NSA under Clinton, CIA under Bush) and Jim
Jones Jr. (son Gnrl James Jones)
- McChrystal Group - Stanley McChrystal (former chief of special operations DOD)
fersur , 8 hours ago
Unedited !
The Brookings Institute – a Deep State Hub Connected to the Fake Russia Collusion
and Ukraine Scandals Is Now Also Connected to China Spying In the US
The Brookings
Institute was heavily involved in the Democrat and Deep State Russia collusion hoax and
Ukraine impeachment fraud. These actions against President Trump were criminal.
This institute is influenced from foreign donations from entities who don't have an
America first agenda. New reports connect the Institute to Chinese spying.
As we reported previously, Julie Kelly at American Greatness
released a report where she addresses the connections between the Brookings Institute,
Democrats and foreign entities. She summarized her report as follows: Accepting millions
from a state sponsor of terrorism, foisting one of the biggest frauds in history on the
American people, and acting as a laundering agent of sorts for Democratic political
contributions disguised as policy grants isn't a good look for such an esteemed
institution. One would be hard-pressed to name a more influential think tank than the
Brookings Institution. The Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit routinely ranks at the top of
the list
of the best think tanks in the world; Brookings scholars produce a steady flow of reports,
symposiums, and news releases that sway the conversation on any number of issues ranging
from domestic and economic policy to foreign affairs.
Brookings is home to lots of Beltway power players: Ben
Bernanke and Janet Yellen, former chairmen of the Federal Reserve, are Brookings fellows.
Top officials from both Republican and Democrat presidential administrations lend political
heft to the organization. From 2002 until 2017, the organization's president was Strobe
Talbott. He's a longtime BFF of Bill Clinton; they met in the 1970s at Oxford University
and have been tight ever since. Talbott was a top aide to both President Bill Clinton and
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Kelly continued:
Brookings-based fellows working at Lawfare were the media's go-to legal "experts" to
legitimize the concocted crime; the outlet manipulated much of the news coverage on
collusion by pumping out primers and guidance on how to report collusion events from
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's appointment to his final report.
Now, testimony related to a defamation lawsuit against Christopher Steele, the author of
the infamous "dossier" on Donald Trump, has exposed his direct ties to Talbott in 2016 when
he was still head of Brookings. Talbott and Steele were in communication before and after
the presidential election; Steele wanted Talbott to circulate the dossier to his pals in
John Kerry's State Department, which reportedly is what Talbott
did . Steele also briefed top state department officials in October 2016 about his
work.
But this isn't the only connection between the Brookings Institute and the Russia
collusion and Ukrainian scandals. We were the first to report that the Primary Sub-Source
(PSS) in the Steele report, the main individual who supplied Steele with bogus information
in his report was Igor Danchenko.
In November 2019, the star witness for the Democrat Representative Adam Schiff's
impeachment show trial was announced. Her name was Fiona Hill.
Today we've uncovered that Hill is a close associate of the Primary Sub-Source (PSS) for
the Steele dossier – Igor Danchenko – the individual behind most all the lies
in the Steele dossier. No wonder Hill saw the Steele dossier before it was released. Her
associate created it.
Both Fiona Hill and Igor Danchenko are connected to the Brookings Institute.
They gave a presentation together as Brookings Institute representatives:
Kelly writes about the foreign funding the Brookings Institute partakes:
So who and what have been funding the anti-Trump political operation at Brookings over
the past few years? The think tank's top benefactors are a predictable mix of family
foundations, Fortune 100 corporations, and Big Tech billionaires. But one of the biggest
contributors to Brookings' $100 million-plus annual budget is the Embassy of Qatar.
According to financial reports, Qatar has donated more than $22 million to the think tank
since 2004. In fact, Brookings operates a satellite center in Doha, the
capital of Qatar. The wealthy Middle Eastern oil producer
spends billions on American institutions such as universities and other think
tanks.
Qatar also is a top state sponsor of terrorism, pouring billions into Hamas, al-Qaeda,
and the Muslim Brotherhood, to name a few. "The nation of Qatar, unfortunately, has
historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level," President Trump said in 2017. "We
have to stop the funding of terrorism."
An email from a Qatari official, obtained by WikiLeaks, said the Brookings
Institution was as important to the country as "an aircraft carrier."
The Brookings Institution, a prominent Washington, D.C., think tank, partnered with a
Shanghai policy center that the FBI has described as a front for China's intelligence and
spy recruitment operations, according to public records and federal court documents.
The Brookings Doha Center, the think tank's hub in Qatar, signed a memorandum of
understanding with the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences in January 2018, the
institution said . The academy is a policy center funded by the Shanghai municipal
government that has raised flags within the FBI.
The partnership raises questions about potential Chinese espionage activities at the
think tank, which employs numerous former government officials and nearly two dozen
current foreign policy advisers to Joe Biden's presidential campaign.
It is really frightening that one of two major political parties in the US is tied so
closely with the Brookings Institute. It is even more frightening that foreign enemies of
the United States are connected to this entity as well.
Let it Go , 8 hours ago
One thing for sure is these guys have far to much of our money to spend promoting their
own good.
fersur , 7 hours ago
Unedited !
Mueller Indictments Tied To "ShadowNet," Former Obama National Security Advisor and
Obama's CIA Director – Not Trump
According to a report in the Daily Beast, which cited the Wall Street Journal's
reporting of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into two companies, Wikistrat
and Psy Group, "The firm's advisory council lists former CIA and National Security Agency
director Michael Hayden, former national security adviser James L. Jones."
According to numerous reporting from major news outlets like the Wall Street Journal and
Daily Beast, both Wikistrat and Psy Group represent themselves as being social media
analysts and black PSYOP organizations. Both Wikistrat and Psy Group have foreign ownership
mixed between Israeli, Saudi (Middle East) and Russian. Here is what the Wall Street
Journal, The Daily Beast and pretty much everyone else out there doesn't know (or won't
tell you).
The fact Obama's former National Security Advisor, General James Jones, and former Obama
CIA director, Gen. Michael Hayden, are both on Wikistrat's advisory board may not seem
suspicious, but both of these general's have another thing in common, and that is the
ShadowNet. The ShadowNet, and its optional companion relational database, iPsy, were both
originally developed by the small, family owned defense contracting company, Dynology. The
family that owns Dynology; Gen. James Jones. I would add Paul Manafort and Rick Davis was
Dynology's partner at the time we were making the ShadowNet and iPsy commercially
available.
After obtaining the contract in Iraq to develop social media psychological warfare
capabilities, known in military nomenclature as Interactive Internet Activities, or IIA,
Gen. Jones kept the taxpayer funded application we developed in Iraq for the 4th
Psychological Operation Group, and made it commercially available under the trademark of
the "ShadowNet" and the optional black PSYOP component, "iPsy." If you think it is
interesting that one of the companies under Mueller's indictment is named, "Psy" Group, I
did as well. In fact, literally everything both publicly described in news reports, and
even their websites, are exactly the same as the ShadowNet and iPsy I helped build, and
literally named.
The only thing different I saw as far as services offered by Wikistrat, and that of
Dynology and the ShadowNet, was described by The Daily Beast as, "It also engaged in
intelligence collection." Although iPsy was a relational database that allowed for the
dissemination of whatever the required narrative was, "intelligence collection" struck
another bell with me, and that's a company named ClearForce.
ClearForce was developed as a solution to stopping classified leaks following the Edward
Snowden debacle in 2013. Changes in NISPOM compliance requirements forced companies and
government agencies that had employees with government clearances to take preventive
measure to mitigate the potential of leaking. Although the NISPOM compliance requirement
almost certainly would have been influenced by either Hayden, Jones or both, they once
again sought to profit from it.
Using components of the ShadowNet and iPsy, the ClearForce application (which the
company, ClearForce, was named after,) was developed to provide compliance to a regulation
I strongly suspect you will find Jones and Hayden had a hand in creating. In fact, I
strongly suspect you will find General Jones had some influence in the original requirement
for our Iraq contract Dynology won to build the ShadowNet – at taxpayer expense!
Dynology worked for several years incorporating other collection sources, such as
financial, law enforcement and foreign travel, and ties them all into your social media
activity. Their relationship with Facebook and other social media giants would have been
nice questions for congress to have asked them when they testified.
Part 1 of 2 !
fersur , 7 hours ago
Part 2 of 2 !
The ClearForce application combines all of these sources together in real-time and uses
artificial intelligence to predictively determine if you are likely to steal or leak based
on the behavioral profile ClearForce creates of you. It can be used to determine if you get
a job, and even if you lose a job because a computer read your social media, credit and
other sources to determine you were likely to commit a crime. It's important for you to
stop for a moment and think about the fact it is privately controlled by the former CIA
director and Obama's National Security Advisor/NATO Supreme Allied Commander, should scare
the heck out of you.
When the ClearForce application was complete, Dynology handed it off to ClearForce, the
new company, and Michael Hayden joined the board of directors along with Gen. Jones and his
son, Jim, as the president of ClearForce. Doesn't that kind of sound like "intelligence
collection" described by the Daily Beast in Wikistrat's services?
To wrap this all up, Paul Manafort, Rick Davis, George Nader, Wikistrat and Psy Group
are all directly connected to Mueller's social media influence and election interreference
in the 2016 presidential election. In fact, I believe all are under indictment, computers
seized, some already sentenced. All of these people under indictment by Mueller have one
key thing in common, General James Jones's and Michael Hayden's social media black PSYOP
tools; the ShadowNet, iPsy and ClearForce.
A recent meeting I had with Congressman Gus Bilirakis' chief of staff, Elizabeth Hittos,
is confirmation that they are reviewing my DoD memorandum stating the work I did on the IIA
information operation in Iraq, the Dynology marketing slicks for the ShadowNet and iPsy,
along with a screenshot of Goggle's Way-Back Machine showing Paul Manafort's partnership
with Dynology in 2007 and later. After presenting to her these facts and making clear I
have much more information that requires the highest classification SCIF to discuss and
requires being read-on to the program, Elizabeth contacted the office of Congressman Devin
Nunez to request that I brief the intelligence committee on this critical information
pertaining directly to the 2010 Ukrainian elections, Michael Brown riots, 2016 election
interference and the "Russia collusion" hoax. All of that is on top of numerous
questionable ethical and potentially illegal profits from DoD contracts while servings as
NATO Commander and Obama's National Security Advisor.
We also need to know if the ShadowNet and iPsy were allowed to fall into foreign hands,
including Russia, Saudi Arabia and Israel. I'm pretty sure South America is going to have a
few questions for Jones and Obama as well? Stay tuned!
Balance-Sheet , 4 hours ago
Intelligence Agencies of all countries endlessly wage war at all times especially
'Information Warfare' (propaganda/disinformation) and the primary target has always and
will always be the domestic population of the Intelligence Agency's country.
Yes, of course the CIA does target ALL other countries but the primary target will
always be the Americans themselves.
Balance-Sheet , 4 hours ago
Intelligence Agencies of all countries endlessly wage war at all times especially
'Information Warfare' (propaganda/disinformation) and the primary target has always and
will always be the domestic population of the Intelligence Agency's country.
Yes, of course the CIA does target ALL other countries but the primary target will
always be the Americans themselves.
The neoliberals own the media, courts, academia, and BUREAUCRACY (including CIA) and
they will do anything to make sure they retain power over everyone. These control freaks
work hard to create all sorts of enemies to justify their existence.
LaugherNYC , 15 hours ago
It is sad that this information has to be repeatedly published, over and over and over,
by SCI and other Russian. outlets.
Because no legit AMERICAN news outlet will give Binney or Assange the time of day or any
credence, this all becomes Kremlin-sponsored disinformation and denials. People roll their
eyes and say "Oh God, not the whole 'Seth Rich was murdered by the CIA' crap again!! You
know, his FAMILY has asked that people stop spreading these conspiracy theories and
lies."
SCI is a garbage bin, nothing more than a dizinformatz machine for Putin, but in this
case, they are likely right. It seems preposterous that the "best hackers in the world"
would forget to use a VPN or leave a signature behind, and it makes far more sense that the
emails were leaked by someone irate at the abuses of the DNC - the squashing of Bernie, the
cheating for Hillary in the debates - behavior we saw repeated in 2020 with Bernie shoved
aside again for the pathetic Biden.
Would that SOMEONE in the US who is not on the Kremlin payroll would pick up this
thread. But all the "investigative journalists" now work indirectly for the DNC, and those
that don't are cancelled by the left.
Stone_d_agehurler , 15 hours ago
I am Guccifer and I approve this message.
Sarc/
But i do share your opinion. They are likely right this time and most of the pundits and
media in the U. S. know it. That's what makes this a sad story about how rotten the U. S.
system has become.
Democrats will sacrifice the Union for getting Trump out of office.
If elections in Nov won't go their way, Civil War II might become a real thing in
2021.
PeterLong , 4 hours ago
If " digital "fingerprints" in order to give the impression that the files came from
Russian sources" were inserted in the leak by "Guccifer", and if the leak to wikileaks came
from Seth Rich, via whatever avenue, then the "Guccifer" release came after the wikileaks
release, or after wikileaks had the files, and was a reaction to same attempting to
diminish their importance/accuracy and cast doubt on Trump. Could CIA and/or DNC have known
the files were obtained by wikileaks before wikileaks actually released them? In any case
collusion of CIA with DNC seems to be a given.
RightlyIndignent , 4 hours ago
Because Seth had already given it to Wikileaks. There is no 'Fancy Bear'. There is no
'Cozy Bear'. Those were made up by CrowdStrike, and they tried the same crap on Ukraine,
and Ukraine told them to pound sand. When push came to shove, and CrowdStrike was forced to
say what they really had under oath, they said: "We have nothing."
novictim , 4 hours ago
You are leaving out Crowd Strike. Seth Rich was tasked by people at the DNC to copy data
off the servers. He made a backup copy and gave a copy to people who then got it to Wiki
leaks. He used highspeed file transfers to local drives to do his task.
Meanwhile, it was the Ukrainian company Crowd Strike that claimed the data was stolen
over the internet and that the thieves were in Russia. That 'proof" was never verified by
US Intelligence but was taken on its word as being true despite crowd strike falsifying
Russian hacks and being caught for it in the past.
Joebloinvestor , 5 hours ago
The "five eyes" are convinced they run the world and try to.
That is what Brennan counted on for these agencies to help get President Trump.
As I said, it is time for the UK and the US to have a serious conversation about their
current and ex-spies being involved in US elections.
Southern_Boy , 5 hours ago
It wasn't the CIA. It was John Brennan and Clapper. The CIA, NSA FBI, DOJ and the
Ukrainian Intelligence Service just went along working together and followed orders from
Brennan who got them from Hillary and Obama.
Oh, and don't forget the GOP Globalist RINOs who also participated in the coup attempt:
McCain, Romney, Kasich, Boehner, Lee and Richard Burr.
With Kasich now performing as a puppy dog for Biden at the Democrat Convention as a
Democrat DNC executive, the re-alignment is almost complete: Globalist Nationalist
Socialist Bolshevism versus American Populism, i.e. Elites versus Deplorables or Academics
versus Smelly Wal-Mart people.
on target , 5 hours ago
No way. CIA up to their eyeballs in this as well as the State Department. Impossible for
Russiagate or Ukrainegate without direct CIA and State involvement.
RightlyIndignent , 4 hours ago
Following Orders? How did that argument go at Nuremberg? (hint: not very well)
LeadPipeDreams , 6 hours ago
LOL - the CIA's main mission - despite their "official" charter, has always been to
destabilize the US and its citizens via psyops, false flags, etc.
Covid-1984 is their latest and it appears most successful project yet.
Iconoclast27 , 5 hours ago
The CIA received a $200 million initial investment from the Rockefeller and Carnegie
foundations when it was first established, that should tell you everything you need to know
how who they truly work for.
A_Huxley , 6 hours ago
CIA, MI6, 5 eye nations.
All wanted to sway the USA their own way.
Let it Go , 8 hours ago
Almost as frightening as the concentrated power held by companies such as Facebook and
Google is the fact Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon and the world's richest man, is the person who
owns and controls the Washington Post. It is silly to think Jeff Bezos purchased the
Washington Post in 2013 because he expected newspapers to make a lucrative resurgence.
It is more likely he purchased the long-trusted U.S. newspaper for the power it would
ensure him in Washington when wielded as a propaganda mouthpiece to extend his ability to
both shape and control public opinion. More on this subject in the article below.
How it is the Democrats, the Deep State, and the legacy media are still able to cling to
the remnants of these long discredited narratives is a mystery.
avoiceofliberty , 6 hours ago
At the official level, you have a point.
However, even before Mueller was appointed, a review of the materials in the extant
public record of both the DNC "hack" and the history of Crowdstrike showed the narrative
simply did not make sense. A detailed investigation of materials not made public was not
necessary to shoot down the entire narrative.
Indeed, one of the great scandals of the Mueller probe is the way it did not bring
prudential skepticism to the question of the DNC "hack". When building a case, either for
public debate or for public trial, a dose of skepticism is healthy; it leads to a careful
vetting of facts and reasoning.
Alice-the-dog , 6 hours ago
The CIA has been an agency wholly independent of the US government almost since its
inception. It is not under any significant control by the government, and has its own
agenda which may occasionally coincide with that of the government, but only
coincidentally. It has its own view of how the world should look, and will not balk at any
means necessary to achieve such. Including the murder of dis-favorable members of
government.
snodgrass , 6 hours ago
It's the CIA and the FBI, Obama and people in his administration who cooked up
Russiagate.
Floki_Ragnarsson , 7 hours ago
The CIA whacked JFK because he was going to slow the roll to Vietnam AND disband the CIA
and reform it.
It is broken and needs to be disbanded and reformed along lines that actually WORK! The
CIA missed the fall of the USSR, 9/11, etc. HTF does THAT happen?
DeportThemAll , 6 hours ago
The CIA didn't "miss" 9/11... they participated in it.
Let it Go , 8 hours ago
The CIA is a tool that when improperly used can do great damage.
Anyone who doesn't believe that countries use psychological warfare and propaganda to
sway the opinions of people both in and outside of their country should be considered
naive. Too many people America is more than a little hypocritical when they criticize other
countries for trying to gain influence considering our history of meddling in the affairs
of other countries.
Americans have every reason to be concerned and worried considering revelations of just
how big the government intelligence agencies have grown since 9-11 and how unlimited their
spying and surveillance operations have become. The article below explores this growth and
questions whether we have lost control.
The idea of Binney and Jason Sullivan privately working to 'secure the vote' is
something that I actually consider to be very eyebrow raising and alarming.
Son of Captain Nemo , 8 hours ago
Bill Binney under "B" in the only "yellow pages" that show a conscience and a
soul!...
This is the dumbest article ever. Russiagate is a total fabrication of the FBI as per
Clinesmith, CIA provided information that would have nipped it at the bud. Read the real
news.
bringonthebigone , 9 hours ago
Wrong. this article is one small piece of the puzzle. Clinesmith is one small piece of
the puzzle. The Flynn entrapment is one small piece of the puzzle. The Halper entrapment
was one small piece of the puzzle.
Because Clinesmith at the FBI covered up the information saying Page was a CIA source
does not mean it was a total FBI fabrication and does not mean the CIA was not involved and
does not mean the DNC server hack is irrelevant.
Sundance does a better job pulling it all together.
PKKA , 14 hours ago
Relations have already soured between Russia and the United States, and sanctions have
been announced. Tensions have grown on the NATO-Russia border. The meat has already been
rolled into the minced meat and it will not be possible to roll the minced meat back into
the meat. The CIA got it. But the Russian people now absolutely understand that the United
States will always be the enemy of Russia, no matter whether socialist or capitalist. But I
like it even more than the feigned hypocritical "friendship". Russia has never reached such
heights as during the good old Cold War. All Russians have a huge incentive, long live the
new Cold War!
smacker , 12 hours ago
More and more people have worked out that the fabricated tensions between the US and
Russia
and US and China have little to do with those two countries posing any sort of threat to
world peace.
It is all about the US trying to remain in No.1 position as uni-polar top dog via the
Anglo American Empire.
We see examples of this every day in the M/E, South China Sea, Taiwan, Libya all over
Eastern Europe,
Ukraine, Iran and now Belaruse. HK was added along the way.
Both Russia and China openly want a multi-polar world order. But the US will never
accept that.
Hence the prospect of war. The only unknown today is what and where the trigger will
be.
smacker , 12 hours ago
More and more people have worked out that the fabricated tensions between the US and
Russia
and US and China have little to do with those two countries posing any sort of threat to
world peace.
It is all about the US trying to remain in No.1 position as uni-polar top dog via the
Anglo American Empire.
We see examples of this every day in the M/E, South China Sea, Taiwan, Libya all over
Eastern Europe,
Ukraine, Iran and now Belaruse. HK was added along the way.
Both Russia and China openly want a multi-polar world order. But the US will never
accept that.
Hence the prospect of war. The only unknown today is what and where the trigger will
be.
hang_the_banksters , 31 minutes ago
the best proof thAt Guccifer 2 was CIA hacking themselves to frame Wikileaks is
this:
Guccifer has not yet been identified, indicted and arrested.
you'd think CIAFBINSA would be turning over every stone to the ends of the earth to bust
Guccifer. we just had to endure 4 years of hysterical propaganda that Russia had hacked our
election and that Trump was their secret agent. so Guccifer should be the Most Wanted Man
on the planet. meanwhile, it's crickets from FBI. they arent even looking for him. because
Guccifer is over at Langley. maybe someone outta ask Brennan where G2 is now.
remember when DOJ indicted all those GRU cybersoldiers? the evidence listed in the
indictment was so stunning that i dont believe it. NSA so thoroughly hacked back into GRU
that NSA was watching GRU through their own webcams and recording them doing Google
searches to translate words which were written in Guccifer's blog posts about the DNC email
leaks. NSA and DOJ must think we are all stupid, that we will believe NSA is so powerful to
do that, yet they cant identify Guccifer.
i say i dont believe that for a second because no way Russian GRU are so stupid to even
have webcams on the computers they use to hack, and it is absurd to think GRU soldiers on a
Russian military base would be using Google instead of Yandex to translate words into
English.
lay_arrow
ConanTheContrarian1 , 1 hour ago
As a confirmed conspiracy theorist since I came back from 'Nam, here's mine: The
European nobility recognized with the American and French revolutions that they needed a
better approach. They borrowed from the Tudors (who had to deal with Parliament) and began
to rule by controlling the facade of representative government. This was enhanced by
funding banks to control through currency, as well as blackmail and murder, and morphed
into a complete propaganda machine like no other in history. The CIA, MI6 and Mossad, the
mainstream media, deep plants in bureaucracy and "democratic" bodies all obey their
dictates to create narratives that control our minds. Trump seems to offer hope, but
remember, he could be their latest narrative.
greatdisconformity , 1 hour ago
A Democracy cannot function on a higher level than the general electorate.
The intelligence and education of the general electorate has been sliding for
generations, because both political parties can play this to their advantage.
It is no accident that most of the messages coming from politicians are targeted to
imbeciles.
The late June 'Russian bounties in Afghanistan' story lasted no longer than a mere week
given that some of the very publications pushing it
were forced to walk it back based on not only key claims not bearing out, but a slew of top
intel officials and Pentagon generals saying it was baseless.
And then like many other 'Russiagate'-inspired narratives (in this case Trump was accused of
essentially 'looking the other way' while Russians supposedly paid the Taliban to kill US
troops), it was memory-holed.
But this apparently hasn't stopped the State Department or the Pentagon from using it as
leverage while talking to the Russians. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned his counterpart,
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, that "there will be an enormous price to pay" if the Kremlin
did indeed pay Afghan fighters to attack Americans or other Westerners .
"That's what I shared with Foreign Minister [Sergey] Lavrov," Pompeo said. "I know our
military has talked to their senior leaders as well. We won't brook that; we won't tolerate
that."
Russia has of course, denied involvement in any such operation, which many analysts have
pointed out would carry major risk of stoking military conflict with the United States but with
little positive gain in the region.
Pompeo also said in the interview
: "We will do everything we need to do to protect and defend every American soldier and, for
that matter, every soldier from the Czech Republic or any other country that's part of the
Resolute Support Mission to make sure that they're safe."
Importantly, it marks the first time any US official has broached the Russian bounties story
with a Kremlin officials .
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
But again, it's somewhat strange given the US administration (and multiple
US intelligence agencies ) has repeatedly denied that it has any merit. Trump has gone so
far as to all it a "hoax". Thus Pompeo's message to the Russians appears a pure tactic for
achieving leverage.
Or alternately, it could be that Pompeo is just plain undermining Trump on this one.
Unitended Consequences , 5 minutes ago
Pompeo is a Deep State mole.
David Wooten , just now
There is still a big disconnect between Trump and the 'Trump' administration.
Tensions rise, violence escalates, and federal armies move in.
Coincidence? I think not.
This was the blueprint used three years ago in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017 , when the city
regularly cited as being one of the happiest places in America , became ground zero for a
heated war of words -- and actions -- over racism, "
sanitizing history ," extremism (both right and left), political correctness, hate speech,
partisan politics, and a
growing fear that violent words will end in violent actions.
It was a setup : local police deliberately engineered a situation in which protesters would
confront each other, tensions would bubble over, and things would turn just violent enough to
call in the bigger guns.
In Charlottesville, as in so many parts of the country right now, the conflict was over how
to reconcile the nation's checkered past, particularly as it relates to slavery, with the push
to sanitize the environment of anything -- words and images -- that might cause offense,
especially if it's a Confederate flag or monument .
That fear of offense prompted the Charlottesville City Council to get rid of a
statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee that had graced one of its public parks for 82
years.
That's when everything went haywire.
In attempting to pacify one particularly vocal and righteously offended group while
railroading over the concerns of those with alternate viewpoints, Charlottesville attracted the
unwanted attention of the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis and the alt-Right, all of whom descended on
the little college town with the intention of exercising their First Amendment right to be
disagreeable, to assemble, and to protest.
When put to the test, Charlottesville did not handle things well at all.
On August 12, 2017, what should have been an exercise in free speech quickly became a brawl
that left one dead and dozens more injured.
As the New York Times reported, "Protesters began to mace one another, throwing
water bottles and urine-filled balloons -- some of which hit reporters -- and beating each
other with flagpoles, clubs and makeshift weapons. Before long, the downtown area was a melee.
People were ducking and covering with a constant stream of projectiles whizzing by our faces,
and the air was filled with the sounds of fists and sticks against flesh."
And then there was the police, who were supposed to uphold the law and prevent violence.
They failed to do either.
Indeed, a 220-page
post-mortem of the protests and the Charlottesville government's response by former U.S.
attorney Timothy J. Heaphy merely corroborates our worst fears about what drives the government
at all levels: power, money, ego, politics and ambition.
"The City was unable to protect the right of free expression and facilitate the permit
holder's offensive speech. This represents a failure of one of government's core functions --
the protection of fundamental rights. Law enforcement also failed to maintain order and
protect citizens from harm, injury, and death. Charlottesville preserved neither of those
principles on August 12, which has led to deep distrust of government within this
community."
In other words, the government failed to uphold its constitutional mandates. The police
failed to carry out their duties as peace officers. And the citizens found themselves unable to
trust either the police or the government to do its job in respecting their rights and ensuring
their safety.
Despite the fact that 1,000
first responders (including 300 state police troopers and members of the National Guard) --
many of whom had been preparing for the downtown rally for months -- had been called on to work
the event, despite the fact that police in riot gear surrounded Emancipation Park on three
sides, and despite the fact that Charlottesville had had what reporter David Graham referred to
as "
a dress rehearsal of sorts " a month earlier when 30 members of the Ku Klux Klan were
confronted by 1000 counterprotesters, police failed to do their jobs.
In fact, as the Washington Post reports, police "seemed to watch as groups beat each other
with sticks and bludgeoned one another with shields At one point,
police appeared to retreat and then watch the beatings before eventually moving in to end
the free-for-all, make arrests and tend to the injured."
Instead of establishing clear boundaries -- buffer zones -- between the warring groups and
protecting the First Amendment rights of the protesters, police established two entrances into
the permit areas of the park and created barriers "guiding rallygoers single-file into the
park" past lines of
white nationalists and antifa counterprotesters .
This is not much different from what is happening on the present-day national scene.
Commissioned by the City of Charlottesville, this Heaphy report
was intended to be an independent investigation of what went right and what went wrong in the
government's handling of the protests.
Heaphy found very little to commend.
What went right on Aug. 12 according to Heaphy:
1) Despite the presence of firearms, including members of the militia, and angry
confrontations between protesters and counterprotesters, no person was shot and no
significant property damage occurred;
2) Emergency personnel did their jobs effectively and treated a large number of people in
a short period of time; and
3) Police intelligence gathering was thorough (that's the best he had to say about
police).
Now for what went wrong, according to the report:
1. Police failed to get input from other law enforcement agencies experienced in handling
large protests.
2. Police failed to adequately train their officers in advance of the protest.
3. City officials failed to request assistance from outside agencies.
4. The City Council unduly interfered by ignoring legal advice, attempting to move the
protesters elsewhere, and ignoring the concerns of law enforcement.
5. The city government failed to inform the public about their plans.
6. City officials were misguided in allowing weapons at the protest.
7. The police implemented a flawed operational plan that failed to protect public
safety.
8. While police were provided with riot gear, they were never trained in how to use it,
nor were they provided with any meaningful field training in how to deal with or de-escalate
anticipated violence on the part of protesters.
9. Despite the input and advice of outside counsel, including The Rutherford Institute,
the police failed to employ de-escalation tactics or establish clear barriers between warring
factions of protesters.
10. Government officials and police leadership opted to advance their own agendas at the
expense of constitutional rights and public safety.
11. For all intents and purposes, police abided by a stand down order that endangered the
community and paved the way for massive civil unrest.
12. In failing to protect public safety, police and government officials undermined public
faith in the government.
The Heaphy report focused on the events that took place in Charlottesville, Virginia, but it
applies to almost every branch of government that fails to serve "we the people."
This isn't America, land of the free, where the government is "of the people, by the people
[and] for the people."
Rather, this is Amerika, where fascism, totalitarianism and militarism go hand in hand.
What you smell is the stench of a dying republic. Our dying republic.
The American experiment in freedom is failing fast.
Through every fault of our own -- our apathy, our ignorance, our intolerance, our
disinclination to do the hard work of holding government leaders accountable to the rule of
law, our inclination to let politics trump longstanding constitutional principles -- we have
been reduced to this sorry state in which we are little more than shackled inmates in a prison
operated for the profit of a corporate elite.
We have been saddled with the wreckage of a government at all levels that no longer
represents the citizenry, serves the citizenry, or is accountable to the citizenry.
"We the people" are not the masters anymore.
It doesn't matter whether you're talking about the federal government, state governments, or
local governing bodies: at all ends of the spectrum and every point in between, a shift has
taken place.
"We the people" are not being seen, heard or valued.
We no longer count for much of anything beyond an occasional electoral vote and as a source
of income for the government's ever-burgeoning financial needs.
Everything happening at the national level is playing out at the local level, as well: the
violence, the militarization, the intolerance, the lopsided governance, and an uneasy awareness
that the citizenry have no say in how their communities are being governed.
As I have warned repeatedly, the architects of the police state have every intention of
manipulating this outrage for their own purposes.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS
MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Predictably, the police state is allowing these protests, riots and looting to devolve into
a situation where enough of the voting populace is so desperate for a return to law and order
that they will gladly relinquish some of their freedoms to achieve it. And that's how the
police state will win, no matter which candidate gets elected to the White House, and "we the
people" will continue to lose.
So what's the answer?
As always, it must start with "we the people."
I've always advised people to think nationally, but act locally.
Yet as Charlottesville made clear, it's hard to make a difference locally when the local
government is as deaf, dumb and blind to the needs of its constituents as the national
government.
Charlottesville much like the rest of the nation has had its fair share of government
leaders who are tone-deaf, focused on their own aggrandizement, and incapable of prioritizing
the needs of their constituents over their own personal and political agendas; law enforcement
officials for whom personal safety, heavy-handed militarized tactics, and power plays trump
their duty to serve and protect; polarized citizens incapable of finding common ground,
respecting each other's rights, or agreeing to disagree; and a community held hostage by
political correctness, divisive rhetoric and a growing intolerance for any views that may be
unpopular or at odds with the mainstream.
It was a perfect storm just waiting for the right conditions to wreak havoc, a precursor of
the rage, frustration and fear that is erupting all over the country.
No matter what forces are manipulating these present riots and violent uprisings, however --
and there are definitely such forces at play here -- none of this would be happening without
the government having laid the groundwork.
Clearly, it's time to clean house at all levels of government.
Stop tolerating corruption, graft, intolerance, greed, incompetence, ineptitude, militarism,
lawlessness, ignorance, brutality, deceit, collusion, corpulence, bureaucracy, immorality,
depravity, censorship, cruelty, violence, mediocrity, and tyranny. These are the hallmarks of
an institution that is rotten through and through.
Stop holding your nose in order to block out the stench of a rotting institution.
Stop letting the government and its agents treat you like a servant or a slave.
You've got rights. We've all got rights. This is our country. This is our government. No one
can take it away from us unless we make it easy for them.
You've got a better chance of making your displeasure seen and felt and heard within your
own community. But it will take perseverance and unity and a commitment to finding common
ground with your fellow citizens.
Do you imagine that I am ignorantly using overly broad terminology when I say that the
CIA's "Mighty Wurlitzer" encompasses the whole of the capitalist mass media ?
Only juveniles would think the CIA limit their influence efforts to just CNN, FOX News, and
MSNBC. Country music, like hiphop music and pop music, is part of capitalist mass media. The
entertainment industry is an even more important vector for programming of media consumers
than is the infotainment industry.
"In reality, the IS intel agencies recruit primarily from certain Ivy
League all US universities."
Fixed that for you.
Or perhaps you mean strictly recruitment of only salaried CIA personnel with federal
employee identification numbers? I would have hoped that a poster here at MoA should know
that there is a clear distinction between an intelligence "operator" and an
intelligence "agent" . It seems it should be obvious that non-employee intelligence
assets require recruitment of one form or another as well.
I think it would be wise to assume that all of the top 5% students at all major
universities have been evaluated and scouted by CIA "recruiters" . Any student who
looks like they might go any place where they have any influence, either through talent or
connections, will have a CIA "recruiter" sniffing their ass.
Naturally, nobody should assume that the CIA "recruiter" will approach their target
and announce, "Hi! I'm your friendly neighborhood CIA recruiter!" Most recruits will
be unlikely to ever even realize that they have been recruited.
Ex: CIA scum: "Hey, you told me you want to do investigative journalism after you
graduate, right? I know someone over at Buzzfeed who says they're looking for someone right
now. I could put in a good word for you!"
Now, the "recruit" could probably get a position at Buzzfeed after graduation
anyway, but when she gets a call for an interview it seems too good to be true, so she puts
her education on hold and takes the job. Meanwhile her "friend" introduces her to
another "friend" with inside government info (the CIA controller hands off the asset
to another controller). Our cub presstitute is grateful and indebted to both, now. When they
approach her later requesting favors, she will gladly deliver, but at no point will she ever
realize that she is in fact a CIA agent... an off-budget asset.
The thing with Faustian bargains is that they seem like a super good deal at the time, and
the CIA shame the devil with their Faustian bargaining.
The above is, of course, just one of many approaches used by the CIA for recruitment. They
are good at blackmail also, of course. As well, this is no extreme accusation. If you've
spent any significant amount of time on a university campus with your eyes open (most people
on university campuses are deeply engrossed in their own immediate situations) then you will
have noticed these recruiters, and if you are recruitment material then you will have been
approached by one or more of them. If you were engrossed in your own university trials and
tribulations like most students then you could have been "befriended" by one without
ever even knowing it.
In any case, Clinton absolutely worked with the CIA at Oxford. Even The
Atlantic admits it, but tries to downplay it, which is exactly what you would expect from
one of the parts of the "Mighty Wurlitzer" . They give a little bit of the truth to
make the lie easier to swallow. Due to the Clintons' later involvement in the CIA's drug
running schemes, it has become important in the official narrative for the Clintons'
association with the CIA to be minimized.
Do bear in mind, though, that one can never retire from being an intelligence agent so
long as the agency one was managed by continues to exist, in the same way and for the same
reasons that one can never retire from being a goon for the mob. Clinton was a CIA agent from
his time in Oxford to the present, and at all point in between. This requires no proof beyond
the admission that Clinton was once a CIA agent. For processes that have no end, all you need
to know about is their starting point.
Do some research it becomes clear quickly what the real story is. Hillary and her bunch
stink to high heaven and have or YEARS. Started with her and husband. They sold this country
o or personal gain.Just search a little and make sure to use factual information. It is there
for anyone to find.
Russia is backing Donald Trump, China is supporting Joe Biden and Iran is seeking to sow
chaos in the US presidential election, a top intelligence official has warned in a sobering
assessment of foreign meddling.
The
statement on Friday by William Evanina, director of the National Counterintelligence and
Security Center, raises fears of a repeat of the 2016 election, when Russia manipulated social
media to help Trump and hurt his opponent Hillary Clinton.
"Russia is using a range of measures to primarily denigrate former Vice President Biden and
what it sees as an anti-Russia 'establishment'," Evanina said. "This is consistent with
Moscow's public criticism of him when he was Vice President for his role in the Obama
Administration's policies on Ukraine and its support for the anti-Putin opposition inside
Russia."
Evanina identified Andriy Derkach, a pro-Russia Ukrainian politician, as "spreading claims
about corruption – including through publicized leaked phone calls" to attack Biden's
campaign.
The Washington Post reported that Derkach has met repeatedly with Trump's personal lawyer,
Rudy Giuliani, who has pushed conspiracy theories about the former
vice-president.
Evanina also warned that some "Kremlin-linked actors" were spreading false claims about
corruption to undermine Biden, while others were trying to "boost President Trump's candidacy
via social media and Russian television".
Evanina, the top intelligence official monitoring threats to the election, is a Trump
appointee. His statement lists China before Russia but presents less specific evidence of
direct interference by Beijing.
"We assess that China prefers that President Trump – whom Beijing sees as
unpredictable – does not win re-election," Evanina said. "China has been expanding its
influence efforts ahead of November 2020 to shape the policy environment in the United States,
pressure political figures it views as opposed to China's interests, and deflect and counter
criticism of China."
He added: "Beijing recognizes that all of these efforts might affect the presidential
race."
Evanina highlighted China's criticism of Trump's handling of the coronavirus pandemic, the
closure of China's consulate in Houston and the White House responses to Chinese actions in
Hong Kong and the South China Sea.
On Friday, the US imposed sanctions on Hong Kong's chief executive, Carrie Lam, and 10
other senior officials. Trump has also ordered crackdowns on the
Chinese owners of the popular apps TikTok and WeChat.
Iran, meanwhile, was seeking to undermine US democratic institutions and Trump, and to
divide the country ahead of the 2020 elections, Evanina's statement said.
"Iran's efforts along these lines probably will focus on on-line influence, such as
spreading disinformation on social media and recirculating anti-US content. Tehran's motivation
to conduct such activities is, in part, driven by a perception that President Trump's
reelection would result in a continuation of US pressure on Iran in an effort to foment regime
change."
Trump pulled the US out of a nuclear deal agreed by Barack Obama and imposed various
sanctions on Tehran.
The anti-Trump pressure group National Security Action denied that China's public actions
rose to the level of Russia's covert election interference. "Jarringly, the statement attempted
to minimize what Russia is doing – again attacking our democracy in a bid to secure
Trump's reelection – by comparing it to China's public criticism of the administration's
recent punitive measures against Beijing," a spokesperson, Ned Price, said. "Any interference
in our democracy is unacceptable, but there is no equivalence between the two efforts."
In a press conference at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, on Friday evening, Trump
reacted to the assessment by insisting: "I think that the last person Russia wants to see in
office is Donald Trump because nobody's been tougher on Russia than I have, ever.
"China would love us to have an election where Donald Trump lost to 'Sleepy' Joe Biden. They
would own our country. If Joe Biden was president, China would own our country ... Iran would
love to see me not be president."
The president added: "I'll make this statement. If and when we win, we will make deals with
Iran very quickly. We'll make deals with North Korea very quickly. Whatever happened to the war
in North Korea? You haven't seen that, have you?"
A hacking and social media campaign by Russia in 2016 is credited by US intelligence with
helping Trump to victory. It triggered the special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation,
which described Russian meddling
but did not conclude that there had been direct collusion by Trump or his campaign.
The November election is already under siege from the coronavirus pandemic, concerns over
whether the system can handle a surge in mail-in voting and constant attacks by Trump on the
integrity of the process.
Evanina warned that foreign adversaries may try to interfere with election systems by trying
to sabotage the voting process, stealing election data or questioning the validity of results:
"Foreign efforts to influence or interfere with our elections are a direct threat to the fabric
of our democracy."
The report raised concern on Capitol Hill. Marco Rubio and Mark Warner, the top Republican
and Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, said they "encourage political leaders on
all sides to refrain from weaponizing intelligence matters for political gain".
Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate majority leader, said: "It is no surprise our
adversaries have preferences in our elections. Foreign nations have tried to influence our
politics throughout American history. As Director Evanina's statement makes clear, Russian
malign influence efforts remain a significant threat. But it would be a serious mistake to
ignore the growing threats posed by China and Iran."
What MoA is focusing on here – that the body of the NY Times article lacks any
specific allegations to back up the scare headline – closely parallels the "Russian
bounties" story from a few weeks ago.
In that case as well, someone who actually read the initial, supposedly blockbuster
piece, found nothing to support the headline or provide details beyond the lead sentence or
two of the piece. And I'm speaking in objective terms: leaving aside whether a reader might
or might not find any specific alleged findings credible, they simply weren't there.
The follow-up "Russian bounties" articles added a very few specific allegations. These
were unconvincing, but more to the point, nobody paid attention to them or seemed to feel
they were needed, and they ceased within a few days. This was because the initial article had
served its purpose simply by putting this one sentence out there: "Russia is paying bounties
to the Taliban to kill U.S. soldiers."
That one bare assertion is now established as a meme (in more like the original sense
of the word than the funny pictures everyone sends around) that impersonates as an
established fact, and now regularly appears in establishment narratives, such as remarks by
members of Congress, and other corporate media pieces, e.g. this week's interview of Trump by
Jonathan Swan, which itself got a lot of coverage: ("Trump didn't bring up the bounties in
his phone conversation with Putin!").
The Times article MoA tries to examine today, only to find it doesn't actually exist in
substance beyond the headline, serves the same purpose, but for this sentence: "Russian
meddling in U.S. elections continues in 2020." This is necessary for the narrative managers
so that they aren't limited to referring to "meddling" as a mere historic event from 2016,
and can treat it as a live – and established as true – threat now. (Of course,
the meddling in 2016 was itself a phony story, and this shows how these manufactured memes
can be stacked one on top of the other to create the false edifice that the Beltway consensus
successfully purveys as the real world to most people in the U.S.)
There is little incentive for the Times and their intelligence-community "sources" to spin
more elaborate lies when the media-political-intellectual culture has degraded to the point
that no one thinks beyond the level of the naked meme. They thus avoid two problems
associated with staging more elaborate hoaxes: (1) it's more work; (2) specific falsehoods
can be disproven with facts. The sole major lesson the Beltway establishment took from the
2003 Iraq-WMD fiasco is to try to avoid lies specific enough that they can be disproven.
That's always been the purpose of intelligence agencies - in every nation throughout
history.
Government agencies work for their own benefit, without exception. And the leaders of
government always work the same way, regardless of the actual "national interests" or
"public interest".
The problem is that everyone believes the fantasy that somehow they can "elect" leaders
and government workers who don't do this. But all elections are manipulated by the
political elites themselves to insure that no one gets into power who might the remotest
notion of upsetting the profitable apply cart. And if any movement arose that sought to
prevent the manipulation of elections - say, a "third party" or some movement to de-fund
parties by elites - that movement itself would be deflected or undermined or taken
over.
It's a circus and you all are the circus animals. Get used to it.
I don't know where the idea that China wants Biden to win came from. The consensus I get
from reading actual PRC media in native Chinese is certainly the opposite: They are 100%
sure the Cold War 2.0 is going to escalate either way, so they will rather have Trump's
outward incompetence than another Obama-like knife-behind-the-smile schemer.
It is the rulers themselves and those who rule the rulers, who are fearful of losing
control of the levers of power. I recall the British in Egypt boasting: 'we don't rule
Egypt, we rule the rulers.'
It is not the accumulation of power for its own sake that is the intoxicating elixir of
the ruling elite. It is furthering their objectives, both open and hidden.
To understand their primary objectives one should ask: just what is the single most bi
partisan policy objective of US presidents, since Woodrow Wilson, with a few minor
differences of opinion and emphasis from Eisenhower and Kennedy? Just what was the first
priority item on the agenda at both the 1919 Paris 'Peace' Conference and the first United
Nations meetings at Lake Success?
It was amending the title deeds of Palestine and attempting to confer some kind of quasi
legitimacy on the new title deed holders.
The rulers are very afraid the future of the Zionist project is slipping away from their
control. So in their rabid and delusional minds anything goes from now on in the
furtherance of that self inflicted nightmare and the elimination of anyone or any country
that inhibits that objective. Watch out.
That's always been the purpose of intelligence agencies - in every nation throughout
history.
Government agencies work for their own benefit, without exception. And the leaders of
government always work the same way, regardless of the actual "national interests" or
"public interest".
The problem is that everyone believes the fantasy that somehow they can "elect" leaders
and government workers who don't do this. But all elections are manipulated by the
political elites themselves to insure that no one gets into power who might the remotest
notion of upsetting the profitable apply cart. And if any movement arose that sought to
prevent the manipulation of elections - say, a "third party" or some movement to de-fund
parties by elites - that movement itself would be deflected or undermined or taken
over.
It's a circus and you all are the circus animals. Get used to it.
I don't know where the idea that China wants Biden to win came from. The consensus I get
from reading actual PRC media in native Chinese is certainly the opposite: They are 100%
sure the Cold War 2.0 is going to escalate either way, so they will rather have Trump's
outward incompetence than another Obama-like knife-behind-the-smile schemer.
It is the rulers themselves and those who rule the rulers, who are fearful of losing
control of the levers of power. I recall the British in Egypt boasting: 'we don't rule
Egypt, we rule the rulers.'
It is not the accumulation of power for its own sake that is the intoxicating elixir of
the ruling elite. It is furthering their objectives, both open and hidden.
To understand their primary objectives one should ask: just what is the single most bi
partisan policy objective of US presidents, since Woodrow Wilson, with a few minor
differences of opinion and emphasis from Eisenhower and Kennedy? Just what was the first
priority item on the agenda at both the 1919 Paris 'Peace' Conference and the first United
Nations meetings at Lake Success?
It was amending the title deeds of Palestine and attempting to confer some kind of quasi
legitimacy on the new title deed holders.
The rulers are very afraid the future of the Zionist project is slipping away from their
control. So in their rabid and delusional minds anything goes from now on in the
furtherance of that self inflicted nightmare and the elimination of anyone or any country
that inhibits that objective. Watch out.
– Stansfield Turner, Jimmy Carter's CIA director, on the extreme level of civilian
casualties in the CIA's covert war in Afghanistan.
The first indelible image of the war in Afghanistan for many Americans was probably that of
CBS anchorman Dan Rather, wrapped in the voluminous drapery of a mujahedin fighter, looking
like a healthy relative of Lawrence of Arabia (albeit with hair that seemed freshly blow-dried,
as some viewers were quick to point out). From his secret mountainside "somewhere in the Hindu
Kush," Rather unloaded on his audience a barrowload of nonsense about the conflict. The
Soviets, Rather confided portentously, had put a bounty on his head "of many thousands of
dollars." He went on, "It was the best compliment they could have given me. And having a price
put on my head was a small price to pay for the truths we told about Afghanistan."
Every one of these observations turned out to be entirely false. Rather described the
government of Hafizullah Amin as a "Moscow-installed puppet regime in Kabul." But Amin had
closer ties to the CIA than he did to the KGB. Rather called the mujahedin the "Afghan freedom
fighters who were engaged in a deeply patriotic fight to the death for home and hearth." The
mujahedin were scarcely fighting for freedom, in any sense Rather would have been comfortable
with, but instead to impose one of the most repressive brands of Islamic fundamentalism known
to the world, barbarous, ignorant and notably cruel to women.
It was a "fact," Rather announced, that the Soviets had used chemical weapons against Afghan
villagers. This was a claim promoted by the Reagan administration, which charged that the
extraordinarily precise number of 3,042 Afghans had been killed by this yellow chemical rain, a
substance that had won glorious propaganda victories in its manifestation in Laos a few years
earlier, when the yellow rain turned out to be bee feces heavily loaded with pollen. As Frank
Brodhead put it in the London Guardian, "Its composition: one part bee feces, plus many parts
State Department disinformation mixed with media gullibility."
Rather claimed that the mujahedin were severely underequipped, doing their best with
Kalashnikov rifles taken from dead Soviet soldiers. In fact the mujahedin were extremely
well-equipped, being the recipients of CIA-furnished weapons in the most " "expensive covert
war the Agency had ever mounted. They did carry Soviet weapons, but they came courtesy of the
CIA. Rather also showed news footage that he claimed was of Soviet bombers strafing defenseless
Afghan villages. This footage was staged, with the "Soviet bomber" actually a Pakistani air
force plane on a training mission over northwest Pakistan.
CBS claimed to have discovered in Soviet-bombed areas stuffed animals filled with Soviet
explosives, designed to blow Afghan children to bits. These booby-trapped toys had in fact been
manufactured by the mujahedin for the exclusive purpose of gulling CBS News, as an entertaining
article in the New York Post later made clear.
Rather made his heroically filmed way to Yunas Khalis, described as the leader of the Afghan
warriors. In tones of awe he normally reserves for hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, Rather
recalls in his book, The Camera Never Blinks
Twice , "Belief in 'right' makes 'might' may have been fading in other parts of the
world. In Afghanistan it was alive and well, and beating the Soviets." Khalis was a ruthless
butcher, with his troops fondly boasting of their slaughter of 700 prisoners of war. He spent
most of his time fighting, but the wars were not primarily with the Soviets. Instead, Khalis
battled other Afghan rebel groups, the object of the conflicts being control of poppy fields
and the roads and trails from them to his seven heroin labs near his headquarters in the town
of Ribat al Ali. Sixty percent of Afghanistan's opium crop was cultivated in the Helmand
Valley, with an irrigation infrastructure underwritten by USAID.
In his dispatches from the front Rather did mention the local opium trade, but in a
remarkably disingenuous fashion. "Afghans," he said, "had turned Darra into a boom town,
selling their home-grown opium for the best available weapons, then going back into Afghanistan
to fight."
Now Darra is a town in northwest Pakistan where the CIA had set up a factory to manufacture
Soviet-style weapons that it was giving away to all Afghan comers. The weapons factory was run
under contract to Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI). Much of the opium trucked into
Darra from Afghanistan by the mujahedin was sold to the Pakistani governor of the northwest
territory, Lieutenant General Fazle Huq. From this opium the heroin was refined in labs in
Darra, placed on Pakistani army trucks and transported to Karachi, then shipped to Europe and
the United States.
Rather belittled the Carter administration's reaction to the Soviet-backed coup in 1979,
charging that Carter's response had been tepid and slow in coming. In fact, President Carter
had reacted with a range of moves that should have been the envy of the Reagan hawks who, a
couple of years later, were belaboring him for being a Cold War wimp. Not only did Carter
withdraw the United States from the 1980 Olympics, he slashed grain sales to the Soviet Union,
to the great distress of Midwestern farmers; put the SALT II treaty hold; pledged to increase
the US defense budget by 5 percent a year until the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan; and
unveiled the Carter doctrine of containment in southern Asia, which CIA historian John Ranelagh
says led Carter to approve "more secret CIA operations than Reagan later did."
Carter later confessed in his memoirs that he was more shaken by the invasion of Afghanistan
than any other event of his presidency, including the Iranian revolution. Carter was convinced
by the CIA that it could be the start of a push by the Soviets toward the Persian Gulf, a
scenario that led the president to seriously consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
Three weeks after Soviet tanks rolled into Kabul, Carter's secretary of defense, Harold
Brown, was in Beijing, arranging for a weapons transfer from the Chinese to the CIA-backed
Afghani troops mustered in Pakistan. The Chinese, who were generously compensated for the deal,
agreed and even consented to send military advisers. Brown worked out a similar arrangement
with Egypt to buy $15 million worth of weapons. "The US contacted me," Anwar Sadat recalled
shortly before his assassination. "They told me, 'Please open your stores for us so that we can
give the Afghans the armaments they need to fight.' And I gave them the armaments. The
transport of arms to the Afghans started from Cairo on US planes."
But few in the Carter administration believed the rebels had any chance of toppling the
Soviets. Under most scenarios, the war seemed destined to be a slaughter, with civilians and
the rebels paying a heavy price. The objective of the Carter doctrine was more cynical. It was
to bleed the Soviets, hoping to entrap them in a Vietnam-style quagmire. The high level of
civilian casualties didn't faze the architects of covert American intervention. "I decided I
could live with that," recalled Carter's CIA director Stansfield Turner.
Prior to the Soviet invasion, Afghanistan barely registered as a topic of interest for the
national press, surfacing in only a handful of annual newspaper stories. In December 1973, when
détente was near its zenith, the Wall Street Journal ran a rare front-page story on the
country, titled "Do the Russians Covet Afghanistan? If so, It's Hard to Figure Why." Reporter
Peter Kann, later to become the Journal's chairman and publisher, wrote that "great power
strategists tend to think of Afghanistan as a kind of fulcrum upon which the world balance of
power tips. But from close up, Afghanistan tends to look less like a fulcrum or a domino or a
steppingstone than like a vast expanse of desert waste with a few fly-ridden bazaars, a fair
number of feuding tribes and a lot of miserably poor people."
After the Soviet Union invaded, this wasteland swiftly acquired the status of a precious
geopolitical prize. A Journal editorial following the Soviet takeover said Afghanistan was
"more serious than a mere stepping-stone" and, in response, called for stationing of US troops
in the Middle East, increased military outlays, expanded covert operations and reinstatement of
draft registration. Drew Middleton, then a New York Times Defense Department correspondent,
filed a tremulous post-invasion analysis in January 1980: "The conventional wisdom in the
Pentagon," he wrote, "is that in purely military terms, the Russians are in a far better
position vis-à-vis the United States than Hitler was against Britain and France in
1939."
The Pentagon and CIA agitprop machine went into high gear: on January 3, 1980, George Wilson
of the Washington Post reported that military leaders hoped the invasion would "help cure the
Vietnam "never again' hangover of the American public." Newsweek said the "Soviet thrust"
represented "a severe threat" to US interests: "Control of Afghanistan would put the Russians
within 350 miles of the Arabian Sea, the oil lifeline of the West and Japan. Soviet warplanes
based in Afghanistan could cut the lifeline at will." The New York Times endorsed Carter's call
for increased military spending and supported the Cruise and Trident missile programs, "faster
research on the MX or some other mobile land missile," and the creation of a rapid deployment
force for Third World intervention, calling the latter an "investment in diplomacy."
In sum, Afghanistan proved to be a glorious campaign for both the CIA and Defense
Department, a dazzling offensive in which waves of credulous and compliant journalists were
dispatched to promulgate the ludicrous proposition that the United States was under military
threat. By the time Reagan assumed office, he and his CIA director William Casey saw support
for their own stepped-up Afghan plan from an unlikely source, the Democrat-controlled Congress,
which was pushing to double spending on the war. "It was a windfall [for the Reagan
administration]," a congressional staffer told the Washington Post. "They'd faced so much
opposition to covert action in Central America and here comes the Congress helping and throwing
money at them, putting money their way and they say, 'Who are we to say no?' "
As the CIA increased its backing of the mujahedin (the CIA budget for Afghanistan finally
reached $3.2 billion, the most expensive secret operation in its history) a White House member
of the president's Strategic Council on Drug Abuse, David Musto, informed the administration
that the decision to arm the mujahedin would misfire: "I told the Council that we were going
into Afghanistan to support the opium growers in their rebellion against the Soviets. Shouldn't
we try to avoid what we'd done in Laos? Shouldn't we try to pay the growers if they will
eradicate their opium production? There was silence."
After issuing this warning, Musto and a colleague on the council, Joyce Lowinson, continued
to question US policy, but found their queries blocked by the CIA and the State Department.
Frustrated, they then turned to the New York Times op-ed page and wrote, on May 22, 1980: "We worry
about the growing of opium in Afghanistan or Pakistan by rebel tribesmen who apparently are the
chief adversaries of the Soviet troops in Afghanistan. Are we erring in befriending these
tribes as we did in Laos when Air America (chartered by the Central Intelligence Agency) helped
transport crude opium from certain tribal areas?" But Musto and Lowinson met with silence once
again, not only from the administration but from the press. It was heresy to question covert
intervention in Afghanistan.
Later in 1980, Hoag Levins, a writer for Philadelphia Magazine, interviewed a man he
identified as a "high level" law enforcement official in the Carter administration's Justice
Department and quoted him thus: "You have the administration tiptoeing around this like it's a
land mine. The issue of opium and heroin in Afghanistan is explosive In the State of the Union
speech, the president mentioned drug abuse but he was very careful to avoid mentioning
Afghanistan, even though Afghanistan is where things are really happening right now Why aren't
we taking a more critical look at the arms we are now shipping into gangs of drug runners who
are obviously going to use them to increase the efficiency of their drug-smuggling
operation?"
The DEA was well aware that the mujahedin rebels were deeply involved in the opium trade.
The drug agency's reports in 1980 showed that Afghan rebel incursions from their Pakistan bases
into Soviet-held positions were "determined in part by opium planting and harvest seasons." The
numbers were stark and forbidding. Afghan opium production tripled between 1979 and 1982. There
was evidence that by 1981 the Afghan heroin producers had captured 60 percent of the heroin
market in Western Europe and the United States (these are UN and DEA figures).
In 1971, during the height of the CIA's involvement in Laos, there were about 500,000 heroin
addicts in the United States. By the mid- to late 1970s this total had fallen to 200,000. But
in 1981 with the new flood of Afghan heroin and consequent low prices, the heroin addict
population rose to 450,000. In New York City in 1979 alone (the year that the flow of arms to
the mujahedin began), heroin-related drug deaths increased by 77 percent. The only publicly
acknowledged US casualties on the Afghan battlefields were some Black Muslims who journeyed to
the Hindu Kush from the United States to fight on the Prophet's behalf. But the drug casualties
inside the US from the secret CIA war, particularly in the inner cities, numbered in the
thousands, plus untold social blight and suffering.
Since the seventeenth century opium poppies have been grown in the so-called Golden
Crescent, where the highlands of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran all converge. For nearly four
centuries this was an internal market. By the 1950s very little opium was produced in either
Afghanistan or Pakistan, with perhaps 2,500 acres in these two countries under cultivation. The
fertile growing fields of Afghanistan's Helmand Valley, by the 1980s under intensive opium
poppy cultivation, were covered with vineyards, wheat fields and cotton plantations.
In Iran, the situation was markedly different in the early 1950s. The country, dominated by
British and US oil companies and intelligence agencies, was producing 600 tons of opium a year
and had 1.3 million opium addicts, second only to China where, at the same moment, the western
opium imperialists still held sway. Then, in 1953, Mohammed Mossadegh, Iran's nationalist
equivalent of China's Sun Yat-sen, won elections and immediately moved to suppress the opium
trade. Within a few weeks, US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles was calling Mossadegh a
madman, and Dulles's brother Allen, head of the CIA, dispatched Kermit Roosevelt to organize a
coup against him. In August 1953 Mossadegh was overthrown, the Shah was installed by the CIA,
and the oil and opium fields of Iran were once again in friendly hands. Production continued
unabated until the assumption of power in 1979 of the Ayatollah Khomeini, at which point Iran
had a very serious opium problem in terms of the addiction of its own population. Unlike the
mujahedin chieftains, the Ayatollah was a strict constructionist of Islamic law on the matter
of intoxicants: addicts and dealers faced the death penalty. Opium production in Iran dropped
drastically.
In Afghanistan in the 1950s and 1960s, the relatively sparse opium trade was controlled by
the royal family, headed by King Mohammed Zahir, The large feudal estates all had their opium
fields, primarily to feed domestic consumption of the drug. In April 1978 a populist coup
overthrew the regime of Mohammed Daoud, who had formed an alliance with the Shah of Iran. The
Shah had shoveled money in Daoud's direction – $2 billion on one report – and the
Iranian secret police, the Savak, were imported to train Daoud's internal security force. The
new Afghan government was led by Noor Mohammed Taraki. The Taraki administration moved toward
land reform, hence an attack on the opium-growing feudal estates. Taraki went to the UN, where
he requested and received loans for crop substitution for the poppy fields.
Taraki also pressed hard against opium production in the border areas held by
fundamentalists, since the latter were using opium revenues to finance attacks on the Afghan
central government, which they regarded as an unwholesome incarnation of modernity that allowed
women to go to school and outlawed arranged marriages and the bride price.
By the spring of 1979 the character of Dan Rather's heroes, the mujahedin, was also
beginning to emerge. The Washington Post reported that the mujahedin liked to "torture their
victims by first cutting off their noses, ears and genitals, then removing one slice of skin
after another." Over that year the mujahedin evinced particular animosity toward westerners,
killing six West Germans and a Canadian tourist and severely beating a US military
attaché. It's also ironic that in that year the mujahedin were getting money not only
from the CIA but from Libya's Moammar Qaddaffi, who sent $250,000 in their direction.
In the summer of 1979, over six months before the Soviets moved in, the US State Department
produced a memorandum making clear how it saw the stakes, no matter how modern-minded Taraki
might be, or how feudal the mujahedin: "The United States' larger interest would be served by
the demise of the Taraki-Amin regime, despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future
social and economic reforms in Afghanistan." The report continued, "The overthrow of the DRA
[Democratic Republic of Afghanistan] would show the rest of the world, particularly the Third
World, that the Soviets' view of the socialist course of history as being inevitable is not
accurate."
Hard pressed by conservative forces in Afghanistan, Taraki appealed to the Soviets for help,
which they declined to furnish on the grounds that this was exactly what their mutual enemies
were waiting for.
In September 1979 Taraki was killed in a coup organized by Afghan military officers.
Hafizullah Amin was installed as president. He had impeccable western credentials, having been
to Columbia University in New York and the University of Wisconsin. Amin had served as the
president of the Afghan Students Association, which had been funded by the Asia Foundation, a
CIA pass-through group, or front. After the coup Amin began meeting regularly with US Embassy
officials at a time when the US was arming Islamic rebels in Pakistan. Fearing a
fundamentalist, US-backed regime pressing against its own border, the Soviet Union invaded
Afghanistan in force on December 27, 1979.
Then began the Carter-initiated CIA buildup that so worried White House drug expert David
Musto. In a replication of what happened following the CIA-backed coup in Iran, the feudal
estates were soon back in opium production and the crop-substitution program ended.
Because Pakistan had a nuclear program, the US had a foreign aid ban on the country. This
was soon lifted it as the waging of a proxy war in Afghanistan became prime policy. In fairly
short order, without any discernible slowdown in its nuclear program, Pakistan became the third
largest recipient of US aid worldwide, right behind Israel and Egypt. Arms poured into Karachi
from the US and were shipped up to Peshawar by the National Logistics Cell, a military unit
controlled by Pakistan's secret police, the ISI. From Peshawar those guns that weren't simply
sold to any and all customers (the Iranians got 16 Stinger missiles, one of which was used
against a US helicopter in the Gulf) were divvied out by the ISI to the Afghan factions.
Though the US press, Dan Rather to the fore, portrayed the mujahedin as a unified force of
freedom fighters, the fact (unsurprising to anyone with an inkling of Afghan history) was that
the mujahedin consisted of at least seven warring factions, all battling for territory and
control of the opium trade. The ISI gave the bulk of the arms – at one count 60 percent
– to a particularly fanatical fundamentalist and woman-hater Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who
made his public debut at the University of Kabul by killing a leftist student. In 1972
Hekmatyar fled to Pakistan, where he became an agent of the ISI. He urged his followers to
throw acid in the faces of women not wearing the veil, kidnapped rival leaders, and built up
his CIA-furnished arsenal against the day the Soviets would leave and the war for the mastery
of Afghanistan would truly break out.
Using his weapons to get control of the opium fields, Hekmatyar and his men would urge the
peasants, at gun point, to increase production. They would collect the raw opium and bring it
back to Hekmatyar's six heroin factories in the town of Koh-i-Soltan
One of Hekmatyar's chief rivals in the mujahedin, Mullah Nassim, controlled the opium poppy
fields in the Helmand Valley, producing 260 tons of opium a year. His brother, Mohammed Rasul,
defended this agricultural enterprise by stating, "We must grow and sell opium to fight our
holy war against the Russian nonbelievers." Despite this well-calculated pronouncement, they
spent almost all their time fighting their fellow-believers, using the weapons sent them by the
CIA to try to win the advantage in these internecine struggles. In 1989 Hekmatyar launched an
assault against Nassim, attempting to take control of the Helmand Valley. Nassim fought him
off, but a few months later Hekmatyar successfully engineered Nassim's assassination when he
was holding the post of deputy defense minister in the provisional post-Soviet Afghan
government. Hekmatyar now controlled opium growing in the Helmand Valley.
American DEA agents were fully apprised of the drug running of the mujahedin in concert with
Pakistani intelligence and military leaders. In 1983 the DEA's congressional liaison, David
Melocik, told a congressional committee, "You can say the rebels make their money off the sale
of opium. There's no doubt about it. These rebels keep their cause going through the sale of
opium." But talk about "the cause" depending on drug sales was nonsense at that particular
moment. The CIA was paying for everything regardless. The opium revenues were ending up in
offshore accounts in the Habib Bank, one of Pakistan's largest, and in the accounts of BCCI,
founded by Agha Hasan Abedi, who began his banking career at Habib. The CIA was simultaneously
using BCCI for its own secret transactions.
The DEA had evidence of over forty heroin syndicates operating in Pakistan in the mid-1980s
during the Afghan war, and there was evidence of more than 200 heroin labs operating in
northwest Pakistan. Even though Islamabad houses one of the largest DEA offices in Asia, no
action was ever taken by the DEA agents against any of these operations. An Interpol officer
told the journalist Lawrence Lifschultz, "It is very strange that the Americans, with the size
of their resources, and political power they possess in Pakistan, have failed to break a single
case. The explanation cannot be found in a lack of adequate police work. They have had some
excellent men working in Pakistan." But working in the same offices as those DEA agents were
five CIA officers who, so one of the DEA agents later told the Washington Post, ordered them to
pull back their operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan for the duration of the war.
Those DEA agents were well aware of the drug-tainted profile of a firm the CIA was using to
funnel cash to the mujahedin, namely Shakarchi Trading Company. This Lebanese-owned company had
been the subject of a long-running DEA investigation into money laundering. One of Shakarchi's
chief clients was Yasir Musullulu, who had once been nabbed attempting to deliver an 8.5-ton
shipment of Afghan opium to members of the Gambino crime syndicate in New York City. A DEA memo
noted that Shakarchi mingled "the currency of heroin, morphine base, and hashish traffickers
with that of jewelers buying gold on the black market and Middle Eastern arms traffickers."
In May 1984 Vice President George Bush journeyed to Pakistan to confer with General Zia al
Huq and other ranking members of the Pakistani regime. At the time, Bush was the head of
President Reagan's National Narcotics Border Interdiction System. In this latter function, one
of Bush's first moves was to expand the role of the CIA in drug operations. He gave the Agency
primary responsibility in the use of, and control over, drug informants. The operational head
of this task force was retired Admiral Daniel J. Murphy.
Murphy pushed for access to intelligence on drug syndicates but complained that the CIA was
forever dragging its feet. "I didn't win," he said later to the New York Times. "I didn't get
as much effective participation from the CIA as I wanted." Another member of the task force put
it more bluntly, "The CIA could be of value, but you need a change of values and attitude. I
don't know of a single thing they've ever given us that was useful."
Bush certainly knew well that Pakistan had become the source for most of the high-grade
heroin entering Western Europe and the United States and that the generals with whom he was
consorting were deeply involved in the drug trade. But the vice president, who proclaimed later
that "I will never bargain with drug dealers on US or foreign soil," used his journey to
Pakistan to praise the Zia regime for its unflinching support for the War on Drugs. (Amid such
rhetorical excursions he did find time, it has to be said, to extract from Zia a contract to
buy $40 million worth of gas turbines made by the General Electric Co.)
Predictably, through the 1980s the Reagan and Bush administrations went to great lengths to
pin the blame for the upswing in Pakistani heroin production on the Soviet generals in Kabul.
"The regime maintains an absolute indifference to any measures to control poppy," Reagan's
attorney general Edwin Meese declared during a visit to Islamabad in March 1986. "We strongly
believe that there is actually encouragement, at least tacitly, over growing opium poppy."
Meese knew better. His own Justice Department had been tracking the import of drugs from
Pakistan since at least 1982 and was well aware that the trade was controlled by Afghan rebels
and the Pakistani military. A few months after Meese's speech in Pakistan, the US Customs
Office nabbed a Pakistani man named Abdul Wali as he tried to unload more than a ton of hash
and a smaller amount of heroin into the United
States at Port Newark, New Jersey. The Justice Department informed the press that Wali
headed a 50,000-member organization in northwest Pakistan – but Deputy Attorney General
Claudia Flynn refused to reveal the group's identity. Another federal official told the
Associated Press that Wali was a top leader of the mujahedin.
It was also known to US officials that people on intimate terms with President Zia were
making fortunes in the opium trade. The word "fortune" here is no exaggeration, since one such
Zia associate had $3 billion in his BCCI accounts. In 1983, a year before George Bush's visit
to Pakistan, one of President Zia's doctors, a Japanese herbalist named Hisayoshi Maruyama was
arrested in Amsterdam packing 17.5 kilos of high-grade heroin manufactured in Pakistan out of
Afghan opium. At the time of his arrest he was disguised as a boy scout.
Interrogated by DEA agents after his arrest, Maruyama said that he was just a courier for
Mirza Iqbal Baig, a man whom Pakistani customs agents described as "the most active dope dealer
in the country." Baig was on close terms with the Zia family and other ranking officials in the
government. He had twice been a target of the DEA, whose agents were told not to pursue
investigations of him because of his ties to the Zia government. A top Pakistani lawyer, Said
Sani Ahmed, told the BBC that this was standard procedure in Pakistan: "We may have evidence
against a particular individual, but still our law-enforcing agencies cannot lay hands on such
people, because they are forbidden to act by their superiors. The real culprits have enough
money and resources. Frankly, they are enjoying some sort of immunity."
Baig was one of the tycoons of the Pakistani city of Lahore, owning cinemas, shopping
centers, factories and a textile mill. He wasn't indicted on drug charges until 1992, after the
fall of the Zia regime, when a US federal court in Brooklyn indicted him for heroin
trafficking. The US finally exerted enough pressure on Pakistan to have him arrested in 1993;
as of the spring of 1998 he was in prison in Pakistan.
One of Baig's partners (as described in Newsweek) in his drug business was Haji Ayub Afridi,
a close ally of President Zia, who had served in the Pakistani General Assembly. Afridi lives
thirty-five miles outside Peshawar in a large compound sealed off by 20-foot-high walls topped
with concertina-wire and with defenses including an anti-aircraft battery and a private army of
tribesmen. Afridi was said to be in charge of purchasing raw opium from the Afghan drug lords,
while Baig looked after logistics and shipping to Europe and the United States. In 1993 Afridi
was alleged to have put out a contract on the life of a DEA agent working in Pakistan.
Another case close to the Zia government involved the arrest on drug charges of Hamid
Hasnain, the vice president of Pakistan's largest financial house, the Habib Bank. Hasnain's
arrest became the centerpiece of a scandal known as the "Pakistani League affair." The drug
ring was investigated by a dogged Norwegian investigator named Olyvind Olsen. On December 13,
1983 Norwegian police seized 3.5 kilos of heroin at Oslo airport in the luggage of a Pakistani
named Raza Qureishi. In exchange for a reduced sentence Qureishi agreed to name his suppliers
to Olsen, the narcotics investigator. Shortly after his interview with Qureishi, Olsen flew to
Islamabad to ferret out the other members of the heroin syndicate. For more than a year Olsen
pressured Pakistan's Federal Investigate Agency (FIA) to arrest the three men Qureishi had
fingered: Tahir Butt, Munawaar Hussain, and Hasnain. All were associates of Baig and Zia. It
wasn't until Olsen threatened to publicly condemn the FIA's conduct that the Agency took any
action: finally, on October 25, 1985 the FIA arrested the three men. When the Pakistani agents
picked up Hasnain they were assailed with a barrage of threats. Hasnain spoke of "dire
consequences" and claimed to be "like a son" to President Zia. Inside Hasnain's suitcase FIA
agents discovered records of the ample bank accounts of President Zia plus those of Zia's wife
and daughter.
Immediately after learning of Hasnain's arrest, Zia's wife, who was in Egypt at the time,
telephoned the head of the FIA. The president's wife imperiously demanded the release of her
family's "personal banker." It turned out that Hasnain not only attended to the secret
financial affairs of the presidential family, but also of the senior Pakistani generals, who
were skimming money off the arms imports from the CIA and making millions from the opium
traffic. A few days after his wife's call, President Zia himself was on the phone to the FIA,
demanding that the investigators explain the circumstances surrounding Hasnain's arrest. Zia
soon arranged for Hasnain to be released on bail pending trial. When Qureishi, the courier,
took the stand to testify against Hasnain, the banker and his co-defendant hurled death threats
against the witness in open court, prompting a protest from the Norwegian investigator, who
threatened to withdraw from the proceedings.
Eventually the judge in the case clamped down, revoking Hasnain's bail and handing him a
stiff prison term after his conviction. But Hasnain was just a relatively small fish who went
to prison while guilty generals went free. "He's been made a scapegoat," Munir Bhatti told
journalist Lawrence Lifschultz, "The CIA spoiled the case. The evidence was distorted. There
was no justification in letting off the actual culprits who include senior personalities in
this country. There was evidence in this case identifying such people."
Such were the men to whom the CIA was paying $3.2 billion a year to run the Afghan war, and
no person better epitomizes this relationship than Lieutenant General Fazle Huq, who oversaw
military operations in northwest Pakistan for General Zia, including the arming of the
mujahedin who were using the region as a staging area for their raids. It was Huq who ensured
that his ally Hekmatyar received the bulk of the CIA arms shipments, and it was also Huq who
oversaw and protected the operations of the 200 heroin labs within his jurisdiction. Huq had
been identified in 1982 by Interpol as a key player in the Afghan-Pakistani opium trade. The
Pakistani opposition leaders referred to Huq as Pakistani's Noriega. He had been protected from
drug investigations by Zia and the CIA and later boasted that with these connections he could
get away "with blue murder."
Like other narco-generals in the Zia regime, Huq was also on close terms with Agha Hassan
Abedi, the head of the BCCI. Abedi, Huq and Zia would dine together nearly every month, and
conferred several times with Reagan's CIA director William Casey. Huq had a BCCI account worth
$3 million. After Zia was assassinated in 1988 by a bomb planted (probably by senior military
officers) in his presidential plane, Huq lost some of his official protection, and he was soon
arrested for ordering the murder of a Shi'ite cleric.
After Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was deposed, her replacement Ishaq Khan swiftly released
Huq from prison. In 1991 Huq was shot to death, probably in revenge for the cleric's death. The
opium general was given a state funeral, where he was eulogized by Ishaq Khan as "a great
soldier and competent administrator who played a commendable role in Pakistan's national
progress."
Benazir Bhutto had swept to power in 1988 amid fierce vows to clean up Pakistan's
drug-sodden corruption, but it wasn't long "before her own regime became the focus of serious
charges. In 1989 the US Drug Enforcement Agency came across information that Benazir's husband,
Asif Ali Zardari, may have been financing large shipments of heroin from Pakistan to Great
Britain and the United States. The DEA assigned one of its agents, a man named John Banks, to
work undercover in Pakistan. Banks was a former British mercenary who had worked undercover for
Scotland Yard in big international drug cases.
While in Pakistan, Banks claims he posed as a member of the Mafia and that he had met with
Bhutto and her husband at their home in Sind. Banks further claims that he traveled with Zadari
to Islamabad, where he secretly recorded five hours of conversation between Zadari, a Pakistani
air force general and a Pakistani banker. The men discussed the logistics of transporting
heroin to the US and to Britain: "We talked about how they were going to ship the drugs to
America in a metal cutter," Banks said in 1996. "They told me that the United Kingdom was
another area where they had shipped heroin and hashish on a regular basis." The British Customs
Office had also been monitoring Zadari for dope running: "We received intelligence from about
three or four sources, about his alleged involvement as a financier," a retired British customs
officer told the Financial Times. "This was all reported to British intelligence." The customs
official says his government failed to act on this report. Similarly, Banks asserts that the
CIA halted the DEA's investigation of Zardari. All this emerged when Bhutto's government fell
for the second time, in 1996, on charges of corruption lodged primarily against Zardari, who is
now in prison for his role in the murder of his brother-in-law Murtaza. Zardari also stands
accused of embezzling more than $1 billion in government funds."
In 1991 Nawz Sharif says that while he served as prime minister he was approached by two
Pakistani generals – Aslam Beg, chief of staff for the army, and Asad Durrani, head of
the ISI – with a plan to fund dozens of covert operations through the sale of heroin.
"General Durrani told me, 'We have a blueprint ready for your approval,' Sharif explained to
Washington Post reporter John Ward Anderson in 1994. "I was totally flabbergasted. Both Beg and
Durrani insisted that Pakistan's name would not be cited at any place because the whole
operation would be carried out by trustworthy third parties. Durrani then went on to list a
series of covert military operations in desperate need of money." Sharif said that he rejected
the plan, but believes it was put in place when Bhutto resumed power.
The impact of the Afghan war on Pakistan's addiction rates was even more drastic than the
surge in heroin addiction in the US and Europe. Before the CIA program began, there were fewer
than 5,000 heroin addicts in Pakistan. By 1996, according to the United Nations, there were
more than 1.6 million. The Pakistani representative to the UN Commission on Narcotics, Raoolf
Ali Khan, said in 1993 that "there is no branch of government where drug corruption doesn't
pervade." As an example he pointed to the fact that Pakistan spends only $1.8 million a year on
anti-drug efforts, with an allotment of $1,000 to purchase gasoline for its seven trucks.
By 1994 the value of the heroin trade in Pakistan was twice the amount of the government's
budget. A Western diplomat told the Washington Post in that year that "when you get to the
stage where narco-traffickers have more money than the government it's going to take remarkable
efforts and remarkable people to turn it around." The magnitude of commitment required is
illustrated by two episodes. In 1991 the largest drug bust in world history occurred on the
road
from Peshawar to Karachi. Pakistani customs officers seized 3.5 tons of heroin and 44 tons
of hashish. Several days later half the hashish and heroin had vanished along with the
witnesses. The suspects, four men with ties to Pakistani intelligence, had "mysteriously
escaped," to use the words of a Pakistani customs officer. In 1993 Pakistani border guards
seized 8 tons of hashish and 1.7 tons of heroin. When the case was turned over to the Pakistani
narcotics control board, the entire staff went on vacation to avoid being involved in the
investigation. No one was disciplined or otherwise inconvenienced and the narco-traffickers got
off scot free. Even the CIA was eventually forced to admit in a 1994 report to Congress that
heroin had become the "life blood of the Pakistani economy and political system."
In February 1989 Mikhail Gorbachev pulled the Soviet troops out of Afghanistan, and asked
the US to agree to an embargo on the provision of weapons to any of the Afghan mujahedin
factions, who were preparing for another phase of internecine war for control of the country.
President Bush refused, thus ensuring a period of continued misery and horror for most Afghans.
The war had already turned half the population into refugees, and seen 3 million wounded and
more than a million killed. The proclivities of the mujahedin at this point are illustrated by
a couple of anecdotes. The Kabul correspondent of the Far Eastern Economic Review reported in
1989 the mujahedin's treatment of Soviet prisoners: "One group was killed, skinned and hung up
in a butcher's shop. One captive found himself the center of attraction in a game of buzkashi,
that rough-and-tumble form of Afghan polo in which a headless goat is usually the ball. The
captive was used instead. Alive. He was literally torn to pieces." The CIA also had evidence
that its freedom fighters had doped up more than 200 Soviet soldiers with heroin and locked
them in animal cages where, the Washington Post reported in 1990, they led "lives of
indescribable horror."
In September 1996 the Taliban, fundamentalists nurtured originally in Pakistan as creatures
of both the ISI and the CIA, seized power in Kabul, whereupon Mullah Omar, their leader,
announced that all laws inconsistent with the Muslim Sharia would be changed. Women would be
forced to assume the chador and remain at home, with total segregation of the sexes and women
kept out of hospitals, schools and public bathrooms. The CIA continued to support these
medieval fanatics who, according to Emma Bonino, the European Union's commissioner for
humanitarian affairs, were committing "gender genocide."
One law at odds with the Sharia that the Taliban had no apparent interest in changing was
the prophet's injunction against intoxicants. In fact, the Taliban urged its Afghan farmers to
increase their production of opium. One of the Taliban leaders, the "drug czar" Abdul Rashid,
noted, "If we try to stop this [opium farming] the people will be against us." By the end 1996,
according to the UN, Afghan opium production had reached 2,000 metric tons. There were an
estimated 200,000 families in Afghanistan working in the opium trade. The Taliban were in
control of the 96 percent of all Afghan land in opium cultivation and imposed a tax on opium
production and a road toll on trucks carrying the crop.
In 1997 an Afghan opium farmer gave an ironic reply to Jimmy Carter's brooding on whether to
use nuclear weapons as part of a response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Amhud
Gul told a reporter from the Washington Post, "We are cultivating this [that is, opium] and
exporting this as an atom bomb." CIA intervention had worked its magic once again. By 1994,
Afghanistan, according to the UN drug control program had surpassed Burma as the world's number
one supplier of raw opium.
Note: This story was more than two years in the making. I started reporting it in 1995
for the premier issue of a Portland-based magazine called Serpent's Tooth: Reporting the Drug
War, which was meant to be a cross between Ramparts and Paul Krassner's The Realist, with
plenty of sex ads to pay the bills. In fact, Krassner also wrote a scathingly funny piece for
that issue, some ribald tale involving three of his favorite subjects: Bill Clinton, LSD and
the virtues of masturbation. Alas, a few weeks before the magazine was ready to go to press,
the trust-fund publisher pulled the plug on the entire venture after getting into a brawl with
the editorial collective. In my experience, any time there's an "editorial collective" in
charge, the publication is destined for a ventilator, especially when cocaine is involved. So,
after spending more than a year working on my big piece on the Afghan war and the opium trade,
it was orphaned. Portions of the story later appeared in CounterPunch, the Anderson Valley
Advertiser and the Twin Cities weekly, City Pages. And a version of it ended up as a chapter in
our book Whiteout: the CIA, Drugs
and the Press .
The first and the most important fact that there will no elections in November -- both candidates represent the same oligarchy,
just slightly different factions of it.
Look like NYT is controlled by Bolton faction of CIA. They really want to overturn the
results of 2020 elections and using Russia as a bogeyman is a perfect opportunity to achieve this
goal.
Neocons understand very well that it is MIC who better their bread, so amplifying rumors the simplify getting additional budget
money for intelligence agencies (which are a part of MIC) is always the most desirable goal.
Notable quotes:
"... But a new assessment says China would prefer to see the president defeated, though it is not clear Beijing is doing much to meddle in the 2020 campaign to help Joseph R. Biden Jr. ..."
"... The statement then claims: "Ahead of the 2020 U.S. elections, foreign states will continue to use covert and overt influence measures in their attempts to sway U.S. voters' preferences and perspectives, shift U.S. policies, increase discord in the United States, and undermine the American people's confidence in our democratic process." ..."
"... But how do the 'intelligence' agencies know that foreign states want to "sway preferences", "increase discord" or "undermine confidence" in elections? ..."
"... But ascribing motive and intent is a tricky business, because perceived impact is often mistaken for true intent. [...] Where is the evidence that Russia actually wants to bring down the liberal world order and watch the United States burn? ..."
"... Well there is none. And that is why the 'intelligence' agencies do not present any evidence. ..."
"... Is there a secret policy paper by the Russian government that says it should "increase discord" in the United States? Is there some Chinese think tank report which says that undermining U.S. people's confidence in their democratic process would be good for China? ..."
"... If the 'intelligence' people have copies of those papers why not publish them? ..."
"... Let me guess. The 'intelligence' agencies have nothing, zero, nada. They are just making wild-ass guesses about 'intentions' of perceived enemies to impress the people who sign off their budget. ..."
"... Nowadays that seems to be their main purpose. ..."
But when one reads the piece itself one finds no fact that would support the 'Russia
Continues Interfering' statement:
Russia is using a range of techniques to denigrate Joseph R. Biden Jr., American intelligence
officials said Friday in their first public assessment that Moscow continues to try to
interfere in the 2020 campaign to help President Trump.
At the same time, the officials said China preferred that Mr. Trump be defeated in
November and was weighing whether to take more aggressive action in the election.
But officials briefed on the intelligence said that Russia was the far graver, and more
immediate, threat. While China seeks to gain influence in American politics, its leaders have
not yet decided to wade directly into the presidential contest, however much they may dislike
Mr. Trump, the officials said.
The assessment, included in a
statement released by William R. Evanina, the director of the National
Counterintelligence and Security Center, suggested the intelligence community was treading
carefully, reflecting the political heat generated by previous findings.
The authors emphasize the scaremongering hearsay from "officials briefed on the
intelligence" - i.e. Democratic congress members - about Russia but have nothing to back it
up.
When one reads the
statement by Evanina one finds nothing in it about Russian attempts to interfere in the
U.S. elections. Here is the only 'evidence' that is noted:
For example, pro-Russia Ukrainian parliamentarian Andriy Derkach is spreading claims about
corruption – including through publicizing leaked phone calls – to undermine
former Vice President Biden's candidacy and the Democratic Party. Some Kremlin-linked actors
are also seeking to boost President Trump's candidacy on social media and Russian television.
After a request from Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's personal attorney, a Ukrainian
parliamentarian published Ukrainian
evidence of Biden's very real interference in the Ukraine. Also: Some guest of a Russian TV
show had an opinion. How is either of those two items 'evidence' of Russian interference in
U.S. elections?
The statement then claims: "Ahead of the 2020 U.S. elections, foreign states will continue to use covert and overt
influence measures in their attempts to sway U.S. voters' preferences and perspectives, shift
U.S. policies, increase discord in the United States, and undermine the American people's
confidence in our democratic process."
But how do the 'intelligence' agencies know that foreign states want to "sway preferences",
"increase discord" or "undermine confidence" in elections?
The mainstream view in the U.S. media and government holds that the Kremlin is waging a
long-haul campaign to undermine and destabilize American democracy. Putin wants to see the
United States burn, and contentious elections offer a ready-made opportunity to fan the
flames.
But ascribing motive and intent is a tricky business, because perceived impact is often
mistaken for true intent. [...] Where is the evidence that Russia actually wants to bring
down the liberal world order and watch the United States burn?
Well there is none. And that is why the 'intelligence' agencies do not present any
evidence.
Even the NYT writers have to
admit that there is nothing there:
The release on Friday was short on specifics, ...
and
Intelligence agencies focus their work on the intentions of foreign governments, and steer
clear of assessing if those efforts have had an effect on American voters.
How do 'intelligence' agencies know Russian, Chinese or Iranian 'intentions'. Is there a
secret policy paper by the Russian government that says it should "increase discord" in the
United States? Is there some Chinese think tank report which says that undermining U.S.
people's confidence in their democratic process would be good for China?
If the 'intelligence' people have copies of those papers why not publish them?
Let me guess. The 'intelligence' agencies have nothing, zero, nada. They are just making
wild-ass guesses about 'intentions' of perceived enemies to impress the people who sign off
their budget.
Nowadays that seems to be their main purpose.
Posted by b on August 8, 2020 at 18:08 UTC |
Permalink
It would be interesting to see how many of inhabitants of CHAZ zone, who experinced the "summer of love" will vote for Trump in
Novemebr.
Notable quotes:
"... The land of soy milk and honey was disbanded on July 1 and was duly eulogised by the usual suspects as basically an extended block party. A month on, the NY Times finally got around to sending a reporter to speak to the people who lived and worked in the area before the protestors moved in and produced an admittedly excellent piece of reportage on the situation. ..."
"... The piece, as journalist Michael Tracey observed on Twitter, would have been dismissed as right-wing propaganda just a month ago and shows that this little experiment in anarcho-communism was a million miles away from paradise. ..."
"... The picture painted by the residents is one of gangs of armed thugs running protection rackets and widespread vandalism. The first person mentioned in the piece, a gay man of Middle Eastern extraction named Faizel Khan, reveals that to get to the coffee shop he runs he had to get permission from "gun wielding white men" who at one point barricaded him and all his customers in the store. ..."
"... In his pre-CHOP days, Mr Hearns was a security guard for many years, but after the police vacated the area (their precinct was taken over by protesters and then promptly set on fire) he became part of the "Black Lives Matter Community Patrol". This patrol had locals "pay for their protection." ..."
"... It doesn't sound like they were particularly good at ensuring community cohesion either, considering six people were shot under their jurisdiction and two of them died. ..."
"... Observers also noted that rather than being a multi-racial melting pot of equality, the CHOP turned into a "white occupation" as the numbers of Antifa activists began to outnumber the BLM protesters. They also established "black only segregated areas" within the CHOP, making it frightening similar to the Confederacy, which also, coincidentally, seceded from the union. ..."
"... The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT. ..."
Following
an investigative report the paper of record has revealed that business owners who were stuck in the Capitol Hill Organised Protest
'aren't so sure about abolishing the police'. No sh*t Sherlock.
The New York Times has done something distinctly out of character and actually produced some decent journalism. Taking a break
from getting editors sacked for allowing Republican senators to write op-eds and forcing out the few remaining sane people on their
staff for not quaffing the identity politics Cool-Aid enthusiastically enough, they dispatched a reporter to
Seattle to pick through the remnants
of the CHOP , a month after it closed.
The Capital Hill Organised Protest, formally CHAZ (Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone), was the area of the city that, for 23 glorious
days, declared independence from the United States. A bunch of Black Lives Matter and Antifa radicals hoofed out the police and decided
to try and run the area as some sort of Marxist utopia. What they actually established was a gang run hellhole that made the Wild
West look like Switzerland.
It wasn't described as such at the time of course. Seattle's mayor said the city was in for a "summer of love"
and most
of the left-wing press would have had you believe that it was pretty much a hippy commune full of free vegan food and urban collective
farms.
The land of soy milk and honey was disbanded on July 1 and was duly eulogised by the usual suspects as basically an extended block
party. A month on, the NY Times finally got around to sending a reporter to speak to the people who lived and worked in the area
before the protestors moved in and produced an admittedly excellent piece of reportage on the situation. It was headlined,
"Abolish
the Police? Those Who Survived the Chaos in Seattle Aren't So Sure." The piece, as journalist Michael Tracey observed on Twitter,
would have been dismissed as right-wing propaganda just a month ago and shows that this little experiment in anarcho-communism was
a million miles away from paradise.
To say they "aren't sure" has to be the understatement of the year. The picture painted by the residents is one of gangs
of armed thugs running protection rackets and widespread vandalism. The first person mentioned in the piece, a gay man of Middle
Eastern extraction named Faizel Khan, reveals that to get to the coffee shop he runs he had to get permission from "gun wielding
white men" who at one point barricaded him and all his customers in the store.
Mr Khan's experiences during these three and a bit weeks of lawlessness were so horrendous that he and a host of other small business
owners, described as "lonely voices in progressive areas," are suing Seattle after the local police force refused to respond
to their calls for the duration of the CHOP. And as the litany of horrors they were subjected to is laid bare in the NY Times article,
it is not hard to see why.
Another character we meet in this saga is Rick Hearns. In his pre-CHOP days, Mr Hearns was a security guard for many years, but
after the police vacated the area (their precinct was taken over by protesters and then promptly set on fire) he became part of the
"Black Lives Matter Community Patrol". This patrol had locals "pay for their protection." Now what other organisation does
that remind you of? If you can't think of it, may I suggest you watch virtually any Martin Scorsese movie and I think you'll get
the picture.
It doesn't sound like they were particularly good at ensuring community cohesion either, considering
six people were shot
under their jurisdiction and two of them died. Interestingly, since they were replacing the "institutionally racist"
police force, (run by a black woman incidentally but why let facts spoil it) one of the victims was a black teenager.
Observers also noted that rather than being a multi-racial melting pot of equality, the CHOP turned into a "white occupation"
as the numbers of Antifa activists began to outnumber the BLM protesters. They also established "black only segregated areas"
within the CHOP, making it frightening similar to the Confederacy, which also, coincidentally, seceded from the union. Oh, and
they had a Warlord, Raz from CHAZ, too, just as an icing on the cake.
Quite why these so-called activists felt the need to see how anarchy turns out in a world where Somaila exists is beyond me, and
frankly any sane person who is even vaguely aware of history. I'm sure if they'd managed to get hold of the port it wouldn't have
been long before they decided to give piracy on the high seas a try, but alas they didn't have the time.
This just makes the tone of the NY Times piece all the more baffling. While it does chart the horrors of the zone well, framing
the notion of "abolishing the police" as anything other than irredeemably stupid is frankly ridiculous. I suppose they do
deserve praise for finally telling the story, but in no way does it make up for the way they have fomented and given succour to the
absurd and dangerous ideas that gave rise to the CHOP for so long.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
Guy Birchall, British journalist covering current affairs, politics and free speech issues. Recently published in The Sun and
Spiked Online. Follow him on Twitter @guybirchall 7 Aug, 2020 22:11
Get short URL
CHAZ/CHOP protesters remove man for bothering them, June 13, 2020
WASHINGTON -- Russia is using a range of techniques to denigrate Joseph R. Biden Jr.,
American intelligence officials said Friday in their first public assessment that Moscow
continues to try to interfere in the 2020 campaign to help President Trump.
At the same time, the officials said China preferred that Mr. Trump be defeated in November
and was weighing whether to take more aggressive action in the election.
But officials briefed on the intelligence said that Russia was the far graver, and more
immediate, threat. While China seeks to gain influence in American politics, its leaders have
not yet decided to wade directly into the presidential contest, however much they may dislike
Mr. Trump, the officials said.
The assessment, included in a
statement released by William R. Evanina, the director of the National Counterintelligence
and Security Center, suggested the intelligence community was treading carefully, reflecting
the political heat generated by previous findings.
The White House has
objected in the past to conclusions that Moscow is working to help Mr. Trump, and Democrats
on Capitol Hill have expressed growing concern that the intelligence agencies are not being
forthright enough about Russia's preference for him and that the agencies are introducing
China's anti-Trump stance to balance the scales.
The assessment appeared to draw a distinction between what it called the "range of measures"
being deployed by Moscow to influence the election and its conclusion that China prefers that
Mr. Trump be defeated.
It cited efforts coming out of pro-Russia forces in Ukraine to damage Mr. Biden and
Kremlin-linked figures who "are also seeking to boost President Trump's candidacy on social
media and Russian television."
China, it said, has so far signaled its position mostly through increased public criticism
of the administration's tough line on China on a variety of fronts.
An American official briefed on the intelligence said it was wrong to equate the two
countries. Russia, the official said, is a tornado, capable of inflicting damage on American
democracy now. China is more like climate change, the official said: The threat is real and
grave, but more long term.
Democratic lawmakers made the same point about the report, which also found that Iran was
seeking "to undermine U.S. democratic institutions, President Trump, and to divide the country"
ahead of the general election.
"Unfortunately, today's statement still treats three actors of differing intent and
capability as equal threats to our democratic elections," Speaker Nancy Pelosi and
Representative Adam B. Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said in a
joint statement.
Asked about the report during a news conference on Friday night at his golf club in New
Jersey, Mr. Trump said, "The last person Russia wants to see in office is Donald Trump because
nobody's been tougher on Russia than I have." He said that if Mr. Biden won the presidency,
"China would own our country."
Aides and allies of Mr. Biden assailed Mr. Trump, saying that he had repeatedly sided with
President Vladimir V. Putin on whether Russia had intervened to help him in 2016 and that he
had been impeached by the House for trying to pressure Ukraine into helping him undercut Mr.
Biden.
"Donald Trump has publicly and repeatedly invited, emboldened and even tried to coerce
foreign interference in American elections," said Tony Blinken, a senior adviser to the former
vice president.
It is not clear how much China is doing to interfere directly in the presidential election.
Intelligence officials have briefed Congress in recent days that much of Beijing's focus is on
state and local races. But Mr. Evanina's statement on Friday suggested China was on weighing an
increased effort.
"Although China will continue to weigh the risks and benefits of aggressive action, its
public rhetoric over the past few months has grown increasingly critical of the current
administration's Covid-19 response, closure of China's Houston Consulate and actions on other
issues," Mr. Evanina said.
Mr. Evanina pointed to growing tensions over territorial claims in the South China Sea, Hong
Kong autonomy, the TikTok app and other issues. China, officials have said, has also tried to
collect information on the presidential campaigns, as it has in previous contests.
The release on Friday was short on specifics, but that was largely because the intelligence
community is intent on trying to protect its sources of information, said Senator Angus King,
the Maine independent who caucuses with the Democrats.
"The director has basically put the American people on notice that Russia in particular,
also China and Iran, are going to be trying to meddle in this election and undermine our
democratic system," said Mr. King, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Intelligence officials said there was no way to avoid political criticism when releasing
information about the election. An official with the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence said that the goal was not to rank order threats and that Russia, China and Iran
all pose a danger to the election.
Fighting over the intelligence reports, the official said, only benefits adversaries trying
to sow divisions.
While both Beijing and Moscow have a preference, the Chinese and Russian influence campaigns
are very different, officials said.
Outside of a few scattered examples, it is hard to find much evidence of intensifying
Chinese influence efforts that could have a national effect.
Much of what China is doing currently amounts to using its economic might to influence local
politics, officials said. But that is hardly new. Beijing is also using a variety of means to
push back on various Trump administration policies, including tariffs and bans on Chinese tech
companies, but those efforts are not covert and it is unclear if they would have an effect on
presidential politics.
Russia, but not China, is trying to "actively influence" the outcome of the 2020 election,
said the American official briefed on the underlying intelligence.
"The fact that adversaries like China or Iran don't like an American president's policies is
normal fare," said Jeremy Bash, a former Obama administration official. "What's abnormal,
disturbing and dangerous is that an adversary like Russia is actively trying to get Trump
re-elected."
Russia tried to use influence campaigns during 2018 midterm voting to try to sway public
opinion, but it did not successfully tamper with voting infrastructure.
Mr. Evanina said it would be difficult for adversarial countries to try to manipulate voting
results on a large scale. But nevertheless, the countries could try to interfere in the voting
process or take steps aimed at "calling into question the validity of the election
results."
The new release comes on the heels of congressional briefings that have alarmed lawmakers,
particularly Democrats. Those briefings have described a stepped-up Chinese pressure campaign,
as well as efforts by Moscow to paint Mr. Biden as corrupt.
"Ahead of the 2020 U.S. elections, foreign states will continue to use covert and overt
influence measures in their attempts to sway U.S. voters' preferences and perspectives, shift
U.S. policies, increase discord in the United States, and undermine the American people's
confidence in our democratic process," Mr. Evanina said in a statement.
The statement called out Andriy Derkach, a pro-Russia member of Ukraine's Parliament who has
been involved in releasing information about Mr. Biden. Intelligence officials said he had ties
to Russian intelligence.
Intelligence officials have briefed Congress in recent weeks on details of the Russian
efforts to tarnish Mr. Biden as corrupt, prompting
senior Democrats to request more information.
A Senate committee led by Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, has been leading an
investigation of Mr. Biden's son Hunter Biden and his work for Burisma, a Ukrainian energy
firm. Some intelligence officials have said that a witness the committee was seeking to call
was a witting or unwitting agent of Russian disinformation.
Democrats had pushed intelligence officials to release more information to the public,
arguing that only a broad declassification of the foreign interference attempts can inoculate
voters against attempts by Russia, China or other countries to try to influence voting.
In
meetings on Capitol Hill , Mr. Evanina and other intelligence officials have expanded their
warnings beyond Russia and have included China and Iran, as well. This year, the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence put Mr. Evanina in charge of election security briefings to
Congress and the campaigns.
Intelligence and other officials in recent days have been stepping up their releases
of information about foreign interference efforts, and the State
Department has sent texts to cellphones around the world advertising a $10 million reward
for information on would-be election hackers.
How effective China's campaign or Russia's efforts to smear Mr. Biden as corrupt have been
is not clear. Intelligence agencies focus their work on the intentions of foreign governments,
and steer clear of assessing if those efforts have had an effect on American voters.
The first reactions from Capitol Hill to the release of the assessment were positive. A
joint statement by the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee
praised it, and asked colleagues to refrain from politicizing Mr. Evanina's statement.
Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, the acting Republican chairman of the committee, and Senator
Mark Warner of Virginia, the Democratic vice chairman, said they hoped Mr. Evanina continued to
make more information available to the public. But they praised him for responding to calls for
more information.
"Evanina's statement highlights some of the serious and ongoing threats to our election from
China, Russia, and Iran," the two men's joint statement said. "Everyone -- from the voting
public, local officials, and members of Congress -- needs to be aware of these threats."
Maggie Haberman contributed reporting from New York.
"... Greenwald went on, after that, to discuss other key appointees by Nancy Pelosi who are almost as important as Adam Smith is, in shaping the Government's military budget. They're all corrupt. ..."
"... Numerous polls (for examples, this and this ) show that American voters, except for the minority of them that are Republican, want "bipartisan" government; but the reality in America is that this country actually already does have that: the U.S. Government is actually bipartisanly corrupt, and bipartisan evil. In fact, it's almost unanimous, it is so bipartisan, in reality. ..."
"... That's the way America's Government actually functions, especially in the congressional votes that the 'news'-media don't publicize. However, since it lies so much, and its media (controlled also by its billionaires) do likewise, and since they cover-up instead of expose the deepest rot, the public don't even know this. They don't know the reality. They don't know how corrupt and evil their Government actually is. They just vote and pay taxes. That's the extent to which they actually 'participate' in 'their' Government. They tragically don't know the reality. It's hidden from them. It is censored-out, by the editors, producers, and other management, of the billionaires' 'news'-media. These are the truths that can't pass through those executives' filters. These are the truths that get filtered-out, instead of reported. No democracy can function this way -- and, of course, none does. ..."
"... The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society , and we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings . ..."
"... But we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding it's fear of influence, on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections , on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations. It's preparations are concealed, not published. It's mistakes are buried, not headlined. It's dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned. No rumor is printed. No secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War in short with a wartime discipline, no democracy would ever hope or wish to match. ..."
The great investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald gave an hour-long lecture on how
America's billionaires control the U.S. Government, and here is an edited summary of its
opening twenty minutes, with key quotations and assertions from its opening -- and then its
broader context will be discussed briefly:
2:45 : There is "this huge cleavage between how members of Congress present themselves,
their imagery and rhetoric and branding, what they present to the voters, on the one hand, and
the reality of what they do in the bowels of Congress and the underbelly of Congressional
proceedings, on the other. Most of the constituents back in their home districts have no idea
what it is that the people they've voted for have been doing, and this gap between belief and
reality is enormous."
Four crucial military-budget amendments were debated in the House just now, as follows:
to block Trump from withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.
to block Trump from withdrawing 10,000 troops from Germany
to limit U.S. assistance to the Sauds' bombing of Yemen
to require Trump to explain why he wants to withdraw from the Intermediate Nuclear
Forces Treaty
On all four issues, the pro-imperialist position prevailed in nearly unanimous votes -
overwhelming in both Parties. Dick Cheney's daughter, Republican Liz Cheney, dominated the
debates, though the House of Representatives is now led by Democrats, not Republicans.
Greenwald (citing other investigators) documents that the U.S. news-media are in the
business of deceiving the voters to believe that there are fundamental differences between the
Parties. "The extent to which they clash is wildly exaggerated" by the press (in order to pump
up the percentages of Americans who vote, so as to maintain, both domestically and
internationally, the lie that America is a democracy -- actually represents the interests of
the voters).
16:00 : The Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee -- which writes the nearly $750B
annual Pentagon budget -- is the veteran (23 years) House Democrat Adam Smith of Boeing's
Washington State.
"The majority of his district are people of color." He's "clearly a pro-war hawk" a
consistent neoconservative, voted to invade Iraq and all the rest.
"This is whom Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats have chosen to head the House Armed
Services Committee -- someone with this record."
He is "the single most influential member of Congress when it comes to shaping military
spending."
He was primaried by a progressive Democrat, and the "defense industry opened up their
coffers" and enabled Adam Smith to defeat the challenger.
That's the opening.
Greenwald went on, after that, to discuss other key appointees by Nancy Pelosi who are
almost as important as Adam Smith is, in shaping the Government's military budget. They're all
corrupt. And then he went, at further length, to describe the methods of deceiving the voters,
such as how these very same Democrats who are actually agents of the billionaires who own the
'defense' contractors and the 'news' media etc., campaign for Democrats' votes by emphasizing
how evil the Republican Party is on the issues that Democratic Party voters care far more about
than they do about America's destructions of Iraq and Syria and Libya and Honduras and Ukraine,
and imposing crushing economic blockades (sanctions) against the residents in Iran, Venezuela
and many other lands. Democratic Party voters care lots about the injustices and the sufferings
of American Blacks and other minorities, and of poor American women, etc., but are satisfied to
vote for Senators and Representatives who actually represent 'defense' contractors and other
profoundly corrupt corporations, instead of represent their own voters. This is how the most
corrupt people in politics become re-elected, time and again -- by deceived voters. And -- as
those nearly unanimous committee votes display -- almost every member of the U.S. Congress is
profoundly corrupt.
Furthermore: Adam Smith's opponent in the 2018 Democratic Party primary was Sarah Smith (no
relation) and she tried to argue against Adam Smith's neoconservative voting-record, but
the press-coverage she received in her congressional district ignored that, in order to
keep those voters in the dark about the key reality. Whereas Sarah Smith received some coverage
from Greenwald and other reporters at The Intercept who mentioned that "Sarah Smith
mounted her challenge largely in opposition to what she cast as his hawkish foreign policy
approach," and that she "routinely brought up his hawkish foreign policy views and campaign
donations from defense contractors as central issues in the campaign," only very few of the
voters in that district followed such national news-media, far less knew that Adam Smith was in
the pocket of 'defense' billionaires. And, so, the Pentagon's big weapons-making firms defeated
a progressive who would, if elected, have helped to re-orient federal spending away from
selling bombs to be used by the Sauds to destroy Yemen, and instead toward providing better
education and employment-prospects to Black, brown and other people, and to the poor, and
everybody, in that congressional district, and all others. Moreover, since Adam Smith had a
fairly good voting-record on the types of issues that Blacks and other minorities consider more
important and more relevant than such things as his having voted for Bush to invade Iraq, Sarah
Smith really had no other practical option than to criticize him regarding his hawkish
voting-record, which that district's voters barely even cared about. The billionaires actually
had Sarah Smith trapped (just like, on a national level, they had Bernie Sanders trapped).
Of course, Greenwald's audience is clearly Democratic Party voters, in order to inform them
of how deceitful their Party is. However, the Republican Party operates in exactly the same
way, though using different deceptions, because Republican Party voters have very different
priorities than Democratic Party voters do, and so they ignore other types of deceptions and
atrocities.
Numerous polls (for examples,
this and
this ) show that American voters, except for the minority of them that are Republican, want
"bipartisan" government; but the reality in America is that this country actually already does
have that: the U.S. Government is actually bipartisanly corrupt, and bipartisan evil. In
fact, it's almost unanimous, it is so bipartisan, in reality.
That's the way America's
Government actually functions, especially in the congressional votes that the 'news'-media
don't publicize. However, since it lies so much, and its media (controlled also by its
billionaires) do likewise, and since they cover-up instead of expose the deepest rot, the
public don't even know this. They don't know the reality. They don't know how corrupt and evil
their Government actually is. They just vote and pay taxes. That's the extent to which they
actually 'participate' in 'their' Government. They tragically don't know the reality. It's
hidden from them. It is censored-out, by the editors, producers, and other management, of the
billionaires' 'news'-media. These are the truths that can't pass through those executives'
filters. These are the truths that get filtered-out, instead of reported. No democracy can
function this way -- and, of course, none does.
Patmos , 8 hours ago
Eisenhower originally called it the Military Industrial Congressional Complex.
Was probably still when Congress maybe had a few slivers of integrity though.
As McCain's wife said, they all knew about Epstein.
Alice-the-dog , 2 hours ago
And now we suffer the Medical Industrial Complex on top of it.
Question_Mark , 1 hour ago
Klaus Schwab, UN/World Economic Forum - power plant "cyberattack" (advance video to 6:42
to skip intro):
please watch video at least from minute 6:42 at least for a few minutes to get context,
consider its contents, and comment:
Vot3 for trump but don't waste too much energy on the elections. All Trump can do is buy
us time.
Their plan has been in the works for over a century.
1) financial collapse with central banking.
2) social collapse with cultural marxism
3) government collapse with corrupt pedophile politicians.
EndOfDayExit , 7 hours ago
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson
Humans are just not wired for eternal vigilance. Sheeple want to graze and don't want to
think.
JGResearch , 8 hours ago
Money is just the tool, it goes much deeper:
The Truth, when you finally chase it down, is almost always far
worse than your darkest visions and fears.'
– Hunter S. Thompson, Kingdom of Fear
'The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are
not behind the scenes' *
- Benjamin Disraeli, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
This information helps understand the shift to the bias we are witnessing at The PBS
Newshour and the MSM. PBS has always taken their marching orders from the Council on Foreign
Relations.
Judy Woodruff, and Jim
Lehrer (journalist, former anchor for PBS ) is a member of the
Council on Foreign Relations. John McCain (United States Republican Senator
from Arizona , 2008
Republican Party nominee for the Presidency), William F. Buckley, Jr
(commentator, publisher, founder of the National Review ), Jeffery E Epstein
(financier)
The Council on Foreign Relations has historical control both the Democratic establishment
and the Republican establishment until President Trump came along.
Until then they did not care who won the presidency because they control both parties at
the top.
FYI: Hardly one person in 1000 ever heard of the Council on Foreign Relations ( CFR ).
Until Trump both Republicans and Democrats control by the Eastern Establishment.There
operational front was the Council on Foreign Relations. Historically they did not care who
one the election since they controlled both parties from the top.
The CFR has only 3000 members yet they control over three-quarters of the nation's wealth.
The CFR runs the State Department and the CIA. The CFR has placed 100 CFR members in every
Presidential Administration and cabinet since Woodrow Wilson. They work together to misinform
the President to act in the best interest of the CFR not the best interest of the American
People.
At least five Presidents (Eisenhower, Ford, Carter, Bush, and Clinton) have been members
of the CFR. The CFR has packed every Supreme court with CFR insiders.
Three CFR members (Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Sandra Day O'Connor) sit on
the supreme court. The CFR's British Counterpart is the Royal Institute of International
Affairs. The members of these groups profit by creating tension and hate. Their targets
include British and American citizens.
The CFR/RIIA method of operation is simple -- they control public opinion. They keep the
identity of their group secret. They learn the likes and dislikes of influential people. They
surround and manipulate them into acting in the best interest of the CFR/RIIA.
KuriousKat , 8 hours ago
there are 550 of them in the US..just boggles the mind they have us at each others throat
instead of theirs.
jmNZ , 3 hours ago
This is why America's only hope is to vote for Ron Paul.
x_Maurizio , 2 hours ago
Let me understand how a system, which is already proven being disfunctional, should
suddenly produce a positive result. That's craziness: to repeate the same action, with the
conviction it will give a different result.
If you would say: "The only hope is NOT TO TAKE PART TO THE FARCE" (so not to vote) I'd
understand.
But vot for that, instead of this.... what didn't you understand?
Voice-of-Reason , 6 hours ago
The very fact that we have billionaires who amass so much wealth that they can own our
Republic is the problem.
Eastern Whale , 8 hours ago
all the names mentioned in this article is rotten to the core
MartinG , 5 hours ago
Tell me again how democracy is the greatest form of government. What other profession lets
clueless idiots decide who runs the business.
Xena fobe , 4 hours ago
It isn't the fault of democracy. It's more the fault of voters.
quikwit , 3 hours ago
I'd pick the "clueless idiots" over an iron-fisted evil genius every time.
_triplesix_ , 8 hours ago
Am I the only one who noticed that Eric Zuesse capitalized the word "black" every time he
used it?
F**k you, Eric, you Marxist trash.
BTCtroll , 7 hours ago
Confirmed. Blacks are apparently a proper noun despite being referred to as simply a
color. In reality, no one cares. Ask anyone, they don't care expert black lies matter.
freedommusic , 4 hours ago
The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society , and we are as a people,
inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret
proceedings .
And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be
seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official
censorship and concealment.
Our way of life is under attack.
But we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies
primarily on covert means for expanding it's fear of influence, on infiltration instead of
invasion, on subversion instead of elections , on intimidation instead of free choice, on
guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast
human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine
that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political
operations. It's preparations are concealed, not published. It's mistakes are buried, not
headlined. It's dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned. No
rumor is printed. No secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War in short with a wartime
discipline, no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
...I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country
to re-examine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the
present danger, and to heed the duty of self restraint, which that danger imposes upon us
all.
It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second
obligation and obligation which I share, and that is our obligation to inform and alert the
American people, to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need and
understand them as well, the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program, and the
choices that we face.
I am not asking your newspapers to support an administration, but I am asking your help
in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people, for I have complete
confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens, whenever they are fully
informed.
... that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment. The only business in
America specifically protected by the constitution, not primarily to amuse and entertain,
not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply give the public what it
wants, but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to
indicate our crises, and our choices, to lead, mold, educate, and sometimes even anger,
public opinion.
By
Caitlin
Johnstone
, an independent journalist based in Melbourne, Australia. Her website is
here
and
you can follow her on Twitter
@caitoz
In the American corporatist system, where wealthy elites control the elected government through lobbyists, corporate media is
state media, promoting narratives that help maintain the corporate-approved status quo.
The New York Times
published an astonishingly horrible
article
the
other day titled
"Latin America Is Facing a 'Decline of Democracy' Under the Pandemic"
accusing
governments like Venezuela and Nicaragua of exploiting Covid-19 to quash opposition and oppress democracy.
The article sources its jarringly propagandistic claims in multiple US government-funded narrative management operations like
the
Wilson Center
and the National Endowment for
Democracy
-sponsored
Freedom
House
, the
extensively
plutocrat-funded Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, and the United States Naval Academy.
The crown jewel of this piece of State Department stenography reads as follows:
"Adding to these challenges, democracy in Latin America has also lost a champion in the
United States, which had played an important role in promoting democracy after the end of the Cold War by financing good
governance programs and calling out authoritarian abuses."
The fact that America's most widely regarded newspaper feels perfectly comfortable making such a spectacularly in-your-face
lie on behalf of the US government tells you everything you need to know about what the mass media in America really are and
what they do.
The United States has never at any time been a champion of democracy in Latin America, before or since the Cold War. It has
intervened hundreds of
times
in
the continent's affairs throughout history, with everything from murderous corporate
colonialism
to deadly
CIA regime-change
operations
to overt
military
invasions
.
It is currently trying to orchestrate a
coup
in
Venezuela after
failing
to
stage one during the Bush administration, it's pushing regime
change
in
Nicaragua, and
The New York Times
itself
admitted
this
year that it was wrong to promote the false US government
narrative
of
electoral shenanigans in Bolivia's presidential race last year, a narrative which
facilitated
a bloody
fascist
coup
.
This is propaganda. There is no other word for it. And yet the only time Western politicians and news reporters use that word
is to talk about nations like Russia and China.
Why is propaganda used in an ostensibly free democracy with an ostensibly free media? Why are its news media outlets so
consistently in alignment with every foreign policy objective of US government agencies, no matter how destructive and
inexcusable? If the media and the government are two separate institutions, why do they so consistently function as though
they are not separate?
Well, that's easy. It's because they aren't separate. The only thing keeping this from being seen is the fact that America's
real government isn't located where people think it is.
In a corporatist system of government, where no hard lines are drawn between corporate/financial power and state power,
corporate media is state media. Since bribery is legal in the US political
system
in
the form of corporate lobbying and campaign donations, America's elected government is controlled by wealthy elites who have
money to burn and who benefit from maintaining a specific status quo arrangement.
The fact that this same plutocratic class
also
owns
America's media, which is now so consolidated that it's almost entirely run by just six
corporations
,
means that the people who run the government also run the media. This allows America's true rulers to set up a system which
promotes
narratives
that
are favorable to their desired status quo.
Which means that the US has state propaganda. They just don't call it that themselves.
Strip away the phony two-handed sock puppet show of US electoral politics and look at how power actually moves in that
country, and you just see one more tyrannical regime which propagandizes its citizens, brutally cracks down on
protesters
, deliberately
keeps its populace
impoverished
so
they don't get powerful enough to change things, and attacks any nation which dares to
disobey
its
dictates.
Beneath the thin layer of narrative overlay about freedom and democracy, the US is just one more despotic, bloodthirsty
empire. It's no better than any of the other despotic, bloodthirsty empires throughout history. It just has good PR.
Plutocrats not only exert control over America's media and politics, they also form alliances with the secretive government
agencies whose operators remain amid the comings and goings of the official elected government. We see examples of this in the
way new-money tech plutocrats like
Jeff
Bezos
,
Peter
Thiel
and
Pierre
Omidyar
have direct relationships with the CIA and its proxies.
We also see it in the sexual blackmail
operation
which
was facilitated by the late Jeffrey Epstein in connection with billionaire Leslie Wexner and Israeli
intelligence
,
along with potentially the
FBI
and/or other
US intelligence
agencies
.
Today the internet is
abuzz
as newly
unsealed court
documents
relating
to Epstein and
his
co-conspirator Ghislaine
Maxwell reveal witness testimony regarding underage sex trafficking, with such high-profile names appearing in the documents
as
Alan
Dershowitz
,
Bill
Clinton
and
Prince
Andrew
.
The Overton window of acceptable political discourse has been
shrunk
into
such a narrow spectrum of debate that talking about even well-known and extensively documented facts involving the real nature
of America's government and media will get you laughingly dismissed as a conspiracy theorist, which is itself a symptom of
tight narrative control by a ruling class which much prefers Americans thinking they live in a free democracy whose government
they control with their votes.
In the old days you used to be able to tell who your rulers were because they'd sit on thrones and wear golden crowns and make
you bow before them. Human consciousness eventually evolved beyond the acceptability of such brazen indignities, so it became
necessary for rulers to take on more of a background role while the citizenry clap and cheer for the illusory puppet show of
electoral politics.
But the kings are still among us, just as cruel and tyrannical as ever. They've just figured out how to mask their tyranny
behind the facade of freedom.
But 2020 has been a year of
revelations
,
a trend which seems likely to continue
accelerating
.
Truth cannot stay hidden forever.
Think your friends would be
interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
"... The U.S. has spent a century or more trying to install a U.S.-friendly government in Moscow. Following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the U.S. sent neoliberal economists to loot the country as the Clinton administration, and later the Obama administration, placed NATO troops and armaments on the Russian border after a negotiated agreement not to do so . Subsequent claims of realpolitik are cover for a reckless disregard for geopolitical consequences. ..."
"... The paradox of American liberalism, articulated when feminist icon and CIA asset Gloria Steinem described the CIA as ' liberal, nonviolent and honorable ,' is that educated, well-dressed, bourgeois functionaries have used the (largely manufactured) threat of foreign subversion to install right-wing nationalists subservient to American business interests at every opportunity. ..."
"... To the point made by Christopher Simpson , the CIA could have achieved better results had it not employed former Nazi officers, begging the question of why it chose to do so? ..."
"... Russiagate is the nationalist party line in the American fight against communism, without the communism. Charges of treason have been lodged every time that military budgets have come under attack since 1945. In 1958 the senior leadership of the Air Force was charging the other branches of the military with treason for doubting its utterly fantastical (and later disproven) estimate of Soviet ICBMs. Treason is good for business. ..."
"... Shortly after WWII ended, the CIA employed hundreds of former Nazi military officers, including former Gestapo and SS officers responsible for murdering tens and hundreds of thousands of human beings , to run a spy operation known as the Gehlen Organization from Berlin, Germany. Given its central role in assessing the military intentions and capabilities of the Soviet Union, the Gehlen Organization was more likely than not responsible for the CIA's overstatement of Soviet nuclear capabilities in the 1950s used to support the U.S. nuclear weapons program. Former Nazis were also integrated into CIA efforts to install right wing governments around the world. ..."
"... Under the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act passed by Congress in 1998, the CIA was made to partially disclose its affiliation with, and employment of, former Nazis. In contrast to the ' Operation Paperclip ' thesis that it was Nazi scientists who were brought to the U.S. to labor as scientists, the Gehlen Organization and CIC employed known war criminals in political roles. Klaus Barbie, the 'Butcher of Lyon,' was employed by the CIC, and claims to have played a role in the murder of Che Guevara . Wernher von Braun, one of the Operation Paperclip 'scientists,' worked in a Nazi concentration camp as tens of thousands of human beings were murdered. ..."
"... To understand the political space that military production came to occupy, from 1948 onward the U.S. military became a well-funded bureaucracy where charges of treason were regularly traded between the branches. Internecine battles for funding and strategic dominance were (and are) regularly fought. The tactic that this bureaucracy -- the 'military industrial complex,' adopted was to exaggerate foreign threats in a contest for bureaucratic dominance. The nuclear arms race was made a self-fulfilling prophecy. As the U.S. produced world-ending weapons non-stop for decades on end, the Soviets responded in kind. ..."
"... Long story short, the CIA employed hundreds of former Nazi officers who had the ideological predisposition and economic incentive to mis-perceive Soviet intentions and misstate Soviet capabilities to fuel the Cold War. ..."
"... the U.S. had indicated its intention to use nuclear weapons in a first strike -- and had demonstrated the intention by placing Jupiter missiles in Italy, nothing that the U.S. offered during the Missile Crisis could be taken in good faith. ..."
"... Following the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, the Cold War entered a new phase. Cold War logic was repurposed to support the oxymoronic 'humanitarian wars' -- liberating people by bombing them. In 1995 'Russian meddling' meant the Clinton administration rigging the election of Boris Yeltsin in the Russian presidential election. Mr. Clinton then unilaterally reneged on the American agreement to keep NATO from Russia's border when former Baltic states were brought under NATO's control . ..."
"... The Obama administration's 2014 incitement in Ukraine , by way of fostering and supporting the Maidan uprising and the ousting of Ukraine's democratically elected President, Viktor Yanukovych, ties to the U.S. strategy of containing and overthrowing the Soviet (Russian) government that was first codified by the National Security Council (NSC) in 1945. The NSC's directives can be found here and here . The economic and military annexation of Ukraine by the U.S. (NATO didn't exist in 1945) comes under NSC10/2 . The alliance between the CIA and Ukrainian fascists ties to directive NSC20 , the plan to sponsor Ukrainian-affiliated former Nazis in order to install them in the Kremlin to replace the Soviet government. This was part of the CIA's rationale for putting Ukrainian-affiliated former Nazis on its payroll in 1948. ..."
"... That Russiagate is the continuation of a scheme launched in 1945 by the National Security Council, to be engineered by the CIA with help from former Nazi officers in its employ, speaks volumes about the Cold War frame from which it emerges ..."
"... Its near instantaneous adoption by bourgeois liberals demonstrates the class basis of the right-wing nationalism it supports. That liberals appear to perceive themselves as defenders 'democracy' within a trajectory laid out by unelected military leaders more than seven decades earlier is testament to the power of historical ignorance tied to nationalist fervor. Were the former Gestapo and SS officers employed by the CIA 'our Nazis?' ..."
"... Furthermore, are liberals really comfortable bringing fascists with direct historical ties to the Third Reich to power in Ukraine? And while there are no good choices in the upcoming U.S. election, the guy who liberals want to bring to power is lead architect of this move. ..."
The political success of Russiagate lies in the vanishing of American history in favor of a
façade of liberal virtue. Posed as a response to the election of Donald Trump, a
straight line can be drawn from efforts to undermine the decommissioning of the American war
economy in 1946 to the CIA's alliance with Ukrainian fascists in 2014. In 1945 the NSC
(National Security Council) issued a series of directives that gave logic and direction to the
CIA's actions during the Cold War. That these persist despite the 'fall of communism' suggests
that it was always just a placeholder in the pursuit of other objectives.
The first Cold War was an imperial business enterprise to keep the Generals, bureaucrats,
and war materiel suppliers in power and their bank accounts flush after WWII. Likewise, the
American side of the nuclear arms race left former
Gestapo and SS officers employed by the CIA to put their paranoid fantasies forward as
assessments of Russian military capabilities. Why, of all people, would former Nazi officers be
put in charge military intelligence if accurate assessments were the goal? The Nazis hated the
Soviets more than the Americans did.
The ideological binaries of Russiagate -- for or against Donald Trump, for or against
neoliberal, petrostate Russia, define the boundaries of acceptable discourse to the benefit of
deeply nefarious interests. The U.S. has spent a century or more
trying to install a U.S.-friendly government in Moscow. Following the dissolution of the USSR
in 1991, the U.S. sent neoliberal economists to
loot the country as the Clinton administration, and later the Obama administration, placed
NATO troops and armaments on the Russian border after a
negotiated agreement not to do so . Subsequent claims of realpolitik are cover for a
reckless disregard for geopolitical consequences.
The paradox of American liberalism, articulated when feminist icon and CIA asset Gloria
Steinem described the CIA as ' liberal,
nonviolent and honorable ,' is that educated, well-dressed, bourgeois functionaries have
used the (largely manufactured) threat of foreign subversion to install right-wing nationalists
subservient to American business interests at every opportunity. Furthermore, Steinem's
aggressive ignorance of the actual history of the CIA illustrates the liberal propensity to
conflate bourgeois dress and attitude with an imagined
gentility . To the
point made by Christopher Simpson , the CIA could have achieved better results had it not
employed former Nazi officers, begging the question of why it chose to do so?
On the American left, Russiagate is treated as a case of bad reporting, of official outlets
for government propaganda serially reporting facts and events that were subsequently disproved.
However, some fair portion of the American bourgeois, the PMC that acts in supporting roles for
capital, believes every word of it. Russiagate is the nationalist party line in the American
fight against communism, without the communism. Charges of treason have been lodged every time
that military budgets have come under attack since 1945. In 1958 the senior leadership of the
Air Force was charging the other branches of the military with treason for doubting its utterly
fantastical (and later disproven) estimate of Soviet ICBMs. Treason is good for business.
Shortly after WWII ended, the CIA employed hundreds of former Nazi military officers,
including former
Gestapo and SS officers responsible for murdering tens and hundreds of thousands of human
beings , to run a spy operation known as the Gehlen Organization from Berlin,
Germany. Given its central role in assessing the military intentions and capabilities of the
Soviet Union, the Gehlen Organization was more likely than not responsible for the CIA's
overstatement of Soviet nuclear capabilities in the 1950s used to support the U.S. nuclear
weapons program. Former Nazis were also integrated
into CIA efforts to install right wing governments around the world.
By the time that (Senator) John F. Kennedy claimed a U.S. 'missile gap' with the Soviets in
1958, the CIA was providing estimates of Soviet ICBMs (Inter-continental Ballistic Missiles),
that were
wildly inflated -- most likely provided to it by the Gehlen Organization. Once satellite
and U2 reconnaissance estimates became available, the CIA lowered its own to 120 Soviet ICBMs
when the actual number
was four . On the one hand, the Soviets really did have a nuclear weapons program. On the
other, it was a tiny fraction of what was being claimed. Bad reporting, unerringly on the side
of larger military budgets, appears to be the constant.
Under the
Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act passed by Congress in 1998, the CIA was made to partially
disclose its affiliation with, and employment of, former Nazis. In contrast to the '
Operation Paperclip ' thesis that it was Nazi scientists who were brought to the U.S. to
labor as scientists, the Gehlen Organization and CIC employed known war criminals in
political roles. Klaus Barbie, the 'Butcher of Lyon,' was employed by the CIC, and claims to
have played a role in the murder of Che
Guevara . Wernher von Braun, one of the Operation Paperclip 'scientists,' worked in a Nazi
concentration camp as tens of thousands of human beings were murdered.
The historical sequence in the U.S. was WWI, the Great Depression, WWII, to an economy that
was heavily dependent on war production. The threatened decommissioning of the war economy in
1946 was first met with an
honest assessment of Soviet intentions -- the Soviets were moving infrastructure back into
Soviet territory as quickly as was practicable, then to the military budget-friendly claim that
they were putting resources in place to invade Europe. The result of the shift was that the
American Generals kept their power and the war industry kept producing materiel and weapons. By
1948 these weapons had come to include atomic bombs.
To understand the political space that military production came to occupy, from 1948 onward
the U.S. military became a well-funded bureaucracy where charges of treason were regularly
traded between the branches. Internecine battles for funding and strategic dominance were (and
are) regularly fought. The tactic that this bureaucracy -- the 'military industrial complex,'
adopted was to exaggerate foreign threats in a contest for bureaucratic dominance. The nuclear
arms race was made a self-fulfilling prophecy. As the U.S. produced world-ending weapons
non-stop for decades on end, the Soviets responded in kind.
What ties the Gehlen Organization to CIA estimates of Soviet nuclear weapons from 1948
– 1958 is 1) the Gehlen Organization was central to the CIA's intelligence operations
vis-à-vis the Soviets, 2) the CIA had limited alternatives to gather information on the
Soviets outside of the Gehlen Organization and 3) the senior leadership of the U.S. military
had
long demonstrated that it approved of exaggerating foreign threats when doing so enhanced
their power and added to their budgets. Long story short, the CIA employed hundreds of former
Nazi officers who had the ideological predisposition and economic incentive to mis-perceive
Soviet intentions and misstate Soviet capabilities to fuel the Cold War.
Where this gets interesting is that American whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg was working for the Rand
Corporation in the late 1950s and early 1960s when estimates of Soviet ICBMs were being put
forward. JFK had run (in 1960) on a platform that included closing the Soviet – U.S. '
missile
gap .' The USAF (U.S. Air Force), charged with delivering nuclear missiles to their
targets, was estimating that the Soviets had 1,000 ICBMs. Mr. Ellsberg, who had limited
security clearance through his employment at Rand, was leaked the known number of Soviet ICBMs.
The Air Force was saying 1,000 Soviet ICBMs when the number confirmed by reconnaissance
satellites was four.
By 1962, the year of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the CIA had shifted nominal control of the
Gehlen Organization to the BND, for whom Gehlen continued to work. Based on ongoing satellite
reconnaissance data, the CIA was busy lowering its estimates of Soviet nuclear capabilities.
Benjamin Schwarz, writing
for The Atlantic in 2013, provided an account, apparently informed by the CIA's lowered
estimates, where he placed the whole of the Soviet nuclear weapons program (in 1962) at roughly
one-ninth the size of the U.S. effort. However, given Ellsberg's known count of four Soviet
ICBMs at the time of the missile crisis, even Schwarz's ratio of 1:9 seems to overstate Soviet
capabilities.
Further per Schwarz's reporting, the Jupiter nuclear missiles that the U.S. had placed in
Italy prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis only made sense as first-strike weapons. This
interpretation is corroborated by Daniel Ellsberg , who argues
that the American plan was always to initiate the use of nuclear weapons (first strike). This
made JFK's posture of equally matched contestants in a geopolitical game of nuclear chicken
utterly unhinged. Should this be less than clear, because the U.S. had indicated its intention
to use nuclear weapons in a first strike -- and had demonstrated the intention by placing
Jupiter missiles in Italy, nothing that the U.S. offered during the Missile Crisis could be
taken in good faith.
The dissolution of the USSR in 1991 was met with a promised reduction in U.S. military
spending and an end to the Cold War, neither of which ultimately materialized. Following the
election of Bill Clinton in 1992, the Cold War entered a new phase. Cold War logic was
repurposed to support the oxymoronic 'humanitarian wars' -- liberating people by bombing them.
In 1995 'Russian meddling' meant the Clinton administration rigging
the election of Boris Yeltsin in the Russian presidential election. Mr. Clinton then
unilaterally reneged on the American agreement to keep NATO from Russia's border when former
Baltic
states were brought under NATO's control .
The Obama administration's 2014 incitement in Ukraine , by way of
fostering and supporting the Maidan uprising and the ousting of Ukraine's democratically
elected President, Viktor Yanukovych, ties to the U.S. strategy of containing and overthrowing
the Soviet (Russian) government that was first codified by the National Security Council (NSC)
in 1945. The NSC's directives can be found here and here .
The economic and military
annexation of Ukraine by the U.S. (NATO didn't exist in 1945) comes under NSC10/2
. The alliance between the CIA and Ukrainian fascists ties to directive NSC20 , the plan
to sponsor Ukrainian-affiliated former Nazis in order to install them in the Kremlin to replace
the Soviet government. This was part of the CIA's rationale for putting Ukrainian-affiliated
former Nazis on its payroll in 1948.
That Russiagate is the continuation of a scheme launched in 1945 by the National Security
Council, to be engineered by the CIA with help from former Nazi officers in its employ, speaks
volumes about the Cold War frame from which it emerges.
Its near instantaneous adoption by
bourgeois liberals demonstrates the class basis of the right-wing nationalism it supports. That
liberals appear to perceive themselves as defenders 'democracy' within a trajectory laid out by
unelected military leaders more than seven decades earlier is testament to the power of
historical ignorance tied to nationalist fervor. Were the former Gestapo and SS officers
employed by the CIA 'our Nazis?'
The Nazi War
Crimes Disclosure Act came about in part because Nazi hunters kept coming across Nazi war
criminals living in the U.S. who told them they had been brought here and given employment by
the CIA, CIC, or some other division of the Federal government. If the people in these agencies
thought that doing so was justified, why the secrecy? And if it wasn't justified, why was it
done? Furthermore, are liberals really comfortable bringing fascists with direct historical
ties to the Third Reich to power in Ukraine? And while there are no good choices in the
upcoming U.S. election, the guy who liberals want to bring to power is lead architect of this
move.Cue the Sex
Pistols .
"... Does the mass media think they can “hide the ball” while Seattle turns into a war zone? Seriously–in the Internet age? They _can’t_ be that stupid, can they? ..."
Does the mass media think they can “hide the ball” while Seattle turns
into a war zone? Seriously–in the Internet age? They _can’t_ be that
stupid, can they?
(When I put on the tin foil hat it whispers to me “they know, they are lying on
purpose, they want Trump re-elected to improve their ratings, and they want to anger voters
by lying about Seattle”. Then I take off the tin foil hat and I say
“Na–they really are that stupid.”)
@Big Dan
were Bolsheviks, they'd be out burning down BANKS, Corporatized Giants like Target, Walmart,
Amazon warehouses and MOST of Silicon Tech Giants.
We know these protesters are funded by:
George Soros
The Ford Foundation
Amazon
Big Tech
Big Banks
Nike
Adidas
T-Mobile
Amazon
and ALL the other vulture capitalists that thrive in this environment.
Whitney, needs to start reading about the history of Socialism; Marx' acute hatred against
Capitalism, Lenin, Others. Then and ONLY THEN will his preposterous statements reveal him as
the usual ILLITERATE American.
@Robert
Dolan d come out to a modernistic building on York U's Keele Campus in Toronto to hear
the stories of former Israeli soldiers.
York U's Vari Hall had been the scene of some ugly confrontations in the past, but no one
had expected 500 BDS and Antifa bigots to show up screaming hatred and attacking Jewish
students on campus.
Some of these Bolsheviks can be the most disgusting racists in the world. Some months
back, a bunch of anti-fa criminal baffoons attacked two Hispanics, who they mistook to be
members of the Conservative group 'The Proud Boys' and called them spics and beaners. So much
for anti-racism.
Note to
readers:This essay is an edited and abridged version, with content reformatted, of that
originally posted here. It is updated with some new material and full references. A list of the
most important references is at the end of the essay, before the notes. I deleted the small
portion on P. W. Botha because I was unable to locate my primary reference which was text
extracted from the Truth and Reconciliation hearings held in South Africa. The content was
testimony by one of Botha's underlings at a hearing that Botha refused to attend. Rather than
leave questions about the validity of statements, I deleted that section.
The United States government funded and performed countless psychological experiments on
unwitting humans, especially during the Cold War era, perhaps partially to help develop more
effective torture and interrogation techniques for the US military and the CIA, but the
almost unbelievable extent, range and duration of these activities far surpassed possible
interrogation applications and appear to have been performed from a fundamental monstrous
inhumanity . To simply read summaries of these, even without the details, is almost
traumatising in itself.
In studies that began in the late 1940s and early 1950s, the US Military began identifying
and testing truth serums like mescaline and scopolamine on human subjects, which they claimed
might be useful during interrogations of Soviet spies. These programs eventually expanded to a
project of vast scope and enormous ambition, centralised under the CIA in what would come to be
called Project MK-ULTRA, a major collection of interrogation and mind-control projects.
Inspired initially by delusions of a brainwashing program, the CIA began thousands of
experiments using both American and foreign subjects often without their knowledge or against
their will, destroying countless tens of thousands of lives and causing many deaths and
suicides. Funded in part by the Rockefeller and Ford foundations and jointly operated by
the CIA, the FBI and the intelligence divisions of all military groups, this decades-long CIA
research constituted an immense collection of some of the most cold-blooded and callous
atrocities conceivable , in a determined effort to develop reliable techniques of
controlling the human mind.
MK-ULTRA was an umbrella for a large number of clandestine activities that formed part of
the CIA’s psychological warfare research and development, consisting of about 150
projects and sub-projects, many of them very large in their own right, with research and human
experimentation occurring at more than 80 institutions that included about 50 of
America’s best-known colleges and universities , 15 or 20 major research Foundations
including Rockefeller, dozens of major hospitals, a great many prisons and mental institutions,
and many chemical and pharmaceutical companies. At least 200 well-known private scientific
researchers were part of this program, as were many thousands of physicians, psychiatrists,
psychologists and other similar. Many of these institutions and individuals received their
funding through so-called “grants” from what were clearly CIA front companies.
In 1994 a Congressional subcommittee revealed that up to 500,000 unwitting Americans were
endangered, damaged or destroyed by secret CIA and military tests between 1940 and 1974.
Given the deliberate destruction of all the records, the full truth of the MK-ULTRA victims
will never be known, and certainly not the death toll. As the inspector general of the US Army
later stated in a report to a Senate committee: “In universities, hospitals and research
institutions, an unknown number of chemical tests and experiments … were carried out
with healthy adults, with mentally ill and with prison inmates.” According to one
government report, “In 149 separate mind-control experiments on thousands of people, CIA
researchers used hypnosis, electroshock treatments, LSD, marijuana, morphine, Benzedrine,
mescaline, seconal, atropine and other drugs.” Test subjects were usually people who
could not easily object – prisoners, mental patients and members of minority groups
– but the agency also performed many experiments on normal, healthy civilians without
their knowledge or consent.
There were 149 subprojects listed under the umbrella of MKULTRA. Project MONARCH has not
been officially identified by any government documentation as one of the corresponding
subprojects, but is used rather, as a descriptive “catch phrase” by survivors,
therapists, and possible “insiders”. MONARCH may in fact, have culminated from
MKSEARCH subprojects such as operation SPELLBINDER, which was set up to create
“sleeper” assassins (i.e. “Manchurian candidates”) who could be
activated upon receiving a key word or phrase while in a post-hypnotic trance. Operation OFTEN,
a study which attempted to harness the power of occult forces was possibly one of several cover
programs to hide the insidious reality of Project MONARCH. There were also operations BLUEBIRD,
ARTICHOKE, MKNAOMI, and MKDELTA.
Another CIA Operation called Midnight Climax consisted of a network of CIA locations to
which prostitutes on the CIA payroll would lure clients where they were surreptitiously plied
with a wide range of substances including LSD, and monitored behind one-way glass. [1] [2]
Several significant operational techniques were developed in this theater, including extensive
research into sexual blackmail, surveillance technology, and the possible use of mind-altering
drugs in field operations. In the 1970s, as another part of its mind control program, the
CIA conspired with Eli Lilly and Company to produce one hundred million doses of the illegal
drug LSD, enough to send almost everyone in the United States on a trip. No explanation was
ever given as to what the CIA did with a hundred million doses of acid but, since much of this
activity was exported, reviewing international political events during this period may bring
interesting possibilities to mind.
Another part of the CIA mind-control project was aimed at finding a “truth
serum” to use on spies. Test subjects were given LSD and other drugs, often without their
knowledge or consent, and some were tortured. Many people died – or were killed –
as a result of these experiments, and an unknown number of government employees working on
these projects were murdered for fear they would tell what they had seen, perhaps the
best-known being Frank Olson whose death I have described below. [3] The project was
steadfastly denied by both the government and the CIA, but was finally exposed after
investigations by the Rockefeller Commission. When this information became known, the US
government paid many millions of dollars to settle the hundreds of claims and lawsuits that
resulted. There exists much evidence that these programs had never been
terminated.
As already noted, MK-ULTRA and its brethren grew out of Operation Paperclip in which more
than 10,000 Japanese and some German scientists of all stripes were smuggled into the US after
the Second World War, to provide the government with information on torture and interrogation
techniques. It isn’t widely known but, as part of Operation Paperclip, the CIA
recruited for MK-ULTRA Shiro Ishii, the head of Japan’s Unit 731 which conducted some of
the most horrendous human atrocities in history, including the live vivisection of
children. It also imported at the same time at least ten thousands of the staff from Unit
731, housed them on US military bases and gave them full immunity from prosecution for their
war crimes and crimes against humanity. [4]It is for this
reason almost no Japanese faced trial for their crimes: they were all in America, contributing
their skills to MK-ULTRA. The CIA also imported some Germans who had performed human
experimentation. It also isn’t widely-known, but this entire project had its birth not in
the US but at The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in the UK, an institute with an
exceptionally cold-blooded past. I will return to Tavistock in later chapters.
The CIA leadership had concerns about discovery of their unethical and illegal behavior, as
evidenced in a 1957 Inspector General Report, which stated:
“Precautions must be taken not only to protect operations from exposure to enemy
forces but also to conceal these activities from the American public in general. The
knowledge that the agency is engaging in unethical and illicit activities would have serious
repercussions in political and diplomatic circles”.
The CIA’s MK-ULTRA activities continued until well into the 1970s when CIA director
Richard Helms, fearing that they would be exposed to the public, ordered the project terminated
and all of the files destroyed. However, a clerical error had sent many documents to the wrong
office, so when CIA workers were destroying the files, some of them remained and were later
released under a Freedom of Information Act request by investigative journalist John Marks.
Nevertheless, because the records have almost all been destroyed, the numbers and identities of
the victims will never be known.
The Stanford Research Institute (SRI) describes its mission as “creating
world-changing solutions to make people safer, healthier, and more productive.” Wikipedia
tells us the trustees of Stanford University established SRI in 1946 as “a center of
innovation to support economic development in the region”. I have no evidence that SRI
has made anyone safer or more productive and, whatever the original purpose of this
institution, supporting economic development of the region wouldn’t appear to have been
very high on the list. From my research, there are few institutions in America that have had
their histories more thoroughly sanitised than SRI. Certainly all references to participation
in the CIA’s MK-ULTRA and other inhuman projects have evaporated from the narrative. In
August of 1977, the Washington Post exposed some of these projects; there were likely many
more.
One of SRI’s past activities involved contracts awarded by the CIA and the US Navy to
research and develop long-distance mind control using radio waves. The CIA had already funded
MK-ULTRA projects at Honeywell for “a method to penetrate inside a man’s mind and
control his brain waves over long distance”. In the 1960s, then-Director of the CIA,
Richard Helms, was excited about what was termed “biological radio communication”,
and the Washington Post published concrete evidence that electronic mind control was a major
object of study at SRI at the time. The theory was that extremely low frequency electromagnetic
waves from the brain could be used to control individual subjects, sometimes called
“empaths”, a great many of whom (inexplicably) were drawn from L. Ron
Hubbard‘s Church of Scientology.
Experiments also under the SRI, in what was sometimes called “Stargate
Research”, [5] done entirely with a
military biotechnology focus, the American Institutes of Research (AIR) in Washington was also
involved in researching and evaluating what was called “remote viewing” or the
potential use of psychic phenomena (ESP) in military and domestic applications. For all of
this, declassified government files disclosed the vastness of several series of mind control
and behavior modification experiments conducted in prisons, mental hospitals and campuses from
1950 through the early 1970s, with about 45 institutions and laboratories engaged in this
secret and inhumane brain research, of which SRI was an integral part.
The project was under the direct command of a Dr. Sidney Gottlieb and received undisclosed
but almost unlimited millions of dollars for hundreds of experiments on human subjects at
hundreds of locations across the United States, Canada and Europe, the eventual budget for this
program apparently having exceeded $1 billion per year. The evil in some of these MK-ULTRA
documents is almost palpable, one such document from 1955 stating openly of a search for
“substances which will cause (temporary or) permanent brain damage as well as loss of
memory” . Part of the intent was to develop “techniques that would crush the
human psyche to the point that it would admit anything”. In a US government memo from
1952, a program director asked, “Can we get control of an individual to the point
where he will do our bidding against his will and even against fundamental laws of nature, such
as self-preservation?” It also listed the wide range of horrid abuses to which the
victims would be subjected. These people were not bashful about their intent.
The mechanics included primordial sex programming for women in attempts to eliminate
learned moral convictions and stimulate primitive sexual instinct devoid of inhibitions, to
create a kind of sex machine – the ultimate prostitute for diplomatic espionage.
Several researchers have claimed the sexual appetite of these women was developed in young
girls their formative years through constant incest with a government employee who had been
deliberately developed as a father figure to the girls. In part, these programs involved
conditioning the human mind through torture, with one portion of this program intended to train
special agents as fearless terrorists lacking self-preservation instincts and who would
willingly commit suicide if caught. They even experimented with electronic implants, inaudible
sounds, messages embedded in the subconscious mind, mind altering drugs and much more. One
portion of this extensive operation involved an attempt to create an assassins program, to
learn if it were possible to kidnap a national in another country, conduct hypnosis and other
techniques, then return them home to assassinate their leaders.
There was also a Dr. John Gittinger who was Sidney Gottlieb’s protégé
and who developed an astonishing complex of personality and psychological tests that were
apparently quite accurate in guiding the CIA in determining the best approach toward
manipulating and compromising individuals, including turning patriots into spies, as well as
converting housewives, nurses, and high-priced fashion models into very effective espionage
prostitutes, killers, and so much more. [6] [7] Gittinger was so
successful the CIA built him a special party room walled with one-way mirrors where CIA
psychologists could watch these compromised people at work. Gittinger was apparently a
“specialist” at making his victims lose touch with external reality, no doubt in
conjunction with Gottlieb’s LSD. He also was apparently quite expert at identifying those
individuals who could be easily hypnotised, those who would quickly go into a trance compared
to those who would not, and also those who would faithfully comply with any and all
post-hypnotic suggestions and experience total amnesia afterward. Perfect assassins.
Gittinger applied his “personality” tests to at least 30,000 people, since he
had files on at least that many, so this was not a trivial exercise for the CIA. And, since
this was the CIA, he was especially interested in deviant personalities, or those that could be
made deviant, those with vices or with weaknesses that could be further programmed, especially
to become traitors, and those who would be most susceptible to the influence of psychedelic
drugs. He worked closely with Harris Isbell, who ran the MKULTRA mind-control drug program at
the Lexington, Kentucky detention hospital, who would send him hundreds of people who could
be pushed to “uncontrollable urges”, especially of a sexual or a murderous nature.
Or both. This was one main use of the party room with the one-way mirrors. Ironically, it
was Gittinger who inadvertently put the wheels in motion for the impeachment and resignation of
then-US President Richard Nixon. When Daniel Ellsberg [8] released the Pentagon
Papers, John Ehrlichman, Nixon’s personal assistant, arranged for the CIA to break into
the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist to obtain a copy of Gittinger’s personality
and emotional test on this man, meant to be used by the CIA “as a kind of psychological
road map to compromise Ellsberg”, just as they did in exploiting the weaknesses of so
many others. Unfortunately, the burglars bungled the job.
There was one documented story of an American nurse who, after completing her training by
Gottlieb and Gittinger, “had volunteered her body for her country”, and who was
being programmed as the personal Mata Hari of a particular Russian diplomat and either get him
to defect to the US or to become so compromised they could blackmail him into becoming an
American spy. And, when necessary, “terminate” him. A great many of these
encounters with what were called “recruitment targets” occurred in the room with
the one-way mirrors and all recorded on film, one part of the sexual technology developed in
the CIA safe houses in San Francisco as part of Operation Midnight Climax. Gottlieb’s
Technical Services staff apparently amassed quite a wealth of experience and an abundance of
“volunteers” in these sexual entrapment operations, claiming, “We had
women ready – call them a stable” , who were quite adept at not only seduction
but all manner of sexual activity and murder for the national security of their country.
Another portion of this same program designed to control individuals totally, “I was
sent to deal with the most negative aspects of the human condition. It was planned
destructiveness. First, you’d check to see if you could destroy a man’s marriage.
If you could, then that would be enough to put a lot of stress on the individual, to break him
down. Then you might start a minor rumor campaign against him. Harass him constantly. Bump his
car in traffic. A lot of it is ridiculous, but it may have a cumulative effect.” The
theory, according to Gittinger’s personality tests, was that the creation of sufficient
stress from destructive personal loss, combined with other programming including the
application of psycho-chemical drugs, would either turn an enemy or render him totally
neutralised.
The CIA did all of these not only in America, but around the world, using Gittinger’s
personality profiles to identify those military and other leaders in nations the US wanted to
control. The psychological testing, combined with all the other dirty tricks of the trade, and
certainly including the nurses, housewives and models who could be persuaded to develop
“uncontrollable urges” to “volunteer her body for her country”, greatly
assisted the US government in placing into power those who could be counted on to obey their
colonial master. South Korea and Japan are two good examples of this, as are many countries in
Latin America. The CIA, with the immense assistance of Gottlieb and Gittinger, could always
spot those “who were most likely to succumb”.
Louis Jolyon (Jolly) West, M.D. (1924-1999) [9] [10] was a well-known
Los Angles psychiatrist who served as the chair of UCLA’s Department of Psychiatry and as
director of the UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute from 1969 to 1989. He was an expert on
cults, coercive persuasion (“brainwashing”), alcoholism, drug abuse, violence, and
terrorism, not in preventing these but in causing them. His “Violence Project”
is famous.
From the reports, the CIA was so excited about the possibilities in these experiments at SRI
that a great many millions of dollars were diverted to these projects, augmented by
parapsychology experiments simultaneously undertaken at Fort Meade by the NSA. Medical
oversight for this enormous range of experiments was under the control of yet another CIA
pervert, Dr. Louis Jolyon West, then a professor of psychiatry at UCLA, one of the most
notorious CIA mind-control specialists in the country. It is difficult to avoid the
conclusion that these people were all crazy , since the CIA, NSA and even INSCOM and
military intelligence (and of course the Church of Scientology) all cooperated with SRI in
research that included Tarot cards, the channeling of spirits, communing with demons, and
more.
But according to SRI itself, Dr. West’s work included not only radio waves and
parapsychology, but the creation of dissociative personalities “that enabled the subjects
of mind-control conditioning to adapt to trauma”. West referred to these people as
“changelings” who produced alternate but actually schizophrenic insane mental
states (multiple induced personalities) to permit them to deal with what was termed
“prolonged environmental stress”, i.e. forced drug injections, physical, mental and
sexual abuse, and psychic programming, all usually utilising large dosages of LSD,
Gottlieb’s chemical of choice. There is adequate documentation that many individuals who
were subjected to this CIA-sponsored “research”, developed multiple personalities,
many of which were forcibly induced at a young age. There are documented stories by a few
survivors who tell of enormous abuse of every kind being inflicted upon them from four or five
years of age, and of having to deal with the terror of what appeared to be many different
people living inside their minds. Dr. Jolyon West became a kind of research expert in these
dissociative states and much of his work for the CIA’s MK-ULTRA program centered on their
creation. The records reveal success in creating amnesia, false memories, altered personas,
pseudo-identities, and much more, all horrifying and tragic to the individuals involved, all
from West’s research in methods to “disrupt the normally integrative functions of
personality”, and render people totally subject to remote control.
In Sid Gottlieb’s group there were also scientists who implanted electrodes into human
and other brains in yet more mind-control experiments, even done on children as young as four
or five years of age, all with the intention of creating a perfect ‘Manchurian
Candidate’, as well as erasing memories and creating artificial ones and, of course,
total control of the individual. This research into electrode implants was funded by the CIA
and MKULTRA in conjunction with the Office of US Naval Research, and mostly supervised by our
famous Dr. West. In fact, West began what was called the “UCLA Violence Project” at
the Vacaville Prison where Donald Defreeze was apparently programmed. The projects received a
great deal of funding, as I recall, much of it including West.
Many early interrogation studies were conducted by the Cornell University Medical School
under the direction of a Dr. Harold Wolff [11] who requested
from the CIA any information regarding “threats, coercion, imprisonment, deprivation,
humiliation, torture, ‘brainwashing’, ‘black psychiatry’, and hypnosis,
or any combination of these, with or without chemical agents”. According to Wolff,
the research team would then: “…assemble, collate, analyze and assimilate this
information and will then undertake experimental investigations designed to develop new
techniques of offensive/defensive intelligence use … Potentially useful secret drugs
[and various brain damaging procedures] will be similarly tested in order to ascertain the
fundamental effect upon human brain function and upon the subject’s mood …”.
He further, and rather chillingly, wrote, “Where any of the studies involve potential
harm of the subject, we expect the Agency to make available suitable subjects and a proper
place for the performance of the necessary experiments.”
Among the many other prominent universities and institutions participating in this travesty
was Tulane University where both the CIA and the US military had funded what appeared to be
very large-scale programs of trauma-based mind control experiments on children. In 1955, the US
Army reported on studies in which their researchers had implanted electrodes into the brains of
mental patients to assess the effects of LSD and a host of other untested drugs. It was at
Tulane that some of the earliest sensory-deprivation experiments were conducted, isolating
individuals in these chambers where they would be helplessly hallucinating for as long as one
week at a time while being injected with drugs and bombarded them with taped messages, to see
if individuals could be “converted to new beliefs”. These were all helpless victims
who had no idea of what was happening to them. There is a long list of other famous American
universities and hospitals that participated in similar human destruction, all of which have
carefully santised their histories.
When West died in 1999, the New York Times, again true to form, published a delightful
obituary written by a Philip J. Hilts, [12] who described West
as “a charismatic leader in psychiatry”, a man whose work “centered on people
who have been taken to the limits of human experience, like “brainwashed” prisoners
of war, kidnapping victims and abused children”, without bothering to mention that
West’s supposed centering on these people did not mean he was caring for them, but that
he created those conditions. West was in fact the man who was doing the brainwashing and
abusing of children, not repairing their damage. Hilts told us West once witnessed an execution
and was forever after against the death penalty for prisoners. It would seem unfortunate he
wasn’t against a death penalty for his own victims. The NYT tells us West was “a
colorful figure, an alive person”. How nice. All obituaries tend to be complimentary when
written by family or friends, though when the compliment-only obituaries are written by the
primary news media that has a powerful effect on whitewashing, air-brushing and re-writing
history – which would certainly be the intent of the New York Times. Nothing else could
account for the glowing description.
... ... ...
Many of the victims were drawn from children that had been placed in Cameron’s care,
and most were sexually abused as part of the experimentation and “therapy”, many of
them being used sexually by several men in one session. One of the children was filmed numerous
times performing sexual acts with high-ranking federal government officials, in a scheme set up
by Gottlieb’s MKULTRA team to blackmail the officials to ensure further funding for the
experiments. Massive lawsuits ensued when the existence of this project became public. It
should be noted that Dr. Cameron had been a member of the Nuremberg Tribunal that judged
harshly and severely punished human experiments less evil than his own. But in fact
Cameron, as well as Gottlieb, and as well as the related perverts at Fort Detrick and Edgewood,
patterned these experiments in part on what they had learned from the Germans, then greatly
embellished them.
In the 1980s, the CIA and the US State Department launched a vicious public counterattack on
the Canadian government for questioning the propriety of CIA activities. In press briefings,
interviews and Court pleadings, the CIA repeatedly stated that Canada funded Cameron too, and
the atrocities were therefore Canada’s fault. One US Attorney claimed,
“We’re going to wrap the Canadian Government financing of Cameron right around
their necks”. Initially, the Canadian government intended to file charges against US
and the CIA at the International Court of Justice at the Hague, but the Americans so bullied
Canada into submission that the matter was whitewashed and forgotten.
The CIA was also responsible for many LSD experiments conducted in a mental hospital in
Weyburn, Canada, [60] which is where the
word “psychedelic” originated. According to former staff members, the CIA
supplied the hospital with enormous amounts of LSD because it wanted to learn the effects on
individuals of large and repeated doses of this drug. It was noted for its “cutting
edge” treatments and “psychiatric drug research” at the time. The hospital
has since been closed, and all records appear to have been destroyed, but both hospital staff
and patients were often used in these experiments and over time the Weyburn hospital acquired a
deeply sinister reputation. I was personally aware of the existence of that hospital during my
youth, as were a great many of us, and all spoke only in hushed tones of the horror stories
that sometimes leaked out of that institution. There is a website today for the cemetery of
all those who died during their “courses of treatment” at the Weyburn hospital,
[61] but the only
remaining records are of the names and dates of death. Everything else was destroyed by the
government, and for good reason.
The effects of sensory deprivation came to light from a series of quite innocent experiments
conducted in Canada at McGill University by a Dr. Donald Hebb [62] who had paid a group
of his own psychology students to remain isolated in a room, deprived of all senses, for an
entire day, in an attempt to determine a link between sensory deprivation and the vulnerability
of cognitive ability. Hebb was described as “a gifted man whose ingenuity revolutionized
psychology as a science”, and who was nominated for a Nobel Prize, though I’m not
certain the prize would have been a fitting recognition for his work. On September 6,2012, the
McGill Daily published an article by Juan Camilo Velasquez titled, “MK-ULTRA
Violence”, [63] which confirms that
on June 1, 1951 “a secret meeting [was held] in the Ritz Carlton Hotel … to launch
[an] effort led by the CIA to fund studies on sensory deprivation”, this being a meeting
attended by Hebb who had to understand what was happening, and that these “studies”
would inevitably lead to “techniques of psychological torture and interrogation”,
with Dr. Ewen Cameron a few years later completing what Hebb had begun. The article
continued:
“Cameron’s research was based on the ideas of “re-patterning” and
“re-mothering” the human mind. Dr. Cameron wanted to de-pattern patients’
minds with the application of highly disruptive electroshock twice a day … patients
would be put into a state of prolonged sleep for about ten days using various drugs, after
which they experienced an invasive electroshock therapy that lasted for about 15 days. But
patients were not always prepared for re-patterning and sometimes Cameron used extreme forms
of sensory deprivation as well. Following the preparation period and the de-patterning came
the process of “psychic driving” or re-patterning … in which Cameron would
play messages on tape recorders to his patients … up to half a million times.
The experiments done at McGill were part of the larger MK-ULTRA project led by Sidney
Gottlieb of the CIA … compiled all the research into a torture manual called the
KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation Handbook. [64] Yes, a
“torture manual” that would eventually define the agency’s interrogation
methods and training programs throughout the developing world. The Kubark, which is nowadays
readily available, cites the experiments conducted at McGill as one of the main sources of its
techniques for sensory deprivation. An excerpt from the instructions to CIA interrogators
reads, “Results produced only after weeks or months of imprisonment in an ordinary cell
can be duplicated in hours or days in a cell which has no light, which is sound-proofed, in
which odors are eliminated, et cetera”. In essence, the psychological paradigm taken by
the CIA would not have been possible without Hebb and Cameron’s research on sensory
deprivation and psychic driving.” You will recall John Cunningham Lilly whom I briefly
discussed earlier, he of the exploding dolphin fame, and how his combination of sensory
deprivation and hallucinogenic compounds could work wonders in programming individuals. Lilly
too, learned well from Hebb and Cameron.
In the Spring of 2016 the UK media (BBC, Telegraph, Mirror) revealed that former patients of
Aston Hall, a childrens’ hospital in Derbyshire, had begun coming forward with claims
that the hospital’s head physician, a Dr. Kenneth Milner, had been carrying out similar
experiments on them in the early 1970s. [65] [66]The stories
have all been consistent, the women claiming that as children they were regularly stripped
naked and tied down, then subjected to various drug experiments, most often enduring forced
sexual intercourse as well. Apparently one of the drugs commonly administered to the
children was sodium amytal, which is a strong barbiturate often used clinically to circumvent
inhibitions. It appears at least 100 children and perhaps a great many more – most being
10 to 12 years old at the time – were regularly and repeatedly used for a range of drug
experiments involving high dosages of various anti-psychotics and anesthetics. Many report
having been placed in a straitjacket prior to receiving the injections. Complaints of
experiments and abuse apparently began against the hospital and Dr. Milner from multiple
sources more than 20 years ago, but the authorities neglected to investigate. I have
suspicions, and some firm indications, that Australia experienced similar atrocities which also
await uncovering.
It appears increasingly possible the CIA was either outsourcing experiments or at least
working in cooperation with institutions in countries other than Canada and the UK. On this
note, I would add my strong suspicions that the most horrid experiments, those that have not
yet come to light, were outsourced to Haiti and Puerto Rico . It is not a secret that
the US has for decades used Haiti as a private biological laboratory and, since that small
nation has been under the absolute control of the US and under an absolute media embargo, the
US military and the CIA have been able to conduct operations there without reservation or
inhibition.
Haiti is also a center for the worldwide pedophilia rings operated formerly for CIA
experimentation and subsequently for purposes similar to those of Jeffrey Epstein –
personal enjoyment and entrapment of politicians. An Italian social agency recently traced 640
of 1,000 pedophilia websites to a Haiti location, these websites offering not only live videos
of the sexual abuse (some of it horrific) of children as young as 0 to 2 years of age, but also
of the torture of these children as well as snuff films. [67]
Also, very recently Italian police busted a major “psycho-sect” that practiced
child sex abuse for over 30 years. [68] And again very
recently, there was a damning report by Germany’s University of Hildesheim revealed that
the Berlin Senate orchestrated a scheme that saw vulnerable children being placed in the care
of known pedophiles for decades. [69] This was in fact
much of the work of MK-ULTRA and it appears that, while the Project may have been officially
terminated, it has continued unabated by being outsourced. In 2018, a Dr. Faculty of Medicine,
of the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Peru, published an article titled The secret
program of US mind control weapons: is it developing in latin America? [70] [71] [72] The man
appears to know whereof he speaks, tracing the interest in mind control from the
Rothschild’s Tavistock Institute in the UK through various steps to the CIA, listing many
details of the projects and tracing mind control from the Nazis to DARPA.
Drug experiments were high on Gottlieb’s agenda from the very first days of his
appointment, his main handicap being a lack of supply of available victims. As part of a
strategy to solve this shortage, he first went to the obvious sources of helpless victims as in
prisons, mental hospitals, orphanages, military hospitals and other institutions, but supplies
appeared modest for his needs. Gottlieb then, with Dulles’ assistance, enlisted the help
of all sections of the military, the CDC and Health Departments and other sources to arrange
victims from ordinary civilian patients, and especially those in private hospitals and
psychiatric clinics since they would be the most likely to accept experimental treatment
without intelligent challenge and whose testimony would be least likely to be accepted without
question when things went wrong – as they often did.
One such event was perhaps Gottlieb’s first murder, that of a famous American tennis
pro named Harold Blauer who was visiting a private psychiatrist for depression following a
divorce. [73] [74] [75] [76]
Gottlieb, through the auspices of the US military, had arranged highly secretive and classified
contracts with many such private psychiatrists to conduct drug studies without the knowledge of
the patients, the chemicals in question being partially examined for their value as mass
bio-warfare weapons for the military as well their more narrow potential with the CIA. In the
case of Blauer, he was injected with increasingly large doses of a highly-toxic mescaline
derivative, the last shot being an astonishingly huge overdose that killed him almost
instantly. Of course, the cover-up was extreme and successful for a time, his medical records
having been not only tampered with, but completely rewritten to describe Blauer as
schizophrenic and insane, and attributing his death to “a weak heart “. It was
only after 30 years that the truth leaked out and a court awarded Blauer’s family some
$700,000 in damages for his death , the CIA and military denying and protesting to the very
end until the leakage of classified documents exposed the facts.
This was a template Gottlieb and the CIA would follow for decades , inflicting death
on an unknown but certainly very large number of individuals, the events always carefully
planned without loose ends and with plausible deniability. There is a very distinct trail of at
the very least hundreds, and very possibly thousands, of curious, questionable, suspicious and
unexplained deaths that followed Gottlieb and his group around America and the world, for at
least two decades. One, as related below, was the death of Frank Olson, in whose murder
Gottlieb took a more active role, personally administering an overdose of LSD then initiating
psychiatric treatment and finally Olson’s murder at the hands of Lashbrook, another
conspiracy that was finally revealed only after many decades of denial. Since Helms had
virtually all the MK-ULTRA records destroyed, the world will never know the sum of
Gottlieb’s gruesome inhumanities.
Frank Olson was a scientist who had been working on the CIA’s MK-ULTRA Project,
involved in experiments to assess the efficacy of certain bacterial strains on human beings,
including the US military’s use of biological pathogens. But the CIA expanded far beyond
lab experiments and progressed to testing these pathogens as part of an interrogation program,
using “expendable” human subjects – Korean prisoners of war, apprehended
foreign espionage agents, and even CIA agents who were suspected of disloyalty. Olson had the
very highest security clearance and had been a witness to many programs and experiments in the
US, the UK and Europe, but had never seen the direct results of his work. Then one summer, he
visited a CIA “safe house” in Germany and the UK’s Frankenstein House at
Porton Down where he witnessed “terminal interrogations”, men tortured and drugged
until they died in agony from the weapons he had made. He had also been a part of the mass
experiment in Pont St. Esprit, France, where the CIA had arranged to administer LSD to a whole
town. Olson also claimed he had seen documented proof of US government use of biological
weapons in North Korea during the Korean War – as the US had also done in China.
Olson began having serious problems with his conscience and had been expressing moral
misgivings about his work. He told colleagues he was disturbed about CIA torture-to-death
interrogations in Germany and the use of bacteriological warfare on North Korea. He became
increasingly vocal in his criticisms of these projects, and it was this that sealed his fate.
CIA director Allan Dulles decided Olson was a dangerous whistleblower and a security risk. At
that point, Olson resigned his job, and a few days later he was dead. Gottlieb had personally
administered a huge overdose of LSD to Olson, then arranged for ‘psychiatric’
counseling from his right-hand man Lashbrook. Olson was in a hotel room with Lashbrook, who
claimed he killed himself by running across the room, throwing himself through a plate-glass
window, and falling ten stories to his death. [77] The CIA’s
initial story was that Olson’s death had simply been a tragic “accident” by a
distressed individual, and for 22 years the family believed the official narrative. Then, in a
US Congressional investigation into CIA atrocities and crimes, a declassified document
contained information about a CIA agent who had been given LSD without his knowledge, and then
escorted to New York in the company of another agent, where he committed suicide by jumping
from a window. His family immediately recognised the circumstances of their father’s
death and began a detailed investigation. In the end, the CIA admitted responsibility, the
Olson family was invited to the White House to meet with President Ford who apologised and
agreed to pay the family $750,000 in compensation – on the condition that they cease all
further investigation and never try to determine any further facts about the Olson death.
[78]
[79] [80]
But the family didn’t cease their investigation, and finally had Olson’s body
exhumed and examined. The forensic pathologist determined that Olson had suffered a severe blow
to the head before he fell from the window. Many of the discrepancies surrounding his death
were finally made fully public, and it was eventually revealed that Olson had been ordered
killed by CIA Director Allen Dulles, and was executed by Gottlieb and Lashbrook, that the death
was neither an accident as first claimed, nor a suicide as in the later story, but a deliberate
murder to prevent the man from disclosing secrets of CIA crimes to the media. And in
particular, the US government was fearful their use of biological weapons in North Korea would
become public knowledge. It was only in 2012 that all investigations were completed, and the
family has since filed a massive lawsuit against the CIA and the US government for
Olson’s murder. Later transcripts revealed that the family was invited to meet with
President Ford in a bid to stave off “a devastating PR problem”, and the money paid
to the family was intended only to purchase their silence. But Olson’s son was never
satisfied with the official explanation and spent two decades researching the events of his
father’s death. Interestingly, the two people who were primarily responsible for the
cover-up of the truth of Olson’s death were Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld who would
later become, respectively, George Bush’s Vice-President and his Secretary of
Defense.
MK-ULTRA also had a foreign component under the code name of MK-DELTA which was a similar
program with similar intent, but with the horrifics inflicted surreptitiously on unwitting
citizens of other countries. Often, a CIA agent would strike up a conversation with a stranger
at a sidewalk cafe somewhere in Europe, offer to buy the person a drink, and spike it with a
huge dose of LSD as practice for disabling foreign diplomats or heads of state in future
clandestine operations. A great many lives were ruined in this way, many of them by Gottlieb
personally. And it wasn’t only individuals; Gottlieb and the US military were also
interested in the mass deployment of drugs and their accompanying insanities. Here are two
stories of many:
A young American artist named Stanley Glickman was sitting at a sidewalk cafe in Paris in
1952 when another friendly American began a conversation and brought Glickman a drink that was
heavily spiked with LSD. [87] [88] The overdose
was too much, and triggered a frightening psychotic episode. Glickman went into convulsions,
suffered wild hallucinations, and had to be hospitalised. But that must have been part of the
plan because he was taken to a local hospital where American doctors were apparently awaiting
his arrival and where he claimed to have suffered substantial physical, mental and sexual abuse
that included re-injections of LSD. He claimed that after his collapse at the cafe, one of the
first actions by the American doctors was to insert a metal catheter into his penis and
administer violent electro-shocks there, as well as repeatedly injecting him with additional
hallucinogenic drugs. By the time of his release from the hospital, Glickman had suffered a
mental breakdown from which he never recovered. He never painted again and his life remained in
ruins.
But when the news began to break about the CIA’s MK-ULTRA program and details emerged
from Congressional hearings, Glickman realised he had been one of the victims and, perhaps more
importantly, he was able to conclusively identify Gottlieb as the man who had spiked his drink
and who had supervised the ‘mind control’ torture in the Paris hospital. He filed a
lawsuit, [89] which the CIA and
the US government obstructed and delayed for 16 years, until Glickman died. But his sister
carried on the lawsuit and it finally reached the courts. As luck would have it, Gottlieb was
in the US at the time, having returned from his home in India to the US for medical treatment.
However, immediately prior to his having to testify in court, Gottlieb died suddenly in the
hospital, with the New York Times cryptically stating his family “refuses to disclose the
cause of his death”. Gottlieb was apparently being treated for minor pneumonia when he
“suddenly lapsed into a coma” from which he never recovered. You can imagine the
fun conspiracy theorists had with this one.
It gets better. The trial proceeded without Gottlieb, but then suddenly the judge –
who was anti-CIA and clearly heading for a substantial judgment against the government and
Gottlieb’s estate – suddenly died of a claimed ‘heart attack’ in a gym
near the courthouse on the day prior to issuing his judgment. [90] The US government
immediately claimed authority to appoint a new judge to the case, and did so, with this new
judge oddly enough being Kimba Wood, [91]
the same judge who had dismissed this same case two years earlier, claiming it to be
nonsense. Naturally, she ruled against Glickman. But there was more that emerged later, with
Glickman’s hospital records proving that two of the Paris doctors tending to him (along
with Gottlieb) had for some time been engaged in Gottlieb’s LSD experiments on
individuals. Perhaps there will be another chance for Glickman to receive some posthumous
closure. In the meantime, we can perhaps content ourselves with the delicious prospect it was
the CIA itself who silenced Gottlieb lips forever.
A 65-year-old mystery was finally solved by investigative journalists. In 1951, almost
the entire population of the town of Pont-Saint-Esprit in Southern France was driven to mass
hysteria and insanity , hallucinations and suicide. [92] [93] A great many
people died and dozens were put into strait jackets and sent to mental asylums, in one of the
world’s most bizarre mysteries. Many people tried to fly out of windows or from roofs of
buildings. One man shouted “I am a plane” before jumping out of a second-floor
window and breaking his legs. One man tried to drown himself, screaming that his belly was
being eaten by snakes. An 11-year-old boy tried to strangle his grandmother. Another saw his
heart escaping through his feet and begged a doctor to put it back. Time magazine wrote at the
time: “Among the stricken, delirium rose: patients thrashed wildly on their beds,
screaming that red flowers were blossoming from their bodies, that their heads had turned to
molten lead”. In the end, most everyone either died or was committed to a mental
institution. For decades it was assumed that the local bread had been unwittingly poisoned with
a psychedelic compound, speculating that the largest local baker had unwittingly contaminated
his flour with ergot, a hallucinogenic mould that sometimes infects rye grain. But a journalist
uncovered evidence that the tragic event resulted from a covert experiment by the CIA and the
US Army’s top-secret Special Operations Division, where CIA operatives peppered local
food with massive amounts of LSD as part of a mind control experiment.
As I wrote earlier, by 1950 the US military and CIA had already produced well-developed
plans to ‘outsource’ the field testing of various pathogens to other nations,
friend and enemy alike, with much of the surreptitious testing of LSD and other hallucinogens
conducted in Europe and Asia under the code names of “Project Third Chance” and
“Project Derby Hat”. For Pont St. Esprit, the CIA sent scientists from Sandoz, the
supplier of the LSD, to concoct a plausible story as to the cause. The CIA concocted and
executed many such plans to infect many locations both in the US and in foreign countries with
a wide variety of pathogens. The journalist referred to above, was investigating the death of
Frank Olson, the CIA biochemist we have already met, and discovered transcripts of a
conversation between a CIA agent and a Sandoz pharmaceutical official who mentioned the
“secret of Pont-Saint-Esprit”, explaining that it was not caused by mould but by
LSD. Two colleagues of Olson further confirmed that that the Pont-Saint-Esprit incident was
part of a mind control experiment run by the CIA and US army, having sprayed LSD into the air
throughout the town as well as contaminating local bread and other food products. The final
proof was in a White House document sent to members of the Rockefeller Commission during its
investigation of CIA abuses. The document contained the names of those employed by the CIA for
this job, and made direct reference to the “Pont St. Esprit incident”, and the
culprit was of course none other than Gottlieb.
One of the more enduring propaganda myths about America is the one about exposing and facing
sins, unlike other nations who cover up everything. The Boston Globe published an article by
Stephen Kinzer [94] who wrote in part:
“Release of the long-delayed US Senate report on CIA abuses should make Americans proud
…”, stating it is “reasonable for Americans to be proud when reading this
report since other countries abuse people and lie about it, but it is only America that
publishes reports of its crimes.” And the Senate report will “serve as an example
to other countries wrestling with the challenges of facing their past”, that admitting
their wrongdoing “is a sign of strength and maturity”, that “It is better to
come clean than to leave questions of responsibility hanging forever”.
There was indeed some media exposure that revealed at most a few dozen, mostly minor,
instances of illegalities out of the several hundred thousand horrors that actually occurred.
There were indeed Congressional hearings, prior to which almost all incriminating documents had
already been destroyed, and at which hearings everybody lied. There was the almost obligatory
admission that “at least one person died” during these transgressions, but with the
provision that he probably expired not from the programs themselves but “from related
medical causes”. Then, like the tail end of a flu epidemic, the topic one day simply
disappeared from sight.
The Church Committee Investigation on CIA activities: contains 23 downloadable .pdf files by
topic. [95]
Then the Washington Post published an article in June of 2005, long after the truths of
MK-ULTRA were well-known, repeating only this summary [96] : “In
congressional testimony, Gottlieb acknowledged that the agency had administered LSD to as many
as 40 unwitting subjects, including prison inmates and patrons of brothels set up and run by
the agency. At least one participant died when he jumped out of a 10th-floor window in a
hotel.”
The nation, having achieved its catharsis and absolution from all the media hype, could now
re-envelop itself in national pride, secure in the knowledge its halo was still intact and that
Americans were still superior to all other beings. Of course, one element in this tragic
scandal – as in all others prior – was that nothing real actually happened. Nothing
changed and nobody was punished. All the culprits, the murderers, the torturers, the inhuman
monsters who planned and perpetrated this decades-long series of horrors on hundreds of
thousands of innocent people, simply walked free. Gottlieb retired from the CIA with a medal
and a huge pension, with all other participants doing something similar. And that was the end.
The countless thousands whose lives were destroyed, were simply abandoned to their
fate.
Sidney Gottlieb [97] was a
Jewish-American chemist who joined the CIA in his early 30s and within two years was appointed
by Allen Dulles the designer and head of the agency’s vast and top-secret MK-ULTRA
program, which was initiated to explore mind control, human programming, assassination and much
more. Gottlieb was an expert in poisons, especially those with psycho-active effects and
quickly became known as “The Black Sorcerer” and “The Dirty Trickster”.
It was Gottlieb, with virtually unlimited CIA financing who initiated a truly massive program
involving psycho-active drugs, psychic driving, the most evil portions of psychiatry and
psychology, and a great many lethal poisons, to research and develop “techniques that
would crush the human psyche to the point that it would admit anything”. Torture,
“terminal interrogations” and a sickeningly-wide array of inhuman inflictions, were
all part of MK-ULTRA under Gottlieb.
He not only created, managed and directed this decades-long human abomination but played an
active part in its activities. It was Gottlieb who personally overdosed Frank Olson on LSD, and
it was Gottlieb’s right-hand man who rendered Olson unconscious and threw him out the
13th-floor window of his hotel room, to rid the CIA of a potential whistle-blower. It was
Gottlieb who arranged the cooperation with the similarly-perverted animals at the UK’s
Porton Down, where they executed their ‘terminal interrogations’ safely away from
American soil, and where Frank Olson witnessed such horrors that he planned to leave the CIA
and go public with his knowledge.
It was Gottlieb who traveled to the Congo with poisoned toothpaste which he delivered
personally to Larry Devlin, the CIA’s station chief, to administer to Prime Minister
Patrice Lumumba, though Devlin managed to kill him by other means. It was Gottlieb, acting
through Allen Dulles on orders from US President Eisenhower to “eliminate” Lumumba
and thus open the country to American business. [98] [99] [100] [101] It
was Gottlieb who hatched the hundreds of plans to assassinate Cuba’s Fidel Castro,
especially including all the poison-related attempts, such as cigars, wet suits and fountain
pens. In case you didn’t know, Castro set a Guinness World record for surviving 638
assassination attempts by the Americans. [102] [103] [104]
[105]
It was Gottlieb who arranged for Iraq’s General Abdul Karim Qassim’s
handkerchief to be contaminated with Botulinum in yet another assassination attempt. [106] He
developed poisoned chocolates and cigarettes intended for Jamal abd an-Nasir of Egypt.
[107] He regularly
traveled with his diplomatic bag containing CIA-developed bio-toxins designed to mimic a
disease endemic to that area, or with specifically-cultured lethal viruses.
It was Gottlieb who planned and financed the activities of Dr. Ewen Cameron in Canada in his
so-called psychic driving experiments that totally destroyed the lives of so many people and in
the end cost the Canadian government tens of millions of dollars in compensation. It was
Gottlieb who was responsible for the thousands of Duplessis children who were tortured and
killed, and who financed Dr. Harris Isbell in his research experiments in human psychiatric
programming. Isbell is best known for once giving huge doses of LSD to a group of men for 77
days in succession, and for “testing” more than 800 toxic chemical compounds on
captive victims for Gottlieb. It was Gottlieb, working with Defense Secretary Robert McNamara,
who helped to conceive and execute the massive torture and human experimentation program in
Vietnam known as Phoenix Program[108] and his genocidal
“Project 100,000” , [109] with teams of CIA
operatives performing a wide range of Gottlieb’s torture and other experiments followed
by executions. Gottlieb also planned and financed much of the human experimentation by Lauretta
Bender [110] , Albert Kligman
[111] , Eugene Saenger
[112] and Chester
Southam [113] , and no doubt a
great many more.
It was Gottlieb, being so fascinated with the mind-control potential psychotropic and
hallucinogenic compounds, who was responsible for the contamination of food and the aerosol
spraying of a lethally-potent LSD compound in the village of Pont-Saint-Esprit, France in
August, 1951, that caused a powerful mass psychosis that left nearly the entire village
population either dead or permanently confined to mental institutions. Gottlieb was so
enthralled with the prospects of hallucinogens that he arranged with the pharma company Eli
Lilly to produce one consignment of more than one hundred million doses of LSD.
Gottlieb designed and approved the sexual-related programs of the CIA, like Operation
Midnight Climax and so many more, many of which involved the effective capture of female
children or young women, subjected them to years of physical, sexual and psychological abuse,
then turned them loose as robotic tools. Gottlieb arranged for many ‘safe houses’
where his programmed women would lure victims to be unwittingly fed large doses of LSD and
engage in all manner of inhuman activity besides sex. There have been recurring stories,
apparently credibly documented, of the walls of these houses covered with photos of naked
and handcuffed women being whipped and tortured.Gottlieb was an inhuman predator of the
worst kind. He deliberately sought out and typically selected for his thousands of test
subjects and victims, children, prisoners, poor people, petty criminals, and the mentally ill,
since they were “the least likely to be taken seriously should they have the temerity to
complain” about being drugged, abused and tortured by US government officials.
It was Gottlieb, or his group, responsible for much of the programming of people like Sirhan
Sirhan and Ted Kaczynski, and it is likely that Gottlieb’s group was also responsible for
the conception and programming of the “Zebra murders” that resulted in a sudden
wave of nearly 100 senseless random murders lacking any semblance of motivation, that swept
California during the late 1960s and early 1970s. These, and many of the serial killing sprees
that plagued California for the better part of a decade, all had patterns too similar to be
coincidence, all linked to too many of the same people and institutions to be considered random
events.
Although involved in designing and executing some of the CIA’s most covert and deadly
– and obscenely inhuman – missions, Gottlieb did not appear to be the least bit
troubled by the immoral dimensions of his work. He testified to a Senate Committee that though
his MK-ULTRA activities might “sound harsh in retrospect”, and that some might call
them murder, they were justified as issues of national security.
And Tim Wiener, writing his obituary in the New York Times (March 10, 1999), [114]
[115] identifies Gottlieb simply as “the man who brought LSD to the CIA”,
telling us he was “a genius” who was only “striving to explore the frontiers
of the human mind for his country”, while at the same time “searching for
religious and spiritual meaning in his life” . According to Wiener, Gottlieb
“spent his later years caring for dying patients”, in a pretty village in the
foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains, noting that the CIA awarded Mr. Gottlieb the
Distinguished Intelligence Medal. Wiener did note that with his experiments on unwitting
subjects, Gottlieb violated the Nuremburg standards under which the same Americans executed
Nazi doctors for crimes against humanity, but he failed to note that Gottlieb was certainly
much more of a monster than the Nazis ever produced , that his crimes were also against
humanity and were more extensive in scope, duration and degree than anything done in Germany.
However, instead of being prosecuted and executed, Gottlieb was rewarded with praise and
medals. Such is the hypocrisy of America. And of the fabled NYT, who once again produced their
traditional glowing obituary of a Jewish psychopath.
The UK Independent couldn’t be left out of this parade, telling us so poignantly that
“Gottlieb’s life after the CIA resembled a quest for atonement. With his wife
Margaret, he spent 18 months in India running a leper hospital. He then moved back to rural
Virginia, where he indulged two longstanding hobbies, folk dancing and goat herding. He devoted
his final years to work in a hospice, looking after the dying.” [116] John Marks, too,
in his book ‘The Search for the Manchurian Candidate’, stupidly claimed Gottlieb
was “unquestionably a patriot, a man of great ingenuity” who never performed his
actions “for inhumane reasons”, but instead “He thought he was doing exactly
what was needed. And in the context of the time, who would argue?” So, just “a
loyal servant of American government”. [117]
I have not been able to research one aspect of this to my complete satisfaction, but the
results are sufficient to state that Project MK-ULTRA appears to have been almost in
entirety a Jewish program. Gottlieb was Jewish, as were most of the individuals I could
identify as being project leaders or sub-leaders, people like Dr. John Gittinger, Harris
Isbell, James Keehner, Lauretta Bender, Albert Kligman, Eugene Saenger, Chester Southam, Robert
V. Lashbrook, Harold Abramson, Charles Geschickter, Ray Treichler, and so many more. I have a
list of more than 100 names. Likewise, many of the individuals conducting these human
“experiments” at America’s top colleges and universities, hospitals, research
foundations and mental institutions, were virtually all Jews, as were almost all of the
physicians and psychiatrists whom I have been able to identify.
I would add something to this. The creation of MK-ULTRA coincided with the importation of
the 500,000 German POWs to the US from Germany. You may or may not know of
Eisenhower’s Death Camps where it is now proven (thanks to James Bacque’s
‘Other Losses‘) that the American military, following orders from its NWO masters,
killed between 10 million and 14 million Germans in US concentration camps in Germany –
in the years after the war ended, from about 1944 to 1948. About one million were shot dead,
the remainder worked and starved to death. The photos that many of us have seen of huge piles
of severely emaciated dead bodies that were purported to be Jews killed by the Germans were in
fact of Germans killed by the Americans, and almost certainly on orders from a group of
European Jews. Eisenhower issued orders that any German civilians attempting to bring food to
these prisoners would be shot on sight, and many were. It was during this time that the 500,000
German POWs were transferred to the US from these camps in Germany on the stated pretense of
“being able to better feed them”. With my best efforts over years, I have been
unable to locate any credible documentation of these prisoners ever having left the US. The
American government claims they were all shipped back to Germany in 1948, but there is no
evidence to support this claim and the neither the International Red Cross, who were in charge
of all such movements, nor US military records, nor anyone else, has any record of any Germans
returning to anywhere in Europe from the US.
This coincides with the transfer to the US of Shiro Ishii’s entire Unit 731 staff who
were tasked with experiments similar and related to MK-ULTRA, and also with the creation of the
US CDC which, unknown to most Americans, was (and I believe still is) a unit of the US military
and not a civilian health organisation. In fact, the CDC functions as the US military’s
distributor of biological pathogens, among other things, and many of Ishii’s staff were
seconded to the CDC on its formation. This all leads to the conclusion that the German POWs
in the US were all used as ‘experimental material’ somewhere under the overall
MK-ULTRA umbrella and that all died. I have written a separate article on this latter topic
[118] , which I
recommend you read. It ties together very closely with the topic of this
essay.
This contains the full text (downloadble in chapters) of The Search for the Manchurian
Candidate: The CIA and Mind Control – John Marks (c)1979; Published by Times Books ISBN
0-8129-0773-6
KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation Manual; CIA Human Resources Exploitation Training
Manual – 1983
This CIA interrogation manual, “Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual”
[1983] is an updated version of KUBARK manual [1963] incorporating sections of KUBARK. The 1983
CIA training manual allocates considerable space to the subject of “coercive
questioning” and psychological and physical techniques and recommends: “manipulate
the subject’s environment to …”
Mind Control Cover-up – The Secrets of Mind Control
This summary is based on excerpts from three books: Bluebird by Colin Ross, MD; Mind
Controllers by Armen Victorian; and A Nation Betrayed by Carol Rutz. The books contain hundreds
of supporting footnotes, the information derived largely from 18,000 pages of declassified CIA
mind control documents.
This contains the full record of the Joint Hearing before the Select Committee on
Intelligence, and the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research of the Committee on Human
Resources, Washington, DC, Wednesday, August 3, 1977
Thanks for this, Unz.com . Its probably
overlong- and too detailed for the average reader to get their head around, but still, it
contains a lot of information unbeknownst to the average individual- so maybe they'll get
_something_ from it , even if they don't read the entire article.
My conclusion: After reading this type of article I have to remind myself that:
"Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes],
and counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very
cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be "reformed"or "improved",simply because of
their innate criminal nature." [onebornfree]
.which means that, just like any other bureaucracy, the CIA cannot be "reformed" and be
made "better", or more honest and less criminal. And a new director would not make a "dimes
worth of difference" either.
Bottom line: The CIA, just like the FBI and all the rest of the 1000's of entirely
unconstitutional federal agencies, needs to be abolished, NOW, and [ideally] all of its
career criminals forced to stand trial for their many crimes against humanity. All of these
evil fuckers and many more unlisted here need to be held accountable [and if not in this
world, maybe in the next, assuming there is one].
Also, Tom ONeil in his book Chaos links Gottleib to the Manson family with documentary
evidence. He's got Gottleib, Jolly West, and CIA grunt Reeve Whitson, who ran him day to day
as an illegal domestic agent.
The book is marred by the current style of affected obsession. To get something
incriminating published, a writer has to perform the role of conspiracy nut, draw attention
away from his evidence, and open himself up to ad hominem impeachment of his facts.
What was the name of the judge who died of a heart attack on the Glickman case? I presume
these were his bribed and blackmailed successors:
I have not been able to research one aspect of this to my complete satisfaction, but the
results are sufficient to state that Project MK-ULTRA appears to have been almost in
entirety a Jewish program. Gottlieb was Jewish, as were most of the individuals I could
identify as being project leaders or sub-leaders, people like Dr. John Gittinger, Harris
Isbell, James Keehner, Lauretta Bender, Albert Kligman, Eugene Saenger, Chester Southam,
and so many more.
Please provide some sources for your claim that the following persons are Jewish: John
Gittinger, Chester Southam, Harris Isbell, and James Keehner.
I think this stuff was almost certainly the kernel of truth that was behind the "Satanic
Panic" of the 70's and 80's. And don't forget the mysterious "Finders Group@, which was also
likely linked to MK Ultra.
While I love a good conspiracy as much as anyone and have no doubts about US Government
villainy, the absence of documentation does not inspire faith, or even curiosity in these
allegations.
Furthermore, I knew one of the dramatis personae John Lilly, stayed with him and
Toni in Decker Canyon whenever I was in SoCal, and participated in many his wacky
experiments–all of which he inflicted upon himself in extremis before permitting
me to try them.
John was a Western yogi: he used technology to induce psychic states that, for oriental
practitioners, required years to self-manipulation. He was also humorous, kind hearted and
generous–not the type one associates with systematic cruelty.
He was fascinated by marine mammals and was (the mid-seventies) outfitting a ship with a
modified IBM 370 so that he could converse with them in real time. He may, in his earlier
days as a surgeon, inserted electrodes in dolphins' brains, but that was an era when the
procedure was a common treatment for humans.
@Larry Romanoff
ion!
But please do include your references and source material. Long and substantial is much
better fodder for the (unprogrammed) mind.
Maybe one day you might even review this current piece to insert those references you
have. I know I'd be very grateful if you did! Maybe you could also give an idea of the
percentage of Jewish involvement and the possitions they held, and even their (if any)
connections to the Nuremburg Trials..? That could make an interesting study all by
itself!
Botha learned his lessons perfectly, and had no difficulty creating precisely a
multiple-persona robot army that would obey him without hesitation or question, and
self-destruct upon failure. As part of his creation of horrors, he would gather young
children and let them watch his men cutting off the ears, noses, and limbs of civilians who
challenged his rule. But Botha was most famous for rounding up 10 year old boys, killing
their parents in front of them, raping young women while they watched, then recruiting them
to fight in his army. Instant multiple personalities.
Thank you for your providing most convincing living proof that not only did MK-ULTRA
perform mind-bending experiments on people, but that it actually worked on you.
With all the detailed accounts of experiments and names, I noticed I didn't see the name
'Charles Manson' anywhere? His life and times fits perfectly with this article.
Kacynski put his life at risk by ignoring the advice of his lawyers and insisting he was
not mentally ill after he was apprehended. He deeply resents any suggestion that he is
mentally unsound. I would be cautious about accepting his claims about the Murray
experiments. Years ago, I recall reading an article in the Atlantic written by a man who was
a friend of Kacynski's at Harvard. He said that after his involvement with Murray, Ted
underwent a profound change. His relationship ended because Kacynski withdrew from all social
contact.
@Larry Romanoff the
list of subprojects and have any luck unmasking the researchers you find many wrote academic
books. At the National Security Archive in Washington, DC they have all of the documents
Marks' FOIAed for the book and I'm certain any decent researcher could start there and write
a much better book. List of MKUltra subprojects. http://ensemble.va.com.au/tableau/suzy/TT_ResearchProjects/Hexen2039/PsyO/mkultra.html
Regards,
Anon
P.S. Anyone with limited time should just study Gittinger's PAS.
Also, Tom ONeil in his book Chaos links Gottleib to the Manson family with documentary
evidence. He's got Gottleib, Jolly West, and CIA grunt Reeve Whitson, who ran him day to
day as an illegal domestic agent.
James N. Kennett 29, I have read O'Neil's book, along with McGowan's less comprehensive
but incisive and synoptic work. Experience with collateral is also helpful in interpreting
the documentary evidence at issue because you need to know how CIA employs
compartmentation.
I apologize if I unfairly impugned the sphincter tone of any of your stout-hearted manly
friends but this particular writer is, on balance, full of shit. He's probably got the Eric
Joyce criterion collection tucked away on his hard disk just in case he has an untoward flash
of enlightenment.
The Lobster reviewer's conclusion is straight out of CIA memo 1035-960 ¶ 4(a.) It is
notable that he recounts the evidence but then denies its import, waving it away with a
wistful we'll-never-know shrug. All Mockingbird media apple-polishers can be categorized in
terms of how far they follow their logical nose and at what point they veer off with some
ridiculous non sequitur. That behavior depends not on the individual – they are fully
interchangeable – but on the probative weight of the public evidence. That evidence is
now conclusive. Manson was a illegal domestic CIA agent.
Ramsey and Dorrell are for real, worthy colleagues of Agee in denunciation of clandestine
state crime. But CIA can do wonders inserting propaganda morsels into alt-media outlets. Just
look at what they've done to whowhatwhy.com . Russ Baker is a force of nature yet his site
is now infested with gullible partisans.
He was a token. It is known Unit 731 mostly got away scot free. Check the numbers between
German and Japanese prosecutions. Many Nazis helped develop NASA and other industry in the US
after the war. Japanese were allowed to go home to rebuild Japan to keep communists out. All
those big Japanese companies stayed in business after the war.
@Billyd them,
though such links may well exist. Similar with Charles Manson and others.
In a topic such as this, with such an admittedly-huge number of projects and victims in
many countries, It becomes difficult to know when to stop. There are hundreds of aberrant
examples that could potentially have a connection to MK-ULTRA but, with most of the files
destroyed, we will never know.
For the moment, it seems the most praiseworthy research would be to ignore the LSD
portions and focus on the violence-induced multiple personalities because this is almost
certainly the most horrific portion of the Project and there might be tens of thousands of
victims yet to be discovered.
Glad to see the Cannon book listed–much of the UFO hysteria appears to be a side
trail of the MK-Ultra mind-control experiments.
The elites had been contemplating (and perhaps still are planning) some sort of fake alien
landing scenario to brainwash the world's masses into supporting a world government.
We haven't heard much about it lately-not sure whether that is good or bad!
"Yet what kind of men were they who set their hands to the task [of rebuilding the
temple]? They were men who constantly resisted the Holy Spirit, revolutionists bent on
stirring up sedition. After the destruction which occurred under Vespa-sian and Titus, these
Jews rebelled during the reign of Hadrian and tried to go back to the old commonwealth and
way of life. What they failed to realize was that they were fighting against the decree of
God, who had ordered that Jerusalem remain forever in ruins."
@Larry Romanoff
eciate the reply and hard work on this article. I had a family member who died when I was quite
young that worked/taught there.
In looking-up some of his journal articles from the 50s/60s, it appears he was involved in
the injecting of radium into women at various stages of pregnancy to check for clearance times,
as well as effects on fetal development.
I'm going to assume that his team was doing this without the informed consent of patients. I
have no idea if this was something that would have been done under MK Ultra, much less whatever
else they would have been doing – but it sounds not far off.
I knew one. Joined the Nazi Party because "that's how you got ahead". Wehrmacht. Interned in
a POW camp in Colorado. Returned to Germany with all his "kameraden". Got married, immigrated
to North America and raised a family and had a long career. A worthless asshole, and all his
children were worthless greedy assholes that caused a lot of misery to innocent others. All
that could have been prevented if he had been shot or starved to death in "Eisenhower's death
camps".
You claimed that John was a "mad scientist" and inferred that he was a witting participant
in some of the evil programs you describe.
My familiarity with him and his fellow investigators–including the very proper Gregory
Bateson, who oversaw some of John's projects on behalf of the USG–does not support your
claim.
They investigated fringe phenomena, like hallucinogens and sensory deprivation, in the same
way scientists investigate everything. They were glad to get government funding and the fact
that others would misuse their findings was beyond their control–as is the case with even
the most mundane discoveries, including electricity.
There is gray. There is darkness. And there are black holes that suck light and love and
life out of all that comes near. Evil pretends to not know the difference. Until on the death
bed you see trembling and the hand grasping, oddly and feebly reaching out, as if trying to
stop some very long fall.
I saw a documentary on Amazon Prime about this last year.
The woman mentioned in the article -- the one with the medical records proof -- was in it.
The doc also covered LSD experiments conducted in a small French village in the 1950's. They
somehow laced some local bread with it, all with the knowledge of the French government. One
person jumped to his death because he thought he was flying. The Canadian "hospital" was also
covered.
You have it right. I had written another article dealing with precisely your topic, as a
kind of introduction to this much longer one, on the basis that readers might think "well, if
they will do this, then they will probably do anything." It was all part of the same thing.
You might enjoy reading it. It's quite short. The US Government Declares War on America.
About 15 years ago there was a report on a national nightly news program that revealed the
Pentagon, quite a few years earlier, had secretly seeded the atmosphere above two small
American cities with radioactive particles in order to study the effects of nuclear fallout on
these city's populations.
Couldn't believe what I was hearing. But every attempt since then to find any information on
that government program, or even any news archives about it, has led to a dead end.
MK-ULTRA and its brethren grew out of Operation Paperclip in which more than 10,000
Japanese and some
German scientists of all stripes were smuggled into the US after the Second World
War, to provide the government with information on torture and interrogation techniques.
And then you write:
Project MK-ULTRA appears to have been almost in
entirety a Jewish program . Gottlieb was Jewish, as were most of the individuals I
could identify as being project leaders or sub-leaders, people like Dr. John Gittinger,
Harris Isbell, James Keehner, Lauretta Bender, Albert Kligman, Eugene Saenger, Chester
Southam, Robert V. Lashbrook, Harold Abramson, Charles Geschickter, Ray Treichler, and so
many more. I have a list of more than 100 names. Likewise, many of the individuals conducting
these human "experiments" at America's top colleges and universities, hospitals, research
foundations and mental institutions, were virtually all Jews, as were almost all of the
physicians and psychiatrists whom I have been able to identify.
Isn't there a contradiction here?
That MK-Ultra is a Nazi operation brought to the US through Paperclip is a cliché that
is widely disseminated. You find it for example in the recent film "Out of Shadow" (a Q-Anon
production). But never is it mentionned that Gotlieb was Jewish; in fact, it is generally
implied that he was a nazi. Your list of Jews involved in MK-Ultra is a major contribution (I
was only aware of Gotlieb) but your assertion on the link with Nazi Germany through Paperclip
lacks a similar list: you only provide a Japanese example. Can you provide some names? If not,
don't you think that the theory of the MK-Ultra-Paperclip connection should be reconsidered as
a kind of "accusatory inversion", a rumor spread by the Jewish press, Hollywood, and now the
Q-Anon sect.
Mengele escaped Germany and traveled to the US – where he apparently roamed freely
for quite some time before the media and the public made him too hot for the CIA to handle
and he was transshipped to Central America with US government funding.
Great article Mr. Romanoff, very detailed and eye-opening. This one will be in the saved
links file to be used as a reference for all things U.S. Mind Kontrol.
I find it funny it the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research(SIEPR)is one of the
big producers of Covid19 fear porn, and tells us how delightful our "new not-normal" future
will be. More proof we Americans pay zero attention to history, and therefor are doomed to
repeat over, and over, and over.
The CIA and MI6 and the Mossad are the chain dogs of the imperial courts that rule the world
aka the zionists and in the words of Mike Pompeo, " I was the CIA director, we lied, we
cheated, we stole, it was like we had entire training courses ".
If interested , read these books The Committee of 300 by ex MI6 officer John Coleman, and
The Secret Team by L. Fletcher Prouty, and By Way of Deception by ex Mossad officer Victor
Ostrovsky.
@Larry Romanoff nt
for 3 hours on the Joe Rogan Podcast in August of 2019) book comes to a similar conclusion;
West and Manson *likely* interacted, but there is no concrete evidence of it, despite the fact
they were in the same place at the same time for about a year. There is also a ton of evidence
that Manson was protected by federal sources as he committed crimes in CA in the years prior to
the Tate-LoBianca murders.
Fascinating stuff. Thank you for your hard work.
One question: Do you think this ties in with David McGowan's work, specifically, "Programmed
to Kill"?
At the first Doctors' Trial at Nuremberg, Mengele was not even mentioned, nor was he even
wanted by the Allies at that time, which is astonishing considering he was allegedly the most
'notorious' figure of 'Nazi evil' of the entire war.
And the so-called 'witnesses' to Mengele's alleged crimes couldn't even decide whether he had
blond or brown hair, or blue or brown eyes. And the crimes he was accused of are preposterous
for someone of Mengele's academic achievements and scientific understanding.
@Anonymous ion, the
atomic bomb was dropped upon Hiroshima.
The serial killer bomb fell from the womb of "Enola Gay," named after Col. Tibbet's mother.
In contrast, Mary, The Theotokos, gave birth to the Giver of Life.
As described in Consortium News, "For targeting purposes, the bombing crew used St. Mary's
Urakami Cathedral, the largest Christian church in East Asia. At 11:02 a.m., on Aug. 9, 1945,
when the bomb was dropped over the cathedral, Nagasaki was the most Christian city in
Japan."
Thanks, # 901, the world ought to know the satanic history of the making of the atomic
bomb.
@Laurent
Guyénot lluded to as history. Even now Wikipedia flatly denies that Jesus Christ is
a syncretic myth that was transformed into historical propaganda. Why do the Zionazis want us
to believe Jesus was real, even as they ridicule him and deny his divinity? Why is the culture
war in America centered around Christianity, and its alignment with the Republican Party, if
Jewish interests control both parties? Why is Christianity the fulcrum of Zionism?
To ascertain guilt we always ask cui bono ? And in politics we always look for a
proven MO, such as control opposition, divide and conquer.
He comes close to this but cannot fully link them. He says as much on the Aug 2019
appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast. He says he can come very close, though.
I'm surprised the notorious criminal boss and serial killer,Whitey Bulger, isn't mentioned.
He was another victim of prison drug experiments. Bulger came back from prison a changed and
much more dangerous and vicious an individual.
I find the article to be a feverishly written amalgam of useful, substantiated information,
unsubstantiated assertions, tenuous innuendoes, and some absurdities.
It's frustrating because I want to pass on the substantiated material but know that many
potential readers will be put off by the often Grand Guignol prose, yellow press innuendoes,
and patent absurdities.
Apr 2, 2015 Ex-CIA Officer John Kiriakou: "The Government Turned Me Into a Dissident"
In 2007, John Kiriakou became the first Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) official to
publicly confirm that agency interrogators waterboarded a high-value detainee, terrorism
suspect Abu Zubaydah -- a revelation that had previously been a closely guarded secret.
I do, yes. The great amount of similar evidence suggests there may be even more dots to
connect, all related in some way to this umbrella program.
Too much of the literature and public mental image of MK-ULTRA focuses on the LSD, but the
real connection is in human experimentation, and projects to learn to what extent humans could
be controlled and what things they might be capable of doing.
Great article !
And, unlike some commenters here, I don't need additional confirmations of existence
and practices the (a juicy hyphenated expletive goes here) use to experiment on, or to
"utterly destroy" (just like their Doctor recommended) people they target.
The good thing is that rightful anger can help to discover something that otherwise you
wouldn't have ever discovered. As they say, give people what they want !
I'm tempted to say that it's a shame that someone would waste an above-average intelligence
and dedication. But given the author's preoccupations, it's probably best that he limit himself
to a topic which ensures that the smallest possible number of ineffectual and unsound people
could be influenced by him. The more time he spends consumed by a merely 'journalistic'
expression for his interests and imagination, the better for everyone. Just think of the
horrors he might have been capable of, had he been given sufficient intelligence, charisma and
opportunities to bring his fantasies to life.
Hitler was a Jew. According to the Dutch history teachers. That's what we've been taught. So
there's two Jews Adolf and Anne. Other than that they don't exist . until you hear:
Mr. Romanoff thank you for this work and others published on Unz. I have read many of them
with interest and to my benefit, including the excellent 2,000 word piece you linked to in
several comments. That one should be distributed widely.
Preface to my question: Clearly, you have taken a deep dive into the "unconscionable" (your
word from the shorter essay) world of mind control and human experimentation.
My question: Is it possible that you cannot see the brilliant mind control operation being
carried out right now in real time and on a world-wide level? If you cannot see it, how can
that blind spot be explained?
This mind control operation has all the signs, using tactics both soft and hard. The
incessant media and government propaganda applies the soft, physically non-invasive torture.
Ever changing stories and shifting realities that lead people inexorably into a false
identity.
The hard tactics, the physical invasive tortures, have been applied with a slow but equally
inexorable increase in rituals: hand-washing, social distancing, masks, outright isolation,
drugs (soon-to-be). What ghastly tortures await those who refuse to consent to these
unmistakably occult-like rituals?
So, instead of using your expertise in mind control, gained through researching MK Ultra and
the US government's "reprehensible history of illegal, unethical, and immoral experiments" on
its own people (your words from the shorter essay), you come here in Mike Whitney's thread
yesterday and debate statistics of COVID deaths in Sweden v. Norway. What a titanic waste of
time! Unz is an amazing site, combining some of the most sublime commentary with some of the
most mundane and inane and insane.
We are witnessing what can only be described as a masterstroke of mind control. It proceeds
on a scale and with a breadth and depth that can only be explained by a dark intelligence far
above human. Sure, like the mind control operations you have investigated, the human operatives
are true psychopaths (like Gottlieb and Loretta Bender). But the coordination and operational
control comes from a otherworldly darkness, a depraved evil that is above human capabilities.
It comes from a spirit that hates humanity, but hates God most of all. We are no match for
it.
Yet people spill hundreds of thousands of words arguing over ever shifting, ever falsified
statistics in Sweden v. Norway or Spain or wherethefuckever? That is exactly where the master
of this mind control psyop wants us to fixate our gaze. Look! Lockdowns worked here! No they
didn't, they worked here! Hey, this virus came from a lab in Wuhan! No, it a US bio attack gone
bad! China sucks, the US is great. China is great, the US sucks. Blah, blah, blah!
How far is your truth-seeking willing to go on this, Mr. Romanoff? Why not go there and help
people escape full capture? You surely have uncovered the material to make you see it, as
evidenced by this article and others.
I suppose some gatekeepers of limited hangouts are simply sincere, but still useful, idiots
(not implying you here). Maybe some are willfully ignorant, or simply clever at trying to
preserve a "stage" from which to speak.
As mentioned by another commenter, the absence of Charles Manson in this article seems a bit
odd, especially considering the timeline of MK Ultra.
His ability to lure women and others into joining his commune, control and manipulate them. The
drug use, sexual deviancy, slavery, and ultimately getting them to kill for him it's hard to
believe he wasn't an MK Ultra asset turned loose on society as a kind of experiment to test
these techniques.
The women were mostly from stable, middle class upbringings. At minimum you'd think they would
have wanted to debrief him to learn how he did it. Everything Manson sounds like it's right out
of the MK Ultra playbook, not unlike Jim Jones.
Larry Romanoff: "Rather than being an anarchist, Kaczynski's bombing campaign was both a cry
for help and a quest for revenge. "
That's a ridiculous dismissal of Kaczynski's thinking and his many writings, which on major
points parallel self-described Christian anarchist Jacques Ellul's work. Nobody questions
whether Ellul is an anarchist, or calls his writings "a cry for help". Also, you, as a
conspiracy theorist of the paranoid type, would likely be described as "mentally ill" by many
psychologists. Could this article be your own "cry for help"?
Roberto is what folks in Latin America would deem is "un gusano sin vergüenza'. A
willing neo-colonial lapdog for the ghoulish intelligence agencies. You can disregard this
sad waste of matter. The governments of Brasil & Ecuador are willingly allowing their
countries to succumb to COVID-19. Bio-genocide, in other words. It's a nightmare.
People's old ways of understanding what's going on in the world just aren't holding together
anymore.
Trust in the mass media is at an all-time low, and it's only getting lower.
People are more aware than ever that anything they see can be propaganda or
disinformation.
Deepfake technology will soon be so advanced and so accessible that nobody will even trust
video anymore.
The leader of the most powerful country on earth speaks in a way that has no real
relationship with facts or reality in any way, and people have just learned to roll with
it.
Ordinary people are hurting financially but Wall Street is booming, a glaring plot hole in
the story of the economy that's only getting more pronounced.
The entire media class will now spend years leading the public on a wild goose chase for
Russian collusion and then act like it's no big deal when the whole thing turned out to be
completely baseless.
... ... ...
New Cold War escalations between the U.S.-centralized empire and the unabsorbed governments
of China and Russia are going to cause the media airwaves around the planet to become saturated
in ever-intensifying propaganda narratives which favor one side or the other and have no
interest in honestly telling people the truth about what's going on.
"... The reality is that, in the summer of 2020, America faces two deadly viruses. The first is Covid-19. With hard work and some luck, scientists may be able to mass-produce an effective vaccine for it, perhaps by as early as next spring . In the meantime, scientists do have a sense of how to control it, contain it, even neutralize it, as countries from South Korea and New Zealand to Denmark have shown, even if some Americans, encouraged by our president, insist on throwing all caution to the winds in the name of living free. The second virus, however, could prove even more difficult to control, contain, and neutralize: forever war, a pandemic that U.S. military forces, with their global strike missions, continue to spread across the globe. ..."
"... To survive, the human body needs a healthy immune system, so when it goes haywire, becomes wildly inflamed, and ends up attacking and degrading our vital organs, we're in trouble deep. It's a reasonable guess that, in analogous terms, American democracy is already on a ventilator and beginning to feel the effects of multiple organ failure. ..."
"... Unlike a human patient, doctors can't put our democracy into a medically induced coma. But collectively we should be working to suppress our overactive immune system before it kills us. In other words, it's truly time to defund that military machine of ours, as well as the militarized version of the police, and rethink how actual threats can be neutralized without turning every response into an endless war. ..."
...as Martin Luther King, Jr., pointed
out in 1967 during the Vietnam War, the United States remains the world's greatest
purveyor of violence -- and nothing in this century, the one he didn't live to see, has
faintly proved him wrong. Considered another way, Washington should be classified as the
planet's most committed arsonist, regularly setting or fanning the flames of fires globally
from Libya to Iraq, Somalia to Afghanistan, Syria to -- dare I say it -- in some quite
imaginable future Iran, even as our leaders invariably boast of having the world's greatest
firefighters (also known as
the U.S. military ).
Scenarios of perpetual war haunt my thoughts. For a healthy democracy, there should be few
things more unthinkable than never-ending conflict, that steady drip-drip of death and
destruction that drives
militarism , reinforces authoritarianism, and facilitates disaster capitalism .
In 1795, James Madison
warned Americans that war of that sort would presage the slow death of freedom and
representative government. His prediction seems all too relevant in a world in which, year
after year, this country continues to engage in needless wars that have nothing to do with
national defense.
You Wage War Long, You Wage It Wrong
U.S. helicopters on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Midway (CV-41) during the
evacuation of Saigon, April 1975. (DanMS, Wikimedia Commons)
To cite one example of needless war from the last century, consider America's horrendous
years of fighting in Vietnam and a critical lesson drawn firsthand from that conflict by
reporter Jonathan Schell. "In Vietnam," he noted , "I learned about the capacity of the
human mind to build a model of experience that screens out even very dramatic and obvious
realities." As a young journalist covering the war, Schell saw that the U.S. was losing, even
as its military was destroying startlingly large areas of South Vietnam in the name of saving
it from communism. Yet America's leaders, the " best and brightest "
of the era, almost to a man refused to see that all of what passed for realism in their world,
when it came to that war, was nothing short of a first-class lie.
Why? Because believing is seeing and they desperately wanted to believe that they were the
good guys, as well as the most powerful guys on the planet. America was winning, it practically
went without saying, because it had to be. They were infected by their own version of an
all-American victory culture ,
blinded by a sense of this country's obvious destiny: to be the most exceptional and
exceptionally triumphant nation on this planet.
As it happened, it was far more difficult for grunts on the ground to deny the reality of
what was happening -- that they were fighting and dying in a senseless war. As a result,
especially after the shock of the enemy's Tet Offensive early in 1968, escalating protests
within the military (and among veterans at home) together with massive antiwar demonstrations
finally helped put the brakes on that war. Not before, however, more than 58,000 American
troops died, along with
millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians.
In the end, the war in Indochina was arguably too costly, messy, and futile to continue. But
never underestimate the
military-industrial complex , especially when it comes to editing or denying reality, while
being eternally over-funded for that very reality. It's a trait the complex has shared with
politicians of both parties. Don't forget, for instance, the way President Ronald Reagan
reedited that disastrous conflict into a "
noble cause " in the 1980s. And give him credit! That was no small thing to sell to an
American public that had already lived through such a war. By the way, tell me something about
that Reaganesque moment doesn't sound vaguely familiar almost four decades later when our very
own "
wartime president " long ago
declared victory in the "war" on Covid-19, even as the death toll from that virus
approaches 150,000 in the homeland.
President Donald Trump during briefing on Covid-19 testing capacity May 11, 2020. (White
House, Shealah Craighead)
In the meantime, the military-industrial complex has mastered the long con of the
no-win forever war in a genuinely impressive fashion. Consider the war in Afghanistan. In
2021 it will enter its third decade without an end in sight. Even when President Donald Trump
makes noises
about withdrawing troops from that country, Congress approves an amendment to another massive,
record-setting military budget with broad
bipartisan support that effectively obstructs any efforts to do so (while the Pentagon
continues to bargain Trump down on the
subject).
The Vietnam War, which was destroying the U.S. military, finally ended in an ignominious
withdrawal. Almost two decades later, after the 2001 invasion, the war in Afghanistan can now
be -- the dream of the Vietnam era -- fought in a "limited" fashion, at least from the point of
view of Congress, the Pentagon, and most Americans (who ignore it), even if not the Afghans.
The number of American troops being killed is, at this point, acceptably
low , almost imperceptible in fact (even if not to Americans who have lost loved ones over
there).
More and more, the U.S. military is relying on air power ,
unmanned drones, mercenaries, local militias, paramilitaries, and private contractors.
Minimizing American casualties is an effective way of minimizing negative media coverage here;
so, too, are efforts by the Trump administration to classify nearly everything related to that
war while
denying or downplaying " collateral
damage " -- that is, dead civilians -- from it.
Their efforts boil down to a harsh truth: America just plain
lies about its forever wars, so that it can keep on killing in lands far from home.
When we as Americans refuse to take in the destruction we cause, we come to passively accept
the belief system of the ruling class that what's still bizarrely called "defense" is a "must
have" and that we collectively must spend
significantly more than a trillion dollars a year on the Pentagon, the Department of
Homeland Security, and a sprawling network of intelligence agencies, all justified as necessary
defenders of America's freedom. Rarely does the public put much thought into the dangers
inherent in a sprawling "defense" network that increasingly invades and dominates our
lives.
Unmanned MQ-9 Reaper taxis after a mission in Afghanistan, Oct. 1, 2007. (Wikimedia)
Meanwhile, it's clear that low-cost
wars , at least in terms of U.S. troops killed and wounded in action, can essentially be
prolonged indefinitely, even when they never result in anything faintly like victory or fulfill
any faintly useful American goal. The Afghan War remains the case in point. "Progress" is a
concept that only ever fits
the enemy -- the Taliban continues to gain ground -- yet, in these years, figures like
retired general and former CIA Director David Petraeus have continued to call for a "
generational
" commitment of troops and resources there, akin to U.S. support for South Korea.
Who says the Pentagon leadership learned nothing from Vietnam? They learned how to wage
open-ended wars basically forever, which has proved useful indeed when it comes to justifying
and sustaining
epic military budgets and the political authority that goes with them. But here's the
thing: in a democracy, if you wage war long, you wage it wrong. Athens and the historian
Thucydides learned this the hard way in the struggle against Sparta more than two millennia
ago. Why do we insist on forgetting such an obvious lesson?
'We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us'
Sept. 11, 2001: Firefighters battling fire in portion of the Pentagon damaged by attack.
(U.S. Navy/Bob Houlihan)
World War II was arguably the last war Americans truly had to fight. My Uncle Freddie was in
the Army and stationed at Pearl Harbor when it was attacked on Dec. 7, 1941. The country then
came together and won a global conflict (with lots of help) in 44 months, emerging as the
planetary superpower to boot. Now, that superpower is very much on the wane, as Trump
recognized in running successfully as a
declinist candidate for president in 2016. (Make America Great Again !) And yet,
though he ran against this country's forever wars and is now president, we're approaching the
third decade of a war on terror that has yielded little, spread radical Islamist terror outfits
across an expanse of the planet, and still seemingly has no end.
"Great nations do not fight endless wars," Trump
himself claimed only last year. Yet that's exactly what this country has been doing,
regardless of which party ruled the roost in Washington. And here's where, to give him credit,
Trump actually had a certain insight. America is no longer great precisely because of the
endless wars we wage and all the largely hidden but associated costs that go with them,
including the recently much publicized
militarization of the police here at home. Yet, in promising to make America great again,
President Trump has
failed to end those wars, even as he's fed the military-industrial complex with even
greater piles of cash.
There's a twisted logic to all this. As the leading purveyor of violence and terror, with
its leaders committed to fighting Islamist terrorism across the planet until the phenomenon is
vanquished, the U.S. inevitably becomes its own opponent, conducting a perpetual war on itself.
Of course, in the process, Afghans, Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians, Somalis, and Yemenis, among other
peoples on this embattled planet of ours, pay big time, but Americans pay, too. (Have you even
noticed that high-speed railroad that's unbuilt
, that dam in increasing
disrepair , those bridges that need fixing, while money continues to
pour into the national security state?) As the cartoon possum Pogo once so classically
said , "We
have met the enemy and he is us."
Early in the Iraq War, General Petraeus asked a question that
was relevant indeed: "Tell me how this [war] ends." The answer, obvious to so many who had
protested in the global streets
over the invasion to come in 2003, was "not well." Today, another answer should be obvious:
never, if the Pentagon and America's political and national security elite have anything to do
with it. In thermodynamics class, I learned that a perpetual motion machine is impossible to
create due to entropy. The Pentagon never took that in and has instead been hard at work
proving that a perpetual military machine is possible until, that is, the empire it feeds off
of collapses and takes us with it.
America's Military Complex as a Cytokine Storm
U.S. Air Force basic military graduation on April 16, 2020, on Joint Base San
Antonio-Lackland, Texas. (U.S. Air Force, Johnny Saldivar)
In the era of Covid-19, as cases and deaths from the pandemic continue to soar in America, it's astonishing that
military spending is also soaring to record
levels despite a medical emergency and a major recession.
The reality is that, in the summer of 2020, America faces two deadly viruses. The first
is Covid-19. With hard work and some luck, scientists may be able to mass-produce an effective
vaccine for it, perhaps by as early as
next spring . In the meantime, scientists do have a sense of how to control it, contain it,
even neutralize it, as countries from South Korea and New Zealand to Denmark have shown, even
if some Americans, encouraged by our president, insist on throwing all caution to the winds in
the name of living free. The second virus, however, could prove even more difficult to control,
contain, and neutralize: forever war, a pandemic that U.S. military forces, with their global
strike missions, continue to spread across the globe.
Sadly, it's a reasonable bet that in the long run, even with Trump as president, America has
a better chance of defeating Covid-19 than the virus of forever war. At least, the first is
generally seen as a serious threat (even
if not by a president blind to anything but his chances for reelection); the second is,
however, still largely seen as evidence of our strength and exceptionalism. Indeed, Americans
tend to imagine "our" military not as a dangerous virus but as a set of benevolent antibodies,
defending us from global evildoers.
When it comes to America's many wars, perhaps there's something to be learned from the way
certain people's immune systems respond to Covid-19. In some cases, the virus sparks an
exaggerated immune response that drives the body into a severe inflammatory state known as a
cytokine storm . That "storm" can lead to multiple organ failure followed by death, yet it
occurs in the cause of defending the body from a viral attack.
In a similar fashion, America's exaggerated response to 19 hijackers on 9/11 and then to
perceived threats around the globe, especially the nebulous threat of terror, has led to an
analogous (if little noticed) cytokine storm in the American system. Military (and
militarized police ) antibodies have been sapping our resources, inflaming our body
politic, and slowly strangling the vital organs of democracy. Left unchecked, this "storm" of
inflammatory militarism
will be the death of democracy in America.
To put this country right, what's needed is not only an effective vaccine for Covid-19 but a
way to control the "antibodies" produced by America's forever wars abroad and, as the years
have gone by, at home -- and the ways they've attacked and inflamed the collective U.S.
political, social, and economic body. Only when we find ways to vaccinate ourselves against the
destructive violence of those wars, whether on foreign streets or our own, can we begin to heal
as a democratic society.
To survive, the human body needs a healthy immune system, so when it goes haywire,
becomes wildly inflamed, and ends up attacking and degrading our vital organs, we're in trouble
deep. It's a reasonable guess that, in analogous terms, American democracy is already on a
ventilator and beginning to feel the effects of multiple organ failure.
Unlike a human patient, doctors can't put our democracy into a medically induced coma.
But collectively we should be working to suppress our overactive immune system before it kills
us. In other words, it's truly time to defund
that military machine of ours, as well as the militarized version of the police, and rethink
how actual threats can be neutralized without turning every response into an endless
war.
So many years later, it's time to think the unthinkable. For the U.S. government that means
-- gasp! -- peace. Such a peace would start with imperial retrenchment (bring our troops
home!), much reduced military (and police) budgets, and complete
withdrawal from Afghanistan and any other place associated with that "generational" war on
terror. The alternative is a cytokine storm that will, in the end, tear us apart from
within.
A retired lieutenant colonel (USAF) and professor of history, William J. Astore is
a
TomDispatch regular. His personal blog is " Bracing Views ."
To understand what enables all the absurdity noted, try identifying what made short shrift
of Tulsi Gabbard’s run for the democrat nomination. She clearly was raising the wrong
questions about war, and some one like Biden and Hillary were providing the narratives that
enable what is happening to continue.
evelync , July 27, 2020 at 17:26
Why do we live a different public from private life?
The public – American Dream; American Exceptionalism;
The private – CIA Director approved in spite of overseeing torture; secretive paranoid
cold warriors approved to run CIA. Coups/Wars
– The secretive State Dept and Intelligence agencies adopt policies that serve short
term financial interests of MICIMATT
NOT the long term public interest.
Trump was elected in part because people are sick of endless regime change wars and
reckless financial deregulation and unfair trade.
He made promises (which he lied about) because in spite of his glaring flaws he’s a
clever manipulator of peoples’ feelings and he knows what people worry about.
Aaron , July 27, 2020 at 13:48
The war on terror is an Israeli construct, it’s a perpetual war, an impossible kind
of war for our military to win in any conventional sense, whereby we could then pack up and
go home, which is exactly the way the Zionists want it to be played out. The goal has been to
Balkanize all of the countries that Israel feels threatened by and break them apart into
ethnic statelets, and thereby hugely weakening their overall power.
Not unlike what happened
to the former Yugoslavia. Remember that after the war in Afghanistan started, a person in the
Pentagon told Wesley Clark that we were going to war in 7 Middle East countries, and he said
he asked the person “Why?” and they didn’t give him an answer other than
that was the plan.
Sure, there are always the war profiteers and all that, but the particular
mission that our military is serving in that overall region is a Zionist plan.
The American
people have bought this for the most part because the Zionist mainstream media has
successfully conflated the goals of the state of Israel with our own goals, and that we must
equate any and all things Israeli with “The West”, and so whatever antipathy is
directed at them, we are to construe that they are attacking America also. And not only have
many thousands of American troops been killed, tens of thousands injured, the p.t.s.d. and
suicides will go on, as Petraeus seems to imply, for generations. This is a like a terrible,
persistent sickness.
Will there be a modern day Alexander to cut this Gordian Knot? The
financial, emotional, spiritual, moral toll of this forever war is indeed killing our
democracy.
But you're wrong about Marines. They kill people for a living. Innocent people. Like
Iraqis. And Afghans. Anyone who thinks that murdering Iraqis and Afghans, who never did
nothing to Americans, nor Vietnamese, who also did nothing to Americans, or, as Cassius Clay
said, "I ain't got nothing against no Vietcong." And he didn't. Because he was an American.
So, I thank the service of conscientious objectors, draft dodgers, and deserters. They are
the real heroes. Takes much more bravery to go against the dumbass belligerent society you
are unfortunately born into. Oh, fuck it, you'll never understand.
@obwandiyag ompletely object to our whole response to 911 as it was indeed a false flag.
If so many people were so easily fooled in the US by our "American Pravda" including
myself, how can I hold it against an 18 year old or some other kid who hasn't even gone to
college that he too cannot see through the dense haze of lies bellowed by those who rule over
us? So yes, I admire their bravery but I want desperately for the US military to withdraw
from the Middle East (and most everywhere else) and return home to protect us and only us
from any real invasion should it ever occur.
We need a) a good military and b) honest leadership. We have the former but not the
latter.
Not a chance. Too many people's livelihood depends on war. From billionaires to the person
who putting bullets in boxes. Anyone who advocate no war will end up in prison for colluding
with the Russians.
monty42 , 16 hours ago
Colluding with the Reds, Terrorists, Chicoms, Covid...pick an enemy. That's how it works.
They roll out their psyops and make sure to inform you up front that those who question the
narrative are in the enemy column.
uhland62 , 14 hours ago
They've done it with us since 1970.
A_Huxley , 15 hours ago
Contractors like their world travel and over time.
Too many US camps, forts, bases around the world to keep working.
quanttech , 13 hours ago
The single most powerful voice against the wars in the last two years has been Tucker
Carlson - and look at what they're doing to him.
optimator , 8 hours ago
A vibrant economy can't tell the difference between manufacturing a submarine or a
refrigerator.
monty42 , 16 hours ago
Honor your oath and the wars for empire will stop. A standing army is only viable through
the Constitution for a short term defense of the States, not for endless wars of aggression
and invasion for the spread of a military empire.
quanttech , 13 hours ago
Correct. Lt. Ehren Watada refused his illegal orders to deploy to Iraq. His case was
dismissed, and he was simply discharged. Today he co-owns a restaurant in Vegas.
THERE'S LITERALLY NO PENALTY FOR FOLLOWING THE LAW.
alexcojones , 16 hours ago
As an old veteran, I've spent 50 years atoning some how, some way, myself.
"Vietnam veteran Tim O'Brien wrote: "There should be a law . . . If you support a war, if
you think it's worth the price, that's fine, but you have to put your own precious fluids on
the line. You have to head for the front and hook up with an infantry unit and help spill the
blood." As every old veteran knows, the day that happens is the day warfare ends forever,
when bullets are fattening rather than fatal to your health.
Heinlein's proposal in Starship Troopers - that only combat troops be given the franchise
to vote - is a concept with merit
ConanTheContrarian1 , 8 hours ago
I don't know that we have to make atonement. The official government position that we were
invited there to help the legitimate government of South VietNam still holds water. The
Nguyen and Tranh had been at war with each other for centuries until the French took over,
and the war was simply a continuation that the Dogpile Democrats of the day didn't see as
anything other than a way to make money. Just because you reject rightwing propaganda, don't
fall for the leftwing either.
Atlana99 , 16 hours ago
We need thousands of hardcore street activists to print these fliers out and place them on
car windshields all across America:
By Caitlin Johnstone , an independent journalist based in Melbourne, Australia. Her
website is here and you can follow
her on Twitter @caitoz
Senate has passed a bill calling for the removal of Confederate names from US bases, but it'd
be more truthful for them to continue to be named after racists, killers & oppressors, as
they embody the values of the US war machine.
"JUST IN: Senate Passes $740 Billion Defense Bill With Provision To Remove Confederate
Names Off Military Bases" reads a
headline from the digital news site Mediaite , which could also serve as a perfect
diagnosis for everything that is sick about mainstream liberal orthodoxy.
The Democrat-led House and Republican-led Senate have now both passed versions of this
bill authorizing three-quarters of a trillion dollars for a single year of military
spending, both by overwhelming bipartisan majorities, on the condition that the names of
Confederate Civil War leaders be removed from military bases.
Unsurprisingly, the Security Policy Reform Institute's Stephen Semler found a direct
relationship
between how much a House Democrat has been paid by the war industry and how likely they were to
have voted for the bloated military budget, which also obstructs any attempts to scale down
troop presence
in Afghanistan.
This is everything that is horrible about the Democratic Party and the ideological position
of mainstream liberals. Their leaders have figured out a way to trade hard objects for empty
narrative. To get people to consent to almost limitless amounts of thievery, murder and
exploitation in exchange for words and stories.
They'll get rid of Confederate names on bases, but they won't even slightly reduce the vast
fortunes they're stealing from an impoverished populace and pouring into global slaughter and
oppression. They'll kneel wearing Kente
cloth , but they won't even think about dismantling the US police state. They'll say "I
hear you, and that's something we're looking at," but they'll never intervene against
plutocrats funnelling money away from the needful to add to their unfathomably vast fortunes.
They'll call you whatever gender pronoun you like, but they'll never do anything to
inconvenience the oligarchs and warmongers.
They'll still make you fight tooth and claw for each empty concession, because otherwise
they'd be devaluing the empty, imaginary currency they're trading you in exchange for the
concrete things they want. But in the end there is no amount of narrative the powerful won't
swap out for actual policy changes of substance, because narrative in and of itself has no
value. Manipulators understand this distinction with crystal clear lucidity. Their victims do
not.
In reality, it would be a lot more truthful and authentic for bases within the US war
machine to continue to bear the names of racists, killers and oppressors, since these embody
the values of that war machine far better than anything with a more pleasant ring to it. As
long as you're robbing the American people to murder brown-skinned foreigners for corporate
interests and geostrategic resource control, you might as well have names which reflect such
values on your war machinery.
So I say keep the Confederate names on the bases. Hell, add more of them. Add the names of
Nazis, genocidal warlords, and serial killers too while you're at it. It'd certainly be a lot
more honest and accurate to have a Fort Jeffrey Dahmer as part of America's murder machine than
a Fort Colin Kaepernick.
War is the single worst thing in the world. It is the most evil, insane, counter-productive,
wasteful, damaging, kleptocratic and unsustainable thing that human beings do, by a very wide
margin. If Americans could viscerally experience all of the horrors that are inflicted by the
war machine their wealth and resources are being funneled into, with their perception
unfiltered by propaganda and government secrecy, they would fall to their knees screaming with
abject rage. They would be in the streets immediately forcing an end to this unforgivable
savagery. Which is exactly why America has so much government secrecy and propaganda.
If Americans could see with their perceptions unmanipulated, their response to the news that
$740 billion is being stolen from the American people by a sociopathic murder machine in
exchange for removing the names of Confederate leaders from its bases would not be "Oh good,
maybe we'll get a Fort Harriet Tubman!" It would be rage. Unmitigated, unforgiving rage.
Which is all the status quo deserves. Which is all the Democratic Party exists to prevent.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
When it comes to debate about US military policy, the 2020 presidential election campaign is
so far looking very similar to that of 2016. Joe Biden has pledged to ensure that "we have the
strongest military in the world," promising to "make the investments necessary to equip our
troops for the challenges of the next century, not the last one."
In the White House, President Trump is repeating the kind of anti-interventionist head
feints that won him votes four years ago against a hawkish Hillary Clinton. In his recent
graduation address at West Point, Trump re-cycled applause lines from 2016 about "ending an era
of endless wars" as well as America's role as "policeman of the world."
In reality, since Trump took office, there's been no reduction in the US military presence
abroad, which last year required a Pentagon budget of nearly $740 billion. As military
historian and retired career officer Andrew Bacevich notes ,
"endless wars persist (and in some cases have
even intensified ); the nation's various alliances and its empire of
overseas bases remain intact; US troops are still present in something like
140 countries ; Pentagon and national security state spending continues to
increase astronomically ."
When the National Defense Authorization Act for the next fiscal year came before Congress
this summer, Senator Bernie Sanders proposed a modest 10 percent reduction in military spending
so $70 billion could be re-directed to domestic programs. Representative Barbara Lee introduced
a House resolution calling for $350 billion worth of DOD cuts. Neither proposal has gained much
traction, even among Democrats on Capitol Hill. Instead, the House Armed Services Committee
just
voted 56 to 0 to spend $740. 5 billion on the Pentagon in the coming year, prefiguring the
outcome of upcoming votes by the full House and Senate.
An Appeal to Conscience
Even if Biden beats Trump in November, efforts to curb US military spending will face
continuing bi-partisan resistance. In the never-ending work of building a stronger anti-war
movement, Pentagon critics, with military credentials, are invaluable allies. Daniel Sjursen, a
37-year old veteran of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan is one such a critic. Inspired in part by
the much-published Bacevich, Sjursen has just written a new book called Patriotic Dissent:
America in the Age of Endless War (Heyday Books)
Patriotic Dissent is a short volume, just 141 pages, but it packs the same kind of punch as
Howard Zinn's classic 1967 polemic, Vietnam: The Logic of
Withdrawal . Like Zinn, who became a popular historian after his service in World War II,
Sjursen skillfully debunks the conventional wisdom of the foreign policy establishment, and the
military's own current generation of "yes men for another war power hungry president." His
appeal to the conscience of fellow soldiers, veterans, and civilians is rooted in the unusual
arc of an eighteen-year military career. His powerful voice, political insights, and painful
personal reflections offer a timely reminder of how costly, wasteful, and disastrous our post
9/11 wars have been.
Sjursen has the distinction of being a graduate of West Point, an institution that produces
few political dissenters. He grew up in a fire-fighter family on working class Staten Island.
Even before enrolling at the Academy at age 17, he was no stranger to what he calls
"deep-seated toxically masculine patriotism." As a newly commissioned officer in 2005, he was
still a "burgeoning neo-conservative and George W. Bush admirer" and definitely not, he
reports, any kind of "defeatist liberal, pacifist, or dissenter."
"The horror, the futility, the farce of that war was the turning point in my life,"
Sjursen writes in Patriotic Dissent .
When he returned, at age 24, from his "brutal, ghastly deployment" as a platoon leader, he
"knew that the war was built on lies, ill-advised, illegal, and immoral." This "unexpected,
undesired realization generated profound doubts about the course and nature of the entire
American enterprise in the Greater Middle East -- what was then unapologetically labeled the
Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)."
A Professional Soldier
By the time Sjursen landed in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, in early 2011, he had been
promoted to captain but "no longer believed in anything we were doing."
He was, he confesses, "simply a professional soldier -- a mercenary, really -- on a
mandatory mission I couldn't avoid. Three more of my soldiers died, thirty-plus were wounded,
including a triple amputee, and another over-dosed on pain meds after our return."
Despite his disillusionment, Sjursen had long dreamed of returning to West Point to teach
history. He applied for and won that highly competitive assignment, which meant the Army had to
send him to grad school first. He ended up getting credentialed, while living out of uniform,
in the "People's Republic of Lawrence, Kansas, a progressive oasis in an intolerant, militarist
sea of Republican red." During his studies at the state university, Sjursen found an
intellectual framework for his "own doubts about and opposition to US foreign policy." He
completed his first book, Ghost Riders , which combines personal memoir with counter-insurgency
critique. Amazingly enough, it was published in 2015, while he was still on active duty, but
with "almost no blowback" from superior officers.
Before retiring as a major four years later, Sjursen pushed the envelope further, by writing
more than 100 critical articles for TomDispatch and other civilian publications. He was no
longer at West Point so that body of work triggered "a grueling, stressful, and scary
four-month investigation"by the brass at Fort Leavenworth, during which the author was
subjected to "a non-publication order." At risk were his career, military pension, and
benefits. He ended up receiving only a verbal admonishment for violating a Pentagon rule
against publishing words "contemptuous of the President of the United States." His "PTSD and
co-occurring diagnoses" helped him qualify for a medical retirement last year.
Sjursen has now traded his "identity as a soldier -- the only identity I've known in my
adult life -- for that of an anti-war, anti-imperialist, social justice crusader," albeit one
who did not attend his first protest rally until he was thirty-two years old. With several
left-leaning comrades, he started Fortress on A Hill, a lively podcast about military affairs
and veterans' issues. He's a frequent, funny, and always well-informed guest on progressive
radio and cable-TV shows, as well as a contributing editor at Antiwar.com , and a contributor to a host of mainstream liberal
publications. This year, the Lannan Foundation made him a cultural freedom fellow.
In Patriotic Dissent , Sjursen not only recounts his own personal trajectory from military
service to peace activism. He shows how that intellectual journey has been informed by reading
and thinking about US history, the relationship between civil society and military culture, the
meaning of patriotism, and the price of dissent.
One historical figure he admires is Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, the recipient
of two Medals of Honor for service between 1898 and 1931. Following his retirement, Butler
sided with the poor and working-class veterans who marched on Washington to demand World War I
bonus payments. And he wrote a best-selling Depression-era memoir, which famously declared that
"war is just a racket" and lamented his own past role as "a high-class muscle-man for Big
Business, for Wall Street, and for the Bankers."
Reframing DissentNEVER MISS THE
NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Sjursen contrasts Butler's anti-interventionist whistle-blowing, nearly a century ago, with
the silence of high-ranking veterans today after "nineteen years of ill-advised, remarkably
unsuccessful American wars." Among friends and former West Point classmates, he knows many
still serving who "obediently resign themselves to continued combat deployments" because they
long ago "stopped asking questions about their own role in perpetuating and enabling a
counter-productive, inertia-driven warfare state."
Sjursen looks instead to small left-leaning groups like Veterans for Peace and About Face:
Veterans Against the War (formerly Iraq Veterans Against the War), and Bring Our Troops Home.
US, a network of veterans influenced by the libertarian right. Each in, its own way, seeks to
"reframe dissent, against empire and endless war, as the truest form of patriotism." But
actually taming the military-industrial complex will require "big-tent, intersectional action
from civilian and soldier alike," on a much larger scale. One obstacle to that, he believes, is
the societal divide between the "vast majority of citizens who have chosen not to serve" in the
military and the "one percent of their fellow citizens on active duty," who then become part of
"an increasingly insular, disconnected, and sometimes sententious post-9/11 veteran
community."
Not many on the left favor a return to conscription.
But Sjursen makes it clear there's been a downside to the U.S. replacing "citizen
soldiering" with "a tiny professional warrior caste," created in response to draft-driven
dissent against the Vietnam War, inside and outside the military. As he observes:
"Nothing so motivates a young adult to follow foreign policy, to weigh the advisability or
morality of an ongoing war as the possibility of having to put 'skin in the game.' Without at
least the potential requirement to serve in the military and in one of America's now
countless wars, an entire generation -- or really two, since President Nixon ended the draft
in 1973–has had the luxury of ignoring the ills of U.S. foreign policy, to distance
themselves from its reality ."
At a time when the U.S. "desperately needs a massive, public, empowered anti-war and
anti-imperial wave" sweeping over the country, we have instead a "civil-military" gap that,
Sjursen believes, has "stifled antiwar and anti-imperial dissent and seemingly will continue to
do so." That's why his own mission is to find more "socially conscious veterans of these
endless, fruitless wars" who are willing to "step up and form a vanguard of sorts for
revitalized patriotic dissent." Readers of Sjursen's book, whether new recruits to that
vanguard or longtime peace activists, will find Patriotic Dissent to be an invaluable
educational tool. It should be required reading in progressive study groups, high school and
college history classes, and book clubs across the country . Let's hope that the author's
willingness to take personal risks, re-think his view of the world, and then work to change it
will inspire many others, in uniform and out.
Do we need to be in 160 countries with our military and can we afford it?
Cat Daddy , 1 hour ago
I am all for bringing the troops home except for this one unnerving truth; nature abhors a
vacuum, specifically, when we pull out, China moves in. A world dominated by the CCP will be
a dangerous place to be. When we leave, we will need to make sure our bases are safely in the
hands of our friends.
dogbert8 , 1 hour ago
War is effectively the way the U.S. has done business since the Spanish American War, our
first imperial conquests. War is how we ensure big business has the materials and markets
they demand in return for their support of political parties and candidates. War is the only
area left with opportunities for growth and profit. Don't think for a minute that TPTB will
ever let us stop waging war to get what we (they) want.
TheLastMan , 2 hours ago
If you are new to zh all you need to do is study PNAC and the related nature of all
parties to understand the criminality of USA militarization and for whose benefit it
serves
Anonymous IX , 2 hours ago
I have written many times on this platform the exact same sentiments.
I am most disheartened by the COVID + Antifa/BLM Riots because of the facts this author
presents.
We are distracted with emotional and highly volatile MASSIVELY PROPAGANDIZED stories by
MSM (I don't watch) while the real problem in the world is as the author describes above.
We are war-mongering nation who needs to bring our troops home and disband over half of
our overseas installations and bases.
We have no right to levy economic sanctions to impoverish, sicken, and weaken the citizens
of Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, or anywhere else.
Yet, we run around arguing about masks and who can go into a restaurant or toppling
statutes and throwing mortar-type fireworks at federal officers. This is what we do instead
of facing a real problem which is that we are war-mongering nation with no moral/ethical
conscience. These scraggily bearded white Antifas need to WTFU and realize who their true
enemy.
Oh, wait. They work for the true enemy! Get it?
Max21c , 1 hour ago
We have no right to levy economic sanctions to impoverish, sicken, and weaken the
citizens of Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, or anywhere else.
I don't agree with the economic sanctions nonsense thing as they seem to be more of a
crutch for people that are not any good at planning, strategy, analytical thinking, critical
thinking, strategic thinking, and lack much in the way of talent or creativity or
intellectual acumen or intellectual skills...I believe there's around just shy of 10k
economic sanctions by Washington...
But the USA does have the right to receive or refuse to receive foreign Ambassadors and
Consuls and to recognize or not recognize other nations governments thus it does have some
degrees of the right to not trade or engage in commerce with other nations to a certain
extent... per imports and exports... et cetera... though it's not necessarily an absolute
right or power
IronForge , 2 hours ago
Sjursen may admire General Butler; but he doesn't seem to know that several of the
General's Descendants Served in the US Military.
Sjursen isn't Butler. The General Prevented a Coup in his Time.
The USA are a Hegemony whose KleptOchlarchs overtook the Original Constitutional
Republic.
PetroUSD, MIC, Corporate Expansion-Conquest, AgriGMO, and Pharma Interests Span the
Globe.
Wars are Rackets; and Societies to Nation-States have waged them over Real Estate, Natural
Resources, Trade Routes, Industrial Capacity, Slavery, Suppresive Spite,
Religious/Ideological Zeal, Economic Preservation, and Profiteering Greed.
YET, Militaries are still formed by Nation-States to Survive and for Some - Thrive above
such Competitive Existenstential Threats.
*****
The Hegemony are running up against New Shifts in Global Power, Systems, and Influences;
and are about to Lose their Unilateral Advantages. The Hegemon themselves may suffer Societal
Collapses Within.
Sjursen should read up on Chalmers Johnson. Instead of trying to Coordinate Ineffective
Peace Demonstrations, the Entire Voting/Political Contribution/Candidacy Schemes should be
Separated from the Oligarchy of Plutocrats and Corporate/Political KleptOchlarchs.
Without Bringing the Votes back to the Collective Hands of Citizenry Interests First and
Foremost, the Republic are Forever Conquered; and the Ethical may have to resort to
Emigration and/or Secession.
Ink Pusher , 2 hours ago
Nobody rides for free,there's always a cost and those who can't pay in bullion will often
pay in bodily fluids of one form or another.
Profiteers that create warfare for profit are simply parasitical criminals and should not
be considered a "special breed" when weighed upon the Scales of Justice.
gzorp , 2 hours ago
Read 'Starship Troopers' by Robert A Heinlein (1959) pay especial attention to the
"History and Moral Philosophy" courses... that's where his predictions for the future course
of 'America's' future appear.... rather accurately. Heinlein was a 1930's graduate of
Annapolis (Navy for you dindus and nohabs).....
A DUDE , 2 hours ago
t's not just the war machine but the entire system, the corporatocracy, of which the MIC
is a part. And there is no way to change the system from within the system because whatever
is anti-establishment becomes absorbed and neutered and part of the system.
Tulsi Gabbard ran on anti interventionism foreign policy.
Look how fast the DNC disappeared her.
Of course destroying Kamala Harris in a debate and going after the ancient evil Hitlery
sealed her fate.
BarkingWolf , 2 hours ago
In reality, since Trump took office, there's been no reduction in the US military
presence abroad, which last year required a Pentagon budget of nearly $740 billion. As
military historian and retired career officer Andrew Bacevich notes ,
"endless wars persist (and in some cases have
even intensified ); the nation's various alliances and its empire of
overseas bases remain intact; US troops are still present in something like
140 countries ; Pentagon and national security state spending continues to
increase astronomically ."
Now wait just a minute there mister, that sounds like criticism of the Donald John PBUH
PBUH PBUH ... you can't do that ... the cult followers will call you a leftist and a commie
if you point out stuff like that even if it is objectively true! That's strike one, punk.
An Appeal to Conscience
Even if Biden beats Trump in November, efforts to curb US military spending will face
continuing bi-partisan resistance.
November doesn't have anything to do with anything really. The appeal to conscience is
wasted. The appeal would be better spent on removing the political class that is on the AIPAC
dole and have dual citizenship in a foreign country in the ME while pretending to serve
America while they are members of Congress. That's only the tip of the spear ... and that is
a nonstarter from the get go.
Sjursen skillfully debunks the conventional wisdom of the foreign policy establishment,
and the military's own current generation of "yes men for another war power hungry
president."
I don't think Trump is necessarily a war power hungry president. While it is true that we
have not withdrawn from Syria and basically stole their oil as Trump has repeated promised he
would do, it is also true that Trump has yet to deliver Israels war with Iran and in fact had
called back an invasion of Iran ten minutes before a flotilla of US warships was about to set
sail to ignite such an invasion leaving Tel Aviv not only aggrieved, but angry as well.
Sjursen has now traded his "identity as a soldier -- the only identity I've known in my
adult life -- for that of an anti-war, anti-imperialist, social justice crusader," albeit
one who did not attend his first protest rally until he was thirty-two years old. With
several left-leaning comrades ...
Okay, this is where you are starting to lose me .... i't like listening to a concert and
suddenly the music is hitting sour notes that are off key, off tempo, and don't seem to fit
somehow.
Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, the recipient of two Medals of Honor for
service between 1898 and 1931. Following his retirement, Butler sided with the poor and
working-class veterans who marched on Washington to demand World War I bonus payments. And
he wrote a best-selling Depression-era memoir, which famously declared that "war is just a
racket" and lamented his own past role as "a high-class muscle-man for Big Business, for
Wall Street, and for the Bankers."
Butler was correct, war especially nowadays, is a racket that makes rich people who never
seem to get their hands dirty, even richer. As one grunt put it long ago, "it's a dirty job,
but somebody has to do it."
That "somebody" is going to be the kids of the little people (the real high-class
muscle-men ) who are hated by their political class overlords even as the political class are
worshipped as gods.
Sjursen looks instead to small left-leaning groups like Veterans for Peace and About
Face: Veterans Against the War (formerly Iraq Veterans Against the War), and Bring Our
Troops Home. US, a network of veterans influenced by the libertarian right.
The problem here is that the so-called "left" brand has always been about war and the
capitalism of death.
The Democrat party is really the group that started the American civil war for instance,
they are the ones behind legacy of Eugenists like Margaret Sanger who was a card carrying
Socialist who founded the child murder mill known today as Planned Parenthood that sadly
still exists under Trump but has turned into the industrialized slaughter of children ...even
after birth so that their organs can be "harvested" for profit.
Sjursen's affinity for "the left" as saintly purveyors of peace, goodness, love, and life
strikes me as rather disingenuous. Then he seems to argue if I read the analysis correctly
that conscription will somehow be the panacea for the insatiable appetite for war?
One false flag such as The Gulf of Tonkin or 911 or even Perl Harbor or the Sinking of the
Lusitania or the assassination of an Arch Duke ... is all that is really needed to arouse the
unbridled hoards to march off to battle with almost erotic enthusiasm -the political class
KNOWS IT!
Amendment X , 2 hours ago
And don't forget President Wilson (D) who was re-elected on the platform "He kept us out
of the war" only to drag U.S. into the hopeless European Monarchary driven WWI.
11b40 , 1 hour ago
Yo! Low class muscle man here, and I have to agree with bringing back the draft. It should
never have been eliminated, and is the root of the golbalists abiity to keep us in
Afghanistan, and other parts of the ME, for going on 20 years.
Skin in the game. It means literally everything. As noted we now have 2 generations of men
who never had to give much thought at all to what's happening around the world, and how
America is involved....and look at the results. It would be a much different situation today
if all those 18 year olds had to face the draft board with an unforgiving lottery.
Yes, one false falg can whip up the country to a war time fever pitch, but unless there is
a real, serious threat, the fever cannot be maintained. The 1969 draft lottery caught me when
I stayed out the first semester of my senior year. Didn't want to go, but accepted my fate
and did the best job I could to stay alive and keep those around me as safe as possible. In
1966, I was in favor of the war, and was about to go Green Beret on the buddy system. We were
going to grease gooks with all the enthusiasm of John Wayne. My old man, an artillery 1st Sgt
at the time in Germany, talked me out of it. More like get your *** on a plane back to the
States and into college, befroe i kick it up around your shouders. A WW2 & Korea vet, he
told me then it was the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
The point is, when kids are getting drafted, Mom's, Dad's, and everyone else concerned
with the safety of their friends & relatives, start paying attention and asking hard
questions of politicians. Using Afghanistan as an example, we would have been on the way out
by the 2004 election cycle, or at max before the next one in 2008. That was 12 years ago, and
we are still there.
I addition, the reason we went would have been more closely examined, and there may have
been a real investigtion into 9/11. Plus, I am convinced that serving your country makes for
a better all around citizen, and God knows, we need better citizens.
Cassandra.Hermes , 2 hours ago
Trump and Pompeo started new cold war with China, but have no way to back up their threats
and win it!! When i was in Kosovo peace corps i heard so many stories from Albanian who were
blamed to be Russian or American spy because of double cold war against Albania. Trump and
Pompeo just gave excuse to Xi to blame anyone who protest as American spy. BBC were showing
China's broadcast of the protests in Oregon to Hong Kong with subtitle "Do you really want
American democracy?", LMFAO
Max21c , 2 hours ago
Joe Biden has pledged to ensure that "we have the strongest military in the world,"
promising to "make the investments necessary to equip our troops for the challenges of the
next century, not the last one."
The United States shall continue to have a weak military until it starts to fix its
foreign policy and diplomacy. You cannot have the strongest military in the world if you lack
a good foreign policy and good diplomacy. Brains are a lot more important than battleships,
battalions, bullets, barrels, or bombs. Get a frickin' clue you friggin' Washington
morons.
Washington is weak because they are dumb. Blind, deaf, and dumb.
Heroic Couplet , 2 hours ago
Too little, too late. Great ad for a book that will be forgotten in a week. Read Bolton's
book. The minute Trump tries to reduce troops, Bolton is right there, saying "No, we can't
move troops to the perimeter. No, we can't move troops from barracks to tents at the
perimeter." Who needs AI?
Erik Prince wrote 3.5 years ago that 4th gen warfare consists of cyberwarfare and
bio-weapons. The US military is fooked. There's probably an interesting book to be
researched: How do Republicans feel about contracting COVID-19 after listening to Trump
fumble?
ChecksandBalances , 3 hours ago
Blame the voters. Run on a platform to reduce military and police spending. See how many
of those lose. Probably all of them. You have to stop feeding the beast. This is a slogan
Trump correctly said but as usual didn't actually mean. We should cut all military and police
spending by 1/2 and then take the remaining money and build a smarter, more efficient
military and police force.
Max21c , 3 hours ago
It's not just the "Deep State." It's Washingtonians overall. It's Deep Crazy. They're all
Deep Crazy! They're nuts. And the rare exceptions that may know better and have enough common
sense to know its wrong to sick the secret police on innocent American civilians aren't going
to say anything or do anything to stop it. The few that know better in foreign policy aren't
going to say anything or do anything against the new Cold Wars on the Eastern Front against
China or on the Western Front against Russia since they're not willing to go up against the
Regime. So the Regimists know they have carte blanche to persecute or terrorize or go after
any that stand in their way. This is how tyrannies and police states operate. It's the nature
of the beast. At a minimum they brow beat people into submission. People don't want to stick
their neck out and risk going up against the Regime and risk losing to the Regime, its secret
police, and the powers that be. They shy away from anything that would bring the Regime and
its secret police and its radicals, extremists, fanatics, and zealots their way.
nonkjo , 4 hours ago
It's okay to be against "forever war" and still not have to be a progressive douchbag.
Sjursen is an unprincipled ******** artist. He leaves Iraq disillusioned as a lieutenant
but sticks around long enough for them to pay for his grad school and give him some sweet
"resume building" experiences that he can stand on to sell books? FYI, from commissioning
time as a second lieutenant to promotion to captain is 3 years...that means Sjusen was so
disillusioned that he decided to stick around for 12 more years which is about 9 years longer
than he actually needed to as an Academy grad (he only had to serve 6 unless he elected to go
to grad school).
The bottom line is Sjusen capitalizes on people not knowing how the military works. That
is, that his own self-interest far outweighs his the principles he espouses. Typical leftist
hypoctite.
Max21c , 4 hours ago
...the U.S. "desperately needs a massive, public, empowered anti-war and anti-imperial
wave ..."
Perhaps the USA just needs a better foreign policy. Though we all know that's not going to
happen with the flaky screwballs of Washington and the flaky screwballs in the Pentagon, CIA,
State Department, foreign policy establishment, think tanks et cetera.
Minor technical point: the time for the "anti-imperial wave" was before Washingtonians
destroyed much of the world and created their strategic blunders and disastrous foreign
policy. You folks all went along with this nonsense and now you have your quagmires, forever
wars, and numerous trouble spots that have popped up here and there along the way to
boot.
Pottery barn rule: you broke it and you own it and it's yours...Ma'am please pay at the
register on the way out...Sorry Ma'am there's no more free gluing...though the gluing
specialist may be in on the third Thursday this month though it's usually the second Tuesday
each month...
Contemporaneously, in the same vein the American public has been brainwashed into going
along with the new Cold Wars on the Western Front against Moscow and the even newer Cold War
on the Eastern Front against Beijing. It's like P.T. Barnum said "There's a sucker born every
minute," and you fools in the American public just keep buying right in to the brainwashing.
They're now successfully indoctrinating you into buying into their new Cold Wars with Russia
and China. The Cold War on the Eastern Front versus Peking is more getting more fanciful
attentions at the moment and the Cold War on the Western Front has temporarily been relegated
to the back burner but they'll move the Western Front Cold War from simmer to boil over
whenever it suits their needs. It's just a rendition of the Oceania has always been at war
with East Asia and Eurasia is our friend are just gameplays right out of George Orwell's
1984.
Most of the quagmires can be fixed to a certain extent by applying some cement and
engineering to the quicksand and many of the trouble spots can become more settled and less
unstable if not stable in some instances. Even some of the more serious strategic problems
like the South China Sea, North Korean nuclear weapons development, and potential Iranian
nuclear weapons development can still be resolved through peaceful strategies and
solutions.
In re sum, while I won't disparage a peace movement I do not believe it is either
necessary nor proper simply because you will not solve anything through a peace movement. The
sine qua non or quintessential element is simply to end one of these wars successfully
through a peaceful diplomatic solution or solve one of these serious foreign policy problems
through diplomacy which is something that hasn't been the norm since the downfall of the
Berlin Wall, is no longer in favor, and which is the necessary element to prove that peace
can be achieved through strategy and diplomacy and thereby change the course of the country's
future.
In foreign affairs the foreign policy establishment has its pattern of behavior and it is
that pattern of behavior that has to be changed. It's the mindset of the Washingtonians &
elites that has to be changed. Just taking to the streets won't really change their ways or
their beliefs for any significant part of the duration. They may pay lip service to peace
& diplomacy but it won't win out in their minds in the long run. They are so warped in
their views and beliefs that it'll have little or no effect over the long haul. As soon as
the protests dissipate they'll be right back at it, back to their bad ways and bad
behavior.
Son of Captain Nemo , 4 hours ago
For the past 19 years... And as Anti-War as you will ever get!...
Was it George Carlin that said " if voting made a difference they wouldn't let us do it "
? The only way to stop these forever wars is for people to stop joining the military. Parents
should teach their children that joining the military and trotting off to some country to
fight a war for the elite is not being patriotic . I was in the military from 1964 -1968.
When Lyndon Johnson became president he drug out the Vietnam war as long as he could. Oh !
Lady Byrd Johnson bought Decon Company [ rat poison ] when most people never heard of it.
Johnson bought this rat poison , government paid for ,at an inflated price . Sent ship loads
of it to Vietnam .Never mind all the Americans and so called enemy killed.. Jane Fonda ,
Hanoi Jane , was really a hero who helped save countless lives by helping to end the war.
Tommy and **** Smothers , Smother Brothers , spoke out against the war . Our government had
them black balled from TV. Our government is probably as corrupt as any other country.
A piece of irony, one of our greatest generals was Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied Supreme
Commander in WWII and two term president. He kept the peace for almost 10 years and warned
Americans to beware of the "military-industrial complex." Most military men never want war,
they just make sure they are ready if it comes. We have had the military industrial complex
for way too long, it needs to be reduced and we need more generals to run for president, Gen.
Flynn maybe? I'll also take Schwartzkoff.
cowboyted , 7 hours ago
The U.S. should only use our military if we are attacked, period. Otherwise, as Jefferson
astutely stated, a standing army is a threat to democracy.
captain noob , 7 hours ago
Capitalism has no morals
Profit is the driving force of every single thing
cowboyted , 7 hours ago
The U.S. should only use our military if we are attacked, period. Otherwise, as Jefferson
astutely stated, a standing army is a threat to democracy.
Chief Joesph , 7 hours ago
After what General Smedley Butler had to say and warned us about, here we are, 90 years
later, doing the very same thing. Goes to show how utterly dumb, unprogressive, sheepish, and
Medieval Americans really are. And you thought this is what makes America Great????
cowboyted , 8 hours ago
The U.S. Constitution provides for a "national defense." Yet, the last time we were
attacked by a foreign nation was on Dec. 7, 1941 in which, the Congress declared war on
Japan. Yet, in the past 100 years our country's leaders have convinced Americans that we can
wage war if the issue concerns our "national INTEREST." This is wrong and needs to be deleted
and replaced with our Constitution's language. Also, Congress is the ONLY Constitutional
authority to declare war, not the executive branch. Too many countries, including the U.S.,
spend too much money preparing for war on levels of destruction that are unnecessary. We must
attain a new paradigm with leading countries to achieve a mutual understanding that the
people of the world are better off with jobs, food, families, peace, and a chance at a better
life, filled with hope, faith, and flourishing communities. Things have to change.
transcendent_wannabe , 8 hours ago
I have to agree in sentiment with the author, but the reality of humans on earth almost
demands constant war, it is the price we pay for the modern city lifestyle. There are various
reasons.
1. Ever since WW1, the country has become citified, and the old peaceful country farm life
was replaced with the rat race of industrial production. Without war, there is no need for
the level of industrial production required to give full employment to the overpopulated
cities. People will scream for war and jingoism when they have no city jobs. How do you deal
with that? Sure, War is a Racket, but so far a necessary racket.
2. Every 20 years the military needs a real shooting war to battle test its upcoming
soldiers and new equipment. Now the battles are against insurgencies... door-to-door in
cities and ghettos, and new tactics need to be field tested. If the military goes more than
20 years without a real shooting war, they lose the real men, the sargeant majors, who just
become fat pot bellied desk personel without the adrenaline of a real fight.
3. Humans inately like to fight. Even children, boys wrestle, girls taunt one another.
There is no way discovered yet to keep people from turning violent in their attempts to steal
what others have, or to gain dominance thru physical intimidation. Without war, gangs will
form and fight over territorial boundaries. There is no escaping it.
4. Earth is where the battle field is, Battlefield Earth. There is no fighting allowed in
heaven, so Earth is where souls come to fight. Nobody on earth likes it, but fighting and war
is here to stay, and you should really use this life to find out how to transcend earth and
get to a place where war is not needed or allowed, like heaven or Valhalla.
Tortuga , 8 hours ago
So. He thinks the crooked, grifting, regressive hate US murdering dim pustules aren't the
warmongering, globalist, hate US, crooked, grifting, murdering republicrats. What a mo
ron.
HenryJonesJr , 8 hours ago
Real conservatives were always against foreign intervention. It was the Left that embraced
foreign wars (Wilson / Roosevelt / Truman / Johnson).
messystateofaffairs , 8 hours ago
From my perspective being a professional goon to serve the greater glory of international
criminals, is, aside from having to avoid the mirror, way too much hard and dangerous work
for the money. As a civilian of a society run by criminals on criminal imperialist
principles, I have no literal PTSD type of skin in that filthy game, but like most citizens,
knowing and unknowing, I do swim in that sewer everyday, doing my best to avoid bumping into
the larger turds. My "patriotism" lies where the turds are fewest, anywhere in the world that
might be.
bh2 , 8 hours ago
The threat to US interests is not in the ME (apart from Israel). It's in the Pacific.
NATO was never intended to be a defense arrangement perpetually funded by the US. Once
stood up and post-war economies in Europe were restored, it was supposed to be a European
defense shield with the US as ultimate backup. Not as a sugar-daddy for wealthy nations. Now
that Russia is no longer situated to attack through the Fulda Gap, NATO is a grotesque
expression of Parkinson's Law writ large.
China is a real threat to US interests. That's obvious simply by consulting a map.
Military assets committed to engagement in theaters that no longer seriously matter is
feckless and spendthrift. Particularly when Americans are put in harm's way with no prospect
of either winning or leaving.
Worse yet is the accelerating prospect of being drawn into conflict in the South China Sea
because fewer than decisive US and allied assets are deployed there.
While nations are now responding to that threat (including Japan, who are re-arming),
China must realize a successful Taiwan invasion faces steadily diminishing prospects. They
must act soon or give up the opportunity. Moreover, the CCP are loosing face with their own
people because of multiple calamities wreaking havoc. The danger of a desperate CCP turning
to a hot war to save face is an ever-rising threat. (If Three Gorges Dam fails, that could be
the final straw.)
FDR deliberately suckered Japan into attacking the US (but apparently never guessed it
would be on Pearl Harbor). It appears modern neo warmongers of all stripes would be delighted
if China were tempted into yet another senseless war in the Pacific. And more lives lost on
all sides.
While the size of US military and (ineptly named) "intelligence" budgets are vastly out of
scale, the short-term cost in money is secondary to risk of long-term cost in blood. Surging
the budget may make good sense when guns are all pointing in the wrong direction and
political donors don't care as long as it pays well.
Defeating that outrageously wasteful spending is the first battle to be won. Disengaging
from stupid, distracting, unwinnable conflicts is an imperative to achieve that goal.
The Judge , 8 hours ago
US. is the real threat to US interests.
DeptOfPsyOps-14527776 , 8 hours ago
An important part of this statue quo is propaganda and in particular neo-con
propaganda.
Once it was clear that agitating against the Russian federation had failed, they started
agitating against the PRC.
FDR administration wasn't that clever, they just had (((support))). They wanted Imperial
Japan unable to strengthen itself against the United Kingdom as it was waging a war against
the European Axis, did not realize that the Japanese fleet could reach as far as Hawaii and
after Pearl Harbor, believed the West Coast could have been attacked as well.
Hovewer, they likely expected the Japanese to intercept their fleet on the way to the
Phillipines after a war between Imperial Japan and the Commonwealth had started.
Salzburg1756 , 8 hours ago
"FDR deliberately suckered Japan into attacking the US (but apparently never guessed it
would be on Pearl Harbor)." No, we knew the japs were going to attack Pearl Harbor. We had
broken their code. That's why we sent our best battle ships away from Hawaii just before the
attack. Most of the ships they sank were old and worthless; our good ships were out at
sea.
TheLastMan , 4 hours ago
What constitutes "America's interests"?
the us military is the world community welcome wagon for global multi national Corp
chamber of commerce
Do us citizens serve corporations or do corporations serve us citizens?
next ?, who owns / controls corporations?
Alice-the-dog , 8 hours ago
There is a reason why suicide is the leading cause of death among active duty military.
They come to realize that what they are doing is perfect male bovine fecal matter. That they
are guilty of participating in completely unwarranted death and destruction.
847328_3527 , 9 hours ago
Liberals and "progressives" are traditionally against wars. This new "woke" group of
Demorats shows they are NOT liberals or progressives since they support the Establishment War
Criminals like Obama and his side kick, demented Biden, and Bloodthirsty Clinton.
"And USA's propaganda is second to none. That's important because winning a war, whether
Cold or Hot, requires a populace that will accept sacrifices. Blaming the other side for
the need for such sacrifices is an art as much as a science."
Was causing the death of two million Iraqi's is one of the scarifies you talk about that
the populace had to accept?
Sometimes I have a problem to understand the way the so called "western people" behave.
I am almost reaching a conclusion that the art of media is to give the populous an excuse
to themselves why they appear to be accepting scarifies.
We should stop lying to ourselves that we care about others. As long suffering is not at
your doorsteps, human race as individuals, is as bad as our governments.
The more money a member of Congress accepts from the defense industry, the higher the
probability that they'll vote how the defense industry wants them to vote. (So probably what
you expected.)
... ... ...
If you order the members of Congress based on the amount each of them accepted from the
defense sector (2020 cycle) with their respective votes then break your list down (roughly)
into fourths, you'll get something that looks like this:
Amount member accepts from
defense
industry Likelihood that member lets us down Less than $3,000 70% $3,000-$9,999 77%
$10,000-$29,999 84% More than $30,000 More than 98% Notes
41 House Democrats didn't let us down (in this case)
These 41 received (on average) $7,005.63 in campaign contributions from the defense
industry so far in this election cycle
179 House Democrats did let us down
These 179 received (on average) $30,075.85 in campaign contributions from the defense
industry so far in this election cycle
Adam Smith , Democratic Chair of the House Armed Services Committee, has received
$376,650.00 in campaign contributions from the defense industry so far in this election
cycle. (He also named the NDAA after his Republican counterpart.)
There are sources all over the web giving 14 identifying points of fascism, including from
Umberto Eco, who lived under Mussolini, but I leave finding that material as an exercise.
Rump's a close fit. My take right now is more personal.
My father left Europe when Hitler came to power. Dad had wandered into one of his early
rallies and heard him speak, and it scared him when he assumed power. I heard these stories
growing up, and I've had a terrible sinking feeling for the last 4 years. Yeah, Rump is a tv
era artifact (like Reagan was a movie era artifact), with no true power or talent except
manipulating, but the occupant of that house is always a figurehead for the ruling class.
There are truly frightening people invested in his "movement", like the aforementioned Erik
Prince. I've been saying for years that Rump has been grooming CBP and ICE as his personal
force, loyal to him and not the nation, and we're seeing the fruition.
(added)
It's not so much that Rump is a fascist. He's a seed crystal for the American propensity
for fascism. Americans have always had a soft spot for fascism. I am frightened. I remember the
stories. up 5 users have voted. --
If I'm wrong, it's the first time I'm happy to be confused. -Don Van Vliet
Cutting the defense budget by a modest 10 percent could provide billions to combat the pandemic, provide health
care and take care of neglected communities.
Capitol Souvenir Company, Inc. via Boston Public Library
Sen. Bernie Sanders is an independent from Vermont.
▶ Click here for the
conservative
case
for reducing defense spending.
Fifty-three years ago Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. challenged all of us to fight against three major evils: "the
evil of racism, the evil of poverty and the evil of war." If there was ever a moment in American history when we
needed to respond to Dr. King's clarion call for justice and demand a "radical revolution of values," now is that
time.
Whether it is fighting against systemic racism and police brutality, defeating the deadliest pandemic in more than
a hundred years, or putting an end to the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, now is the time to
fundamentally change our national priorities.
Sadly, instead of responding to any of these unprecedented crises, the Republican Senate is on a two-week
vacation. When it comes back, its first order of business will be to pass a military spending authorization that
would give the bloated Pentagon $740 billion -- an increase of more than $100 billion since Donald Trump became
president.
Let's be clear: As coronavirus
infections
,
hospitalizations
and
deaths
are
surging to record levels in states across America, and the lifeline of unemployment benefits keeping 30 million
people afloat expires at the end of the month, the Republican Senate has decided to provide more funding for the
Pentagon than the next 11 nations' military budgets combined.
Under this legislation, over half of our discretionary budget would go to the Department of Defense at a time when
tens of millions of Americans are food insecure and over a half-million Americans are sleeping out on the street.
After adjusting for inflation, this bill would spend more money on the Pentagon than we did during the height of
the Vietnam War even as up to 22 million Americans are in danger of being evicted from their homes and
health
workers
are still forced to reuse masks, gloves and gowns.
Moreover, this extraordinary level of military spending comes at a time when the Department of Defense is the only
agency of our federal government that has not been able to pass an independent audit, when defense contractors are
making enormous profits while paying their CEOs outrageous compensation packages, and when the so-called War on
Terror will cost some $6 trillion.
Let us never forget what Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a former four-star general, said in 1953:
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from
those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
What Eisenhower said was true 67 years ago, and it is true today.
If the horrific pandemic we are now experiencing has taught us anything it is that national security means a lot
more than building bombs, missiles, nuclear warheads and other weapons of mass destruction. National security also
means doing everything we can to improve the lives of tens of millions of people living in desperation who have
been abandoned by our government decade after decade.
That is why I have introduced an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act that the Senate will be voting on
during the week of July 20th, and the House will follow suit with a companion effort led by Representatives Mark
Pocan (D-Wis.) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.). Our amendment would reduce the military budget by 10 percent and use
that $74 billion in savings to invest in communities that have been ravaged by extreme poverty, mass
incarceration, decades of neglect and the Covid-19 pandemic.
Under this amendment, distressed cities and towns in every state in the country would be able to use these funds
to create jobs by building affordable housing, schools, childcare facilities, community health centers, public
hospitals, libraries and clean drinking water facilities. These communities would also receive federal funding to
hire more public school teachers, provide nutritious meals to children and parents and offer free tuition at
public colleges, universities or trade schools.
This amendment gives my Senate colleagues a fundamental choice to make. They can vote to spend more money on
endless wars in the Middle East while failing to provide economic security to millions of people in the United
States. Or they can vote to spend less money on nuclear weapons and cost overruns, and more to rebuild struggling
communities in their home states.
In Dr. King's 1967 speech, he warned that "a nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military
defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."
He was right. At a time when half of our people are struggling paycheck to paycheck, when over 40 million
Americans are living in poverty, and when 87 million lack health insurance or are underinsured, we are approaching
spiritual death.
At a time when we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on Earth, and when
millions of Americans are in danger of going hungry, we are approaching spiritual death.
At a time when we have no national testing program, no adequate production of protective gear and no commitment to
a free vaccine, while remaining the only major country where infections spiral out of control, we are approaching
spiritual death.
At a time when over 60,000 Americans die each year because they can't afford to get to a doctor on time, and one
out of five Americans can't afford the prescription drugs their doctors prescribe, we are approaching spiritual
death.
Now, at this unprecedented moment in American history, it is time to rethink what we value as a society and to
fundamentally transform our national priorities. Cutting the military budget by 10 percent and investing that
money in human needs is a modest way to begin that process. Let's get it done.
MOST READ
By a vote of 324-93 ,
the House of Representatives soundly defeated an
amendment to reduce Pentagon authorized spending levels by 10%. The amendment does not
specify what to cut, only that Congress make across-the-board reductions. The amendment to
the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was offered by Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI). No
Republicans voted for the amendment. Libertarian Justin Amash supported the amendment.
Earlier, the House defeated an amendment to stop the Pentagon's submission of an unfunded
priorities list. Each year, after the Pentagon's budget request is submitted to Congress, the
military services send a separate "wish list," termed "unfunded priorities." This list
includes requests for programs that the military would like Congress to fund, in case they
decide to add more money to the Pentagon's proposed budget.
This article was written while observing the voting on CSPAN. The House Clerk has not
yet posted the roll-call vote. Additional information will be added to the article when
available.
The Congress is serving the interests of the US Oligarchy, at home and abroad. The
strategy is simple: keep allies/vassals in obeisance and non-competitive and destroy
polities that do not subject themselves to a similar system (which ends up to become
subservient to the US interests anyways, in the long run). Thus, all enemies are polities
were Oligarchy doesn't run the roster, and are semi-socialist / socialist countries:
Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, in the past Iraq.
Fully fledged democracies, that truly enact the will of the people, would not do
something like this.
For those too young to remember the horrible American war on Yugoslavia in 1999, or
those who have forgot, or were misled with lies about Kosovo, here is a quick summary:
This is a very accurate and honest report what { NATO } the North American Terrorist
Organization did to Yugoslavia . If you Americans wish to know what kind of global
government you are promoting . You only have to find the actual transcripts of Milosevic's
trail . Don't read or listen to any fake news of the trail . You must read the trail
transcripts and judge for yourself The butcher of Balkans has kind of been exonerated after
his death . The world court is something to be very afraid of not at all a instrument of
justice .But the trail transcripts are about 5000 pages so you will have to work to find
out the truth .
WW2 and it's depiction in various films and TV programs has had an unexpected effect on
the military psyche. The US believes it won the war on it's own and the troops came home as
heroes. This is the expectation of the US military even today, unable to accept that it can
be defeated. "Thank you for your service" is a given whatever crimes had been committed
abroad on the innocent who had done them no harm whatsoever. The ICC is opposed on the
theory that US troops cannot commit torture or massacres.
The Joke is that the US has not one a war since WWII, except maybe Granada. As for War
Crimes, the Current President himself committed a War Crime, He gave a Pardon to a
Convicted War Criminal, that is actually breach of the Geneva Conventions, which is US
Treaty Law and as such equal to the Constitution itself in importance. Schedule 4 Article
146
The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide
effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the
grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article.
Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged
to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring
such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it
prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons
over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting
Party has made out a prima facie case.
Each High Contracting Party shall take measures necessary for the suppression of all
acts contrary to the provisions of the present Convention other than the grave breaches
defined in the following Article.
In all circumstances, the accused persons shall benefit by safeguards of proper trial
and defense, which shall not be less favorable than those provided by Article 105 and those
following of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August
12, 1949.
Article 147
Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of
the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present
Convention: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological
experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health,
unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling
a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or willfully depriving a
protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present
Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not
justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
Article 148
No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any other High
Contracting Party of any liability incurred by itself or by another High Contracting Party
in respect of breaches referred to in the preceding Article.
The President has by absolving the Navy Seal of the Liability, Absolved the United
States of the War Crime also, Now I understand that we will hear arguments here of the
Presidents ability to Pardon, but take this as a given, there is no way that During the
Nuremberg Trials the Prosecution of those War Crimes would have accepted the argument that
the Head of State of Germany (Hitler) had the blanket Authority to Pardon German War
Criminals. as such and this is why this was placed in the Geneva Conventions the very act
of Absolving a War Crime is itself a War Crime!
We could care less what the ICC is opposed to. We are not subject to the ICC or
international law. We can enforce it if needed but do not have to abide by it.
The micrograins of ICC jurisdiction and validity require a sharper legal mind than mine
to sift through. But the debate is revelatory of something else -
In general, the current domestic ICC debate reveals part of the true nature of the US
(helped in no small part by the hamfisted and transparent vulgarity of President Trump):
that we are in fact the rogue state that we accuse everyone else in the world of being.
If we are who we say we are we should be straight up supporting the ICC, helping to fund
it and increase its reach and investigative power. Far better than any military
intervention to deal with the truly bad actors in the world would be a legal intervention.
The idea that vicious and violent despots should run scared when they travel or otherwise
face arrest and extradition is exactly right.
But we're not. Why? The answer is obvious at this point - because we have powerful
players in our midst that would face that arrest. And should face that arrest.
This is not simply projection on the part of UK MI5/MI6 duet, this is a real war on reality.
UK false flag operation with Skripla poisoning (which probably was designed to hide possible role
of Skripal in creating Steele dossier) now will forever be textbook example of evilness MI5/MI6
honchos.
If we think that GRU is the past was able to fight Abwehr to standstill, they really would now be worried
about the blowback from Skripal mess.
A highly-anticipated report by the U.K. Parliament into Russia n interference in the country was
released on Tuesday, claiming that Russian influence in the U.K. is the "new normal."
The Russia Report, published after months of delay, is the culmination of two years of fact
finding by the U.K. Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ICS), providing insights
on the
Salisbury Novichok poisonings , Russian financial influence and social media
disinformation. The report said the U.K. was a "top target" for Russian interference.
The publication of the report comes a week after security services in the U.S., U.K. and
Canada said that Russian hackers had been attempting to
hack into global coronavirus vaccine research . The Kremlin has denied the accusations.
However, the report will likely disappoint observers who expected the ICS to detail
how far Russia interfered in the bitterly contested Brexit Referendum of 2016 . Prime
Minister Boris Johnson's was accused of withholding the publication of the report until after
the election of December 2019, a claim they denied.
I am not a fan of military spending – following an excellent post by John about
Eisenhower's famous speech (more tanks or more hospitals), I often use it as an example
opportunity cost when teaching. One can certainly claim that the budget should be lower but,
as a share of overall economic resources, the budget has been cut substantially in the last
30 years.
"... There was a deeply held assumption that, when the countries of Central and Eastern Europe joined NATO and the European Union in 2004, these countries would continue their positive democratic and economic transformation. Yet more than a decade later, the region has experienced a steady decline in democratic standards and governance practices at the same time that Russia's economic engagement with the region expanded significantly. ..."
"... Are these developments coincidental, or has the Kremlin sought deliberately to erode the region's democratic institutions through its influence to 'break the internal coherence of the enemy system'? ..."
"... a false flag operation" involving "an alliance of the far right organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as Fatherland". There is little in Sharp's book to suggest that non-violent resistance would have had much effect on a really brutal and determined government. He also has the naïve habit of using "democrat" and "dictator" as if these words were as precisely defined as coconuts and codfish. But any "dictatorship" – for example Stalin's is a very complex affair with many shades of opinion in it. So, in terms of what he was apparently trying to do, one can see it only succeeding against rather mild "dictators" presiding over extremely unpopular polities. With a great deal of outside effort and resources. ..."
"... His "playbook" is useful to outside powers that want to overthrow governments they don't like. Especially those run by "dictators" not brutal enough to shoot the protesters down. ..."
Once I'd seen this mention of The Russian Playbook (aka KGB, Kremlin or Putin's Playbook), I
saw the expression all over the place. Here's an early – perhaps the earliest – use
of the term. In October 2016, the Center for Strategic and International studies (" Ranked #1 ") informed us of the "
Kremlin Playbook "
with this ominous beginning
There was a deeply held assumption that, when the countries of Central and Eastern
Europe joined NATO and the European Union in 2004, these countries would continue their
positive democratic and economic transformation. Yet more than a decade later, the region has
experienced a steady decline in democratic standards and governance practices at the same
time that Russia's economic engagement with the region expanded significantly.
And asks
Are these developments coincidental, or has the Kremlin sought deliberately to erode
the region's democratic institutions through its influence to 'break the internal coherence
of the enemy system'?
Well, to these people, to ask the question is to answer it: can't possibly be disappointment
at the gap between 2004's expectations and 2020's reality, can't be that they don't like the
total Western values package that they have to accept, it must be those crafty Russians
deceiving them. This was the earliest reference to The Playbook that I found, but it certainly
wasn't the last.
Of course, all these people are convinced Moscow interfered in the 2016 presidential
election. Somehow. To some effect. Never really specified but the latest outburst of insanity
is this video from the
Lincoln Project . As Anatoly Karlin observes: "I think it's really
cool how we Russians took over America just by shitposting online. How does it feel to be
subhuman?" He has a point: the Lincoln Project, and the others shrieking about Russian
interference, take it for granted that American democracy is so flimsy and Americans so
gullible that a few Facebook ads can bring the whole facade down. A curious mental state
indeed.
What can we know about The Playbook? For a start it must be written in Russian, a language
that those crafty Russians insist on speaking among themselves. Secondly such an important
document would be protected the way that highly classified material is protected. There would
be a very restricted need to know; underlings participating in one of the many plays would not
know how their part fitted into The Playbook; few would ever see The Playbook itself. The
Playbook would be brought to the desk of the few authorised to see it by a courier, signed for,
the courier would watch the reader and take away the copy afterwards. The very few copies in
existence would be securely locked away; each numbered and differing subtly from the others so
that, should a leak occur, the authorities would know which copy read by whom had been leaked.
Printed on paper that could not be photographed or duplicated. As much protection as human
cunning could devise; right up there with
the nuclear codes .
And so on. It's all quite ridiculous: we're supposed to believe that Moscow easily controls
far-away countries but can't keep its neighbours under control.
There is no Russian Playbook, that's just projection. But there is a "playbook" and it's
written in English, it's freely available and it's inexpensive enough that every pundit can
have a personal copy: it's named "
From Dictatorship To Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation " and it's written by
Gene Sharp (1928-2018) .
Whatever Sharp may have thought he was doing, whatever good cause he thought he was assisting,
his book has been used as a guide to create regime changes around the world. Billed as
"democracy" and "freedom", their results are not so benign. Witness Ukraine today. Or Libya. Or
Kosovo whose long-time leader has just been indicted for numerous crimes .
Curiously enough, these efforts always take place in countries that resist Washington's line
but never in countries that don't. Here we do see training, financing, propaganda, discord
being sown, divisions exploited to effect regime change – all the things in the imaginary
"Russian Playbook". So, whatever he may have thought he was helping, Sharp's advice has been
used to produce what only the propagandists could call "
model interventions "; to the "liberated" themselves, the reality is poverty , destruction ,
war and
refugees .
Reading Sharp's book, however, makes one wonder if he was just fooling himself. Has there
ever been a "dictatorship" overthrown by "non-violent" resistance along the lines of what he is
suggesting? He mentions Norwegians who resisted Hitler; but Norway was liberated, along with
the rest of Occupied Europe, by extremely violent warfare. While some Jews escaped, most didn't
and it was the conquest of Berlin that saved the rest: the nazi state was killed . The
USSR went away, together with its satellite governments in Europe but that was a top-down
event. He likes Gandhi but Gandhi wouldn't have lasted a minute under Stalin. Otpor was greatly aided by NATO's war
on Serbia. And, they're only "non-violent" because the Western media doesn't talk much about
the violence ;
"non-violent" is not the first word that comes to mind in this video of Kiev 2014 . "Colour revolutions" are
manufactured from existing grievances, to be sure, but with a great deal of outside assistance,
direction and funding; upon inspection, there's much design behind their "spontaneity". And,
not infrequently, with mysterious sniping at a expedient moment – see Katchanovski's
research on the "Heavenly Hundred" of the Maidan showing pretty convincingly that the
shootings were " a false flag operation" involving "an alliance of the far right
organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as
Fatherland". There is little in Sharp's book to suggest that non-violent resistance would have
had much effect on a really brutal and determined government. He also has the naïve habit
of using "democrat" and "dictator" as if these words were as precisely defined as coconuts and
codfish. But any "dictatorship" – for example Stalin's is a very complex affair with many
shades of opinion in it. So, in terms of what he was apparently trying to do, one can see it
only succeeding against rather mild "dictators" presiding over extremely unpopular polities.
With a great deal of outside effort and resources.
The above link exhaustively details how the fraud was perpetrated and how the White
Helmets were funded. The most disturbing facts were the murder of captive Syrian civilians
including children for use as props for Western media. There is little doubt in my mind that
these murders were viewed as standard business practice with the only concern being related
to complication from being caught. Of course, being "caught" was a minor inconvenience that
the MSM could easily manage into oblivion.
Mr. Le Mesurier may have been killed as the White Helmets no longer had value and dead men
rarely talk:
His wife was not very helpful in the investigation having changed her story several
times.
Winberg said she looked for her husband inside the house and saw his lifeless body when
she looked out of the window. Police are investigating now how she was able to wake up about
half an hour after she took a sleeping pill and why she stacked a large amount of money
inside the house into bags immediately after Le Mesurier's body was found.
Among questions that are needed to be addressed in the case is why Le Mesurier, who intended
to sleep, did not change his clothes, did not even loosen his belt or remove his watch. It is
also not known why he did not choose a definitive suicidal action to kill himself, instead of
jumping from a relatively low height and why he chose to walk along the roof, passing around
the air conditioning devices on the roof, instead of jumping to the street directly from the
section of the roof closer to his window.
US military spending is certainly much higher than it needs to be for US defense needs. But
the US military is not primarily defending the US. It is defending Asia from China, NATO from
Russia, and a number of countries from Iran, not to speak of Norkland.
IOW, the US military is defending US global hegemony, and is priced accordingly. What you
think of US military spending depends on what you think of the US as a hegemon.
I am not a fan of military spending – following an excellent post by John about
Eisenhower's famous speech (more tanks or more hospitals), I often use it as an example
opportunity cost when teaching. One can certainly claim that the budget should be lower but,
as a share of overall economic resources, the budget has been cut substantially in the last
30 years.
"... While cozying up to Putin on a personal level, Trump has actually taken a harder line against Russia than his predecessors, to the detriment of people in both countries. The President canceled two arms treaties, imposed sanctions on Moscow, and sent Javelin missiles to Ukraine. ..."
"... Defense industries make billions from government contracts. Former military officers and State Department officials rake in six-figure incomes sitting on corporate boards. Aspiring secretaries of state and defense strut their stuff at think tank conferences and, until the pandemic, at alcohol-fueled, black tie events in Washington. ..."
"... "There's an entire infrastructure influencing policy," says Hoh, who had an inside seat during his years with the government. ..."
"... And that's what the current Russia-Taliban scandal is all about: An unreliable Afghan report is blown into a national controversy in hopes of forcing the White House to cancel the Afghan troop withdrawal. Demonizing Russia (along with China and Iran) also justifies revamping the US nuclear arsenal and building advanced fighter jets that can't fly . ..."
On June 26, in a major front page story, The New York Times
wrote that Russia paid a bounty to the Taliban to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan last
year. The story quickly unraveled.
While the military is investigating the allegations, Mark Miley, chair of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff says
there's no proof that Russian payments led to any US deaths. The National Security Agency
says it found
no communications intelligence supporting the bounty claim.
Marine Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., head of the US Central Command, says he's not
convinced that American troops died as a result of Russian bounties.
"I just didn't find that there was a causative link there," he
tellsThe Washington Post .
Sina Toossi, senior research analyst at the National Iranian American Council, tells me
the controversy reveals an internecine battle within the foreign policy establishment. "Many
in the national security establishment in Washington are searching for reasons to keep US
troops in Afghanistan," Toossi says. "This story plays into those broader debates."
Troop withdrawal?
Faced with no end to its unpopular war in Afghanistan, the Trump Administration negotiated an agreement with
the Taliban in February. Washington agreed to gradually pull out troops, and the Taliban
promised not to attack US personnel.
The Taliban and Afghan government are supposed to hold peace talks and release prisoners
of war. The US troop withdrawal won't be completed until May 2021, giving the administration
in power the ability to renege on the deal.
Nevertheless, powerful members of the Afghan intelligence elite and some in the US
national security establishment strongly object to the agreement and want to keep US troops
in the country permanently.
Matthew Hoh, who worked for the State Department in Afghanistan and is now a senior fellow
with the Center for
International Policy , tells me that the reports of Russian bounties likely originated
with the Afghanistan intelligence agency.
"The mention of Russia was a key word," says Hoh. CIA officials fast-tracked the Afghan
reports. They argued that Russia's interference, and Trump's failure to respond, only
emboldens the Russians.
Originally, the Times
claimed $500,000 in Russian bounty money was seized at the home of a Taliban operative
named Rahmatullah Azizi. He turned out to be an Afghan drug smuggler who had previously
worked as a contractor
for Washington.
The Times later admitted that
investigators "could not say for sure that it was bounty money."
Hoh says the alleged bounties make no sense politically or militarily. Last year, he says,
"The Taliban didn't need any incentives to kill Americans." And this year, it has stopped all
attacks on US forces as part of the February agreement.
But leading Democrats ignore the unraveling of the story in a rush to attack the White
House from the right. Joe Biden reached deep into his Cold War tool box to blast Trump.
"Not only has he failed to sanction or impose any kind of consequences on Russia for this
egregious violation of international law, Donald Trump has continued his embarrassing
campaign of deference and debasing himself before Vladimir Putin," Biden
told a town hall meeting.
Demonizing Russia
While cozying up to Putin on a personal level, Trump has actually taken a harder line
against Russia than his predecessors, to the detriment of people in both countries. The
President canceled
two arms treaties,
imposed sanctions on Moscow, and
sent Javelin missiles to Ukraine.
Both high-ranking Republicans and Democrats benefit politically by creating an evil
Russian enemy, according to Vladimir Pozner, Putin critic and host of a popular Russian TV
interview program.
The bounty accusation "keeps the myth alive of Putin and Russia being a vicious,
cold-blooded enemy of the US," Pozner tells me.
Some call it the foreign policy establishment; others say the national security state or
simply the Deep State. A group of officials in the Pentagon, State Department, intelligence
agencies and war industries have played an outsized role in foreign policy for decades. And
it's not out of the goodness of their hearts.
Defense industries make billions from government contracts. Former military officers and
State Department officials rake in six-figure incomes sitting on corporate boards. Aspiring
secretaries of state and defense strut their stuff at think tank conferences and, until the
pandemic, at alcohol-fueled, black tie events in Washington.
"There's an entire infrastructure influencing policy," says Hoh, who had an inside seat
during his years with the government.
The Deep State is not monolithic, he cautions. "You won't find a backroom with guys
smoking cigars. But there is a notion of US primacy and a bent towards military
intervention."
And that's what the current Russia-Taliban scandal is all about: An unreliable Afghan
report is blown into a national controversy in hopes of forcing the White House to cancel the
Afghan troop withdrawal. Demonizing Russia (along with China and Iran) also justifies
revamping the US nuclear arsenal and building advanced fighter jets that
can't fly .
"It's Russia hysteria," says Hoh.
Afghans suffer
While the Washington elite wage internal trench warfare, the people of Afghanistan suffer.
More than 100,000 Afghans have died because of the war, with 10,000
casualties each year, according to the United Nations . The Pentagon
reports 2,219 US soldiers
died and 20,093 were wounded in the Afghan war.
A lesser imperialist power, Russia has its own interests in Afghanistan. It has taken
advantage of the US decline in the region to expand influence in Syria and Libya.
According to Pozner, Russia doesn't favor a Taliban government in Afghanistan. The Kremlin
considers the Taliban a dangerous terrorist organization. But if the Taliban comes to power,
Pozner says, "Russia would like to have stable relations with them. You have to take things
as they are and build as good a relationship as possible."
Neither Russia nor any other outside power has the means or desire to control Afghanistan.
At best, they hope for a stable neighbor, not one trying to spread extremism in the
region.
That's been the stated US goal for years. Ironically, it can't be achieved until US troops
withdraw.
Reese Erlich's nationally distributed column, Foreign Correspondent, appears every two
weeks. Follow him onTwitter, @ReeseErlich; friend him onFacebook; and visit hiswebpage.
John, what say you about US/global military spending, which if cut and reallocated in the
low double digits could transform society? Do you think it's just politically untouchable? If
the US cut its military budget by say 25% it would still be formidable, especially given its
nuclear deterrent. For the life of me I can never understand why military budgets are
sacrosanct. Is it just WW2 and Cold War hangover? Couldn't the obvious effects of climate
change and the fragility of the economy subject to natural threats like the pandemic change
attitudes about overfunding the military (like the debacle of the F-35 program)?
Alan White @13 Military spending is about 3.4 per cent of US GDP, compared to 2 per cent
or less most places. So that's a significant and unproductive use of resources that could be
redirected to better effect. But the income of the top 1 per cent is around 20 per cent of
total income. If that was cut in half, there would be little or no reduction in the
productive services supplied by this group. If you want big change, that's where you need to
look.
I think some of the reluctance to cut military spending in the US is the extent to which
it acts as a politically unassailable source of fiscal stimulus and "welfare" in a country
where such things are otherwise anathema. Well, that and all of the grift it represents for
the donor class.
Posted by: time2wakeupnow | Jul 18 2020 18:59 utc | 13 But there are also very real First
Amendment interests implicated by laws which bar entities from spending money to express
political viewpoints."
With regard to Greenwald's opinion, mine is relatively simple: ban corporations from doing
*anything* in the political arena. Corporations are *not* people, regardless of the legal
myth that they are. Officers of corporations have no standing other than their personal
standing, and they should be barred from contributing to campaigns, or lobbying for
legislation or anything else outside of conducting the business they are *licensed by the
state* to do.
This does not apply to incorporated non-profit organizations which are organized to do
precisely what corporations should be banned from doing: advocate and attempt to influence
specific legislation or policies or candidates for office. For profit corporations should be
banned from doing anything to influence non-profit organizations, by the way, otherwise
corporations will do an end-run around the ban on political action by funding fake
"non-profit" organizations.
With regard to the large social media, there should be a law passed which 1) prevents them
from being sued regardless of anything their subscribers say on their platforms, and 2)
prevents them from censoring anything their subscribers say on their platforms. This was true
on the street and should be true on the Internet. Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of the
Constitution and should be protected on the Internet.
That does not apply here in MOA because MOA is a small operation owned and operated by one
person. He has the right to ban or censor anything he likes. But if he was the size of
Facebook or Twitter, he would have serious social influence. In that case, it would be
justified to both hold him blameless for the trolls and also prevent him from censoring
trolls.
Dealing with offensive people on the large platforms (and even here) should be done by
providing the users adequate personal controls in their interface which enable the users to
remove content from their view that they don't like, while the content remains in view for
anyone who approves of it or doesn't care. Some forums have been doing this for years, such
as Slashdot.
These solutions are incredibly simple. The reason they are not implemented is because
different factions see benefit in not implementing them.
Naturally, as an anarchist, the solutions I suggest are predicated on the idiocy of having
states and corporations in the first place. Otherwise, all these "issues" wouldn't even
exist. This is what you get when you have a religious belief in the state and society.
"... Any NYT reporting on Epstein is meant as a distraction -- to cover up the facts. The NYT is the elites' protector, it punches down instead of up. The NYT 'revelations' about guards are a) punching down to protect elites and b) a distraction to protect elites. The NYT is one of the Augean Stables. ..."
Now, people who are doubting the USG are automatically labelled "conspiracy theorists".
Except that, in this case, it is perfectly sensible to doubt about his death. He could've put
down really powerful people. He wasn't your daily mafia-boy struggling against his mafia boss
over US$ 1 billion in cocaine; no: he could put down half the American royalty.
Ah yes, that self-admitted CIA linked, totally-not deep state propaganda puppet outlet
lecturing the rest of us about the virtues of fact-checking and journalistic integrity...
Any NYT reporting on Epstein is meant as a distraction -- to cover up the facts.
The NYT is the elites' protector, it punches down instead of up.
The NYT 'revelations' about guards are a) punching down to protect elites and b) a
distraction to protect elites.
The NYT is one of the Augean Stables.
Over the last ten years, foreign policy restraint has emerged as the biggest challenger to the U.S. foreign policy status quo.
The persistent failure of policies of endless war and the costly, aggressive pursuit of primacy have left an opening for the alternative
strategy that restraint represents.
As a result, it has also become a natural target for criticism from the defenders of U.S. hegemony. Much of this criticism has
been of the knee-jerk, dismissive variety that critics of American policies are all too familiar with, but there has been some more
serious engagement with the ideas of restrainers as well. Unfortunately, even the more serious engagement with pro-restraint arguments
tends to devolve into polemic.
Michael Mazarr recently wrote an
essay for
the summer issue of The Washington Quarterly in which he identifies what he sees as the failings of the restraint camp. It
is probably the fairest response to arguments for restraint so far, but it does not score any significant hits. It is frustrating
in that it cites the works of leading restrainers, but fails to reckon fully with what they are saying. Mazarr is familiar with restrainers'
arguments, and he makes a number of debaters' points about them, but he doesn't make a persuasive case against restraint.
He identifies what he considers to be restrainers' errors in a few broad categories: 1) a binary definition of the foreign policy
debate; 2) caricaturing U.S. foreign policy as an aggressive drive for primacy; 3) overstating the failures of U.S. post-Cold War
foreign policy; 4) inconsistency in prescription. The first three of these criticisms don't hold up, and the fourth is not a serious
objection to the views of a broad range of writers and analysts.
The first objection is that the restrainers' contrast between primacy/liberal hegemony and restraint is too simplistic. According
to Mazarr, this "overlooks a huge, untidy middle ground where the views of most U.S. national security officials reside and where
most U.S. policies operate." Here he appeals to the diversity of views among foreign policy professionals to counter restrainers'
objections to the current strategy of primacy without actually addressing the pitfalls of primacy that restrainers criticize.
It's not clear that the "huge, untidy middle ground" is as vast or as wild as he suggests. The vast majority of people in that
"middle ground" favor the continued maintenance of U.S. primacy or liberal hegemony. The fact that there is a narrow range of views
among adherents of the current strategy is not surprising. It also isn't terribly relevant to the objections that restrainers have
made against the strategy.
For restrainers, as Mazarr puts it, "the reigning concepts that guide America's role in the world embody a limitless drive for
supremacy and power that has produced an infatuation with militarism and a litany of interventions and wars." That is a fair summary
as far as it goes, but Mazarr never manages to refute this claim.
Consider each part and ask yourself if it rings true. Is the U.S. government guided by a belief that it should pursue supremacy
and power on the world stage? Yes, it is. This is what is euphemistically referred to as American "global leadership." This is as
close to an unquestioned assumption in mainstream foreign policy circles as there is. Has this produced an infatuation with militarism?
Our massive military budget, militarized foreign policy, and intrusive response to many foreign conflicts bear witness that this
is so. Not only is there a bias in favor of action in our debates, but action is almost always defined in terms of military options,
and choosing not to use military options is routinely ridiculed as "doing nothing." Has this infatuation with militarism resulted
in a litany of interventions and wars? We know it has and continues to do so. Mazarr claims that restrainers are using "extreme and
unconditional language" and set up "caricatures and straw people," but, if anything, most pro-restraint arguments are rather mild
in their description of the last few decades of unchecked militarism.
Have restrainers oversold the failure of post-Cold War U.S. foreign policy? It's possible, but I don't think it's true. If U.S.
"leadership" is judged on the terms set by its own advocates, how can we judge it as anything but a failure over the last thirty
years? Has it made the world more stable and secure? On the whole, it has not. The U.S. has been one of the most destabilizing actors
in the world for decades with its wars and interference in other nations' affairs. Has it reduced nuclear proliferation? It has not,
and its wars for regime change have made it more difficult to convince would-be nuclear weapons states to dismantle their weapons
programs.
The biggest effort that the U.S. made in the name of counter-proliferation was a terribly costly blunder and an attack on international
law. Has it reduced the incidence of terrorism? On the contrary, the "war on terror" has exacerbated and encouraged the spread of
jihadist terrorism in the world. Has the U.S. deterred great power competition? Far from it. Mazarr's defense of this record amounts
to saying that it was not as ideological and destructive as it might have been, which is not really much of a defense. Are restrainers
too extreme in their indictment of this record of failure? In light of the persistent denial and whitewashing of the disasters unleashed
by our policies, I would say that we have been too diplomatic.
Mazarr writes that "[t]he restraint literature downplays the often-powerful reluctance with which successive US administrations
have grappled with most decisions to intervene." He mentions Libya as an example of this "hesitancy," but neglects to add that the
internal debate over this lasted just a couple weeks before Obama ordered unauthorized military action to help bring down a foreign
government. Obama's reluctance could not have been that powerful if he chose to start a war against another government without Congressional
approval. When we consider how completely unrelated to U.S. vital interests the conflict in Libya was, the fact that the U.S. did
intervene when it had no particular reason to is proof that restrainers' complaints on this score are backed up by the record.
He touts the fact that the U.S. has "shunned" other opportunities for intervention as if the U.S. does not routinely meddle even
in those conflicts where it does not directly act. The U.S. didn't "act" in the Great Lakes crises in the late '90s and early 2000s
because it had outsourced that crisis to its clients in Uganda and Rwanda, who then proceeded to turn Congo into a charnel house.
The U.S. declined to go to WWIII over territorial disputes between Russia and its neighbors, but the escalation of those disputes
grew out of an incessant, U.S.-led drive to expand Euro-Atlantic institutions to Russia's doorstep. Each example Mazarr cites as
proof that the restrainers are overstating their case just reminds us that not all failures of U.S. foreign policy involve our direct
military intervention in a conflict. It doesn't prove that U.S. foreign policy hasn't failed during the last few decades.
In one of the oddest portions of the essay, he informs us that the U.S. has already adopted the restrainers' agenda with respect
to North Korea and Iran. That will come as news to us and to those two governments. It is misleading at best to claim that the Agreed
Framework and the JCPOA amount to "normalizing" relations with North Korea and ending our "grudge match" with Iran. The idea that
strong opposition to these agreements came only from "hawkish factions in two Republican administration" is simply wrong as a matter
of fact. The hawkish factions were just the loudest and most vehement of the opponents. Agreements like these might be helpful for
laying the groundwork for normal relations in the future, but they are just the start of what many restrainers are calling for.
Having failed to land any serious blows thus far, Mazarr turns to restrainers' prescriptions and points out that there is disagreement
about what U.S. policy should be in many places. Since restraint is a strategy that allows for a range of views about specific policies,
this is to be expected, especially when advocates of restraint have not yet been in a position to implement policy.
Earlier in the essay Mazarr complains that restrainers' language is too extreme and unconditional, and then later he disapproves
of restrainers' use of nuance:
Just which military interventions "do not enhance U.S. security"? Which areas are "of little strategic importance"? What is
an "unrealistic"goal, and how big does a defense budget have to become before it is "bloated"? This same adjectival approach to
analysis crops up again and again in the restraint literature.
These are not serious questions. Mazarr can easily learn from the scholars he is citing what they mean when they say these things,
but instead he quibbles about the reasonable qualifications that they are making. When they make unqualified statements, he condemns
them for lacking nuance, and then he accuses them of waffling when they make qualifications. Most restrainers have been very clear
that the U.S. has vital interests in Europe and East Asia, and that most other regions are not that important for our security. The
military budget's bloat is a function of an overly ambitious strategy that commits the U.S. to defend dozens of countries, most of
which do not need protection or could provide for their own defense. Unrealistic goals include, but are not limited to, compelling
North Korea to disarm, forcing Iran to abolish its nuclear program, and using sanctions to coerce other states into abandoning their
core interests.
Mazarr allows that "[p]roponents of restraint have played and continue to play a critical role in highlighting the risks of overweening
ambition," but he does not think the U.S. should significantly scale back its ambitions. He grants that "rethinking of many key assumptions
of U.S. national security policy is overdue, and proponents of restraint have delivered important warnings," but he doesn't rethink
any key assumptions and proceeds to reject many of these warnings as overwrought. He seems to see restrainers as an occasionally
useful check on the excesses of U.S. interventionism, but nothing more than that.
The failures of the last thirty years stem from an excessively ambitious role for the U.S. that no government could competently
execute. If we want to have a more successful and peaceful foreign policy than we have had for at least the last thirty years, we
need to have a much less ambitious and overreaching one. Restraint is the best answer currently available because it accepts that
the U.S. does not have to dominate and shape the world. It is that drive to dominate and dictate terms to other states that has so
often led the U.S. and other countries down the road to ruin. It is time to choose a different path.
Add to all this the US strategic policy of full spectrum dominance and all the economic wars unleashed by the US.
It appears that the US is moving to add North Stream 2 and Turkish Stream going to Europe on CATSAA. How is this not economic
aggression! In what universe is this right? USSR has built pipelines to Western Europe in the middle of the cold war. And the
State Department insists this is due to strategic considerations, having nothing to do with the US trying to sell LNG to Europe....
It is no wonder such news are not really making the news in the US, because that would really sound weird to any Joe 6 pack...
You can win all the intellectual arguments you want (and the arguments are easy to win, at least on any terms other than those
of a full-blown sociopath who isn't even bothering to hide it) - the people of influence and authority still get the wars they
crave.
Unless and until the United States either is utterly humiliated in a major war or faces economic collapse, nothing will change;
the people of influence and authority still are in charge.
Great comment. Given the 'charlie foxtrot' that has become the Middle East in the wake of Iraq II, Afghanistan and the GWOT
and the current economic and political situation in the U.S. in the wake of COVID-19 (whether you accept the MSM version or not),
"utter humiliation" has occurred. The problem is that the establishment will never admit this and the salient lesson is never
learned. You can use the Vietnam experience as an example.
The lesson of Vietnam, in my humble opinion, is that the U.S. is limited in its ability to project power and to engage in nation
building exercises. The narrative changed in the '80s when lack of political will became the primary culprit for U.S. defeat in
South East Asia rather than the more complicated array of factors that made the war unwinnable from the beginning. Regardless,
in the mid-80s Sec. Def. Caspar Weinberger consolidated the Vietnam lessons into a doctrine that fundamentally advocated restraint.
Arguably, the Weinberger doctrine resulted in the U.S. decision to terminate Iraq War I when it did out of recognition that the
U.S. was in no position to prosecute a full-blown invasion of Iraq and to administer the country post-Saddam.
Although it was entirely ignored by the neocons and by the author himself, the Powell Doctrine was based upon similar notions
of restraint. For example, Point 5 emphasizes that the consequences of military action have been thought out as a precondition
to military engagement.
And let us note the recent report that our "it's time we end the wars" leader has given those great peacemakers in the CIA
operations department the green light to effect cyberwar against Iran. Not hard to imagine who in the neighborhood will happily
assist in that.
Its why Trump is so hated by neocons and neoliberals alike. They both want war....particularly if the democrats are the ones
declaring the war and managing it but look at how much the neocons, the neoliberals, the war profiteers, the lobbyists...all work
to keep the federal money flowing toward war where it can easily be spent often without tracking and easily used for undocumented
bribes and payoffs and inside deals between US politicians like Biden and foreign governments like Ukraine or China.
The US is quite good at military destruction but you cant get new sewars, new water mains, new gas lines, new electrical plants,
new mass transit, new airports, new roads, new housing, preservation of wilderness, preservation of wetlands and estuaries, maintenance
of canals, and roads and bridges...etc. All the money is being siphoned off to foreign allies, foreign wars and if money is spent
domestically then it is spent on politicians skimming money off civilian projects and its spent on democratic constituencies like
Black Lives Matters, Planned Parenthood, Diversity, Immigration, Multiculturalism, affirmative action, teachers unions and other
govt unions, etc....its not spent on actual physical infrastructure projects.
For example, in Iraq we were good at destroying Saddam's Republican Guard, blowing up cities, and dismantling the Ba'athist
infrastructure. We weren't good at convincing Iraqis that the U.S. invasion and western paternalism were truly in their best interest.
It's the same reason that Vietnamization ultimately failed and why the ARVN and RVN government quickly collapsed in a matter
of months in 1975 despite the human cost and billions in economic and military aid being poured into the country. It's probably
why most believe that an actual American withdrawal from Afghanistan will inevitably result in a return to Taliban control, again
despite trillions being poured into the country.
So true. Be they Republicans or Democrats neither seems able to end the wars we are in or admit the economic sanctions are
not working. Perhaps the elections of Social Democrats will change the arguments.
Or did he? Yet another evil rumor designed to poison relations with Russia. This time from
Yahoo
Still Trump has not only appointed the aggressive Michael D'Andrea, the 'Prince of Darkness',
to head the
CIA's Iran Mission Center but he
gave the CIA wide ranging new powers to run cyber attacks against the country:
Notable quotes:
"... When has the CIA ever had oversight? ..."
"... Pretty sure oversight jumped out the 84th floor window very early on. Voluntarily of course. ..."
I'm sure Trump thinks - Let the CIA play in their cyber sandbox. The Norks dissed Trump
and the others deserve it, so, so what? It keeps the spooks happy and occupied, and out of
Trump's hair.
play_arrow 1
m0ckingbird , 6 minutes ago
are you sure trump thinks? like AT ALL? you give your grown man-child way too much
credit
ExposeThem511 , 1 hour ago
When has the CIA ever had oversight?
metanoic , 54 minutes ago
Pretty sure oversight jumped out the 84th floor window very early on. Voluntarily of
course.
Eric Weinstein, managing director of Thiel Capital and hsot of The Portal podcast, has
gone scorched earth on the New York Times following the Tuesday resignation of journalist
Bari Weiss.
Weinstein describes how The Times has morphed into an activist rag - refusing to cover
"news" unpaletable to their narrative, while ignoring key questions such as whether Jeffrey
Epstein's sex-trafficking ring was "intelligence related."
Jump into Weinstein's Twitter thread by clicking on the below tweet, or scroll down for your
convenience.
At that moment Bari Weiss became all that was left of the "Paper of Record." Why? Because the
existence of Black Racists with the power to hunt professors with Baseball Bats and even
redefine the word 'racism' to make their story impossible to cover ran totally
counter-narrative.
At some point after 2011, the NYT gradually stopped covering the News and became the News
instead. And Bari has been fighting internally from the opinion section to re-establish
Journalism inside tbe the NYT. A total reversal of the Chinese Wall that separates news from
opinion.
This is the paper in 2016 that couldnt be interested in the story that millions of Americans
were likely lying to pollsters about Donald Trump.
The paper refusing to ask the CIA/FBI if Epstein was Intelligence related.
The paper that can't report that it seeks race rioting:
I have had the honor of trying to support both @bariweiss at the New York Times and
@BretWeinstein in their battles simply to stand alone against the internal mob mentality. It is
THE story all over the country. Our courageous individuals are being hunted at work for
dissenting.
Before Bari resigned, I did a podcast with her. It was chilling. I'd make an innocuous
statement of simple fact and ask her about it. She'd reply " That is obviously true but I'm
sorry we can't say that here. It will get me strung up ." That's when I stopped telling her to
hang on.
So what just happened? Let me put it bluntly: What was left of the New York Times just
resigned from the New York Times. The Times canceled itself. As a separate Hong Kong exists in
name only, the New New York Times and affiliated "news" is now the chief threat to our
democracy.
This is the moment when the passengers who have been becoming increasingly alarmed, start to
entertain a new idea: what if the people now in the cockpit are not airline pilots? Well the
Twitter Activists at the @nytimes and elsewhere are not journalists.
What if those calling for empathy have a specific deadness of empathy?
Those calling for justice *are* the unjust?
Those calling "Privilege" are the privileged?
Those calling for equality seek to oppress us?
Those anti-racists are open racists?
The progressives seek regress?
The journalists are covering up the news?
Try the following exercise: put a minus sign in front of nearly every banner claim made by
"the progressives".
Q: Doesn't that make more sense?
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Those aren't the pilots you imagine. And we are far closer to revolution than you think.
Bari and I agree on a lot but also disagree fiercely. And so I have learned that she is
tougher than tough. But these university and journalistic workplaces are now unworkable. They
are the antithesis off what they were built to stand for. It is astounding how long she held
out.
Read her letter. I have asked her to do a make-up podcast & she has agreed. Stay tuned
If you don't want to be surprised again by what's coming understand this: just as there has
been no functioning president, there's now no journalism. We're moving towards a 🌎 of
pure activism.
Prepare to lose your ability to call the police & for more autonomous zones where kids
die so that Govenors & Mayors can LARP as Kayfabe revolutionaries . Disagree with Ms Weiss
all you want as she isn't perfect. But Bari is a true patriot who tried to stand alone. Glad
she's out.
We are not finished by a long shot. What the Intellectual Dark Web tried to do MUST now be
given an institutional home.
Podcast with Bari on The Portal to come as soon as she is ready.
Stay tuned. And thanks for reading this. It is of the utmost importance.
Thank you all. 🙏
P.S. Please retweet the lead tweet from this thread if you understand where we are.
Appreciated.
The willingness of the press to circulate any account that puts Russia in a bad light has not diminished with the collapse of
the Russia-Trump collusion narrative.
hroughout the Trump years, various reporters have presented
to great fanfare one dubious, thinly sourced story after another about Moscow's supposedly nefarious plots against the United
States. The unsupported allegations about an illegal collusion between Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and the Russian government
spawned a host of subsidiary charges that
proved
to be bogus
. Yet, prominent news outlets, including the
New York Times
, the
Washington Pos
t, CNN, and
MSNBC ran stories featuring such shaky accusations as if they were gospel.
The willingness of the press to circulate any account that
puts
Russia
in
a bad light has not diminished with the collapse of the Russia-Trump collusion narrative. The latest incident began when the
New
York Times
published a front-page article on June 28, based on an anonymous source within the intelligence community,
that Moscow had
put
a bounty
on the lives of American soldiers stationed in Afghanistan. The predictable, furious reaction throughout the
media and the general public followed. When the White House insisted that the intelligence agencies had never informed either
the president or vice president of such reports, most press reactions were scornful.
As with so many other inflammatory news accounts dealing
with
Russia
,
serious doubts about the accuracy of this one developed almost immediately. Just days later, an unnamed intelligence official
told CBS reporter Catherine Herridge that the information about the alleged bounties
was
uncorroborated
. The source also revealed to Herridge that the National Security Agency (NSA) concluded that the
intelligence collection report "does not match well-established and verifiable Taliban and Haqqani practices" and lacked
"sufficient reporting to corroborate any links." The report had reached "low levels" at the National Security Council, but it
did not travel farther up the chain of command. The Pentagon, which apparently had
originated
the bounty allegations
and tried to sell the intelligence agencies on the theory, soon retreated and issued
its
own statement
about the "unconfirmed" nature of the information.
There was a growing sense of déjŕ vu, as though the episode
was the second coming of the infamous, uncorroborated Steele dossier that caused the Obama administration to launch its 2016
collusion investigation. A number of conservative and antiwar outlets highlighted the multiplying doubts. They had somewhat
contrasting motives for doing so. Most conservative critics believed that it was yet another attempt by a hostile media to
discredit President Trump for partisan reasons. Antiwar types suspected that it was an attempt by both the Pentagon and the
top echelons of some intelligence agencies to use the media to generate more animosity toward
Russia
and
thwart the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, a process that was still in its early stages following Washington's
February 29, 2020, peace accord with the Taliban.
The bounty stories certainly had that effect.
Congressional hawks in both parties immediately
called
for a delay
in further withdrawals while the allegations were investigated. They also made yet more "Trump is Putin's
puppet" assertions. Nancy Pelosi
could
not resist
hurling another smear with that theme. "With him, all roads lead to Putin," Pelosi said. "I don't know what the
Russians have on the president, politically, personally, or financially."
Despite the growing cloud of uncertainty about the source
or accuracy of the bounty allegation, several high-profile journalists treated it as though it was incontrovertible. A
typically blatant, hostile spin was evident in a
New York Times
article
by
Michael Crowley and Eric Schmitt. The principal "evidence" that they cited for the intelligence report was the earlier story
in their own newspaper. An admission that there were divisions within the intelligence agencies about the report, the authors
buried far down in their article.
High-level intelligence personnel giving the president
verbal briefings did not deem the bounty report sufficiently credible, much less alarming, to bring it to his attention.
Former intelligence official Ray McGovern reached a
blunt
conclusion
: "As a preparer and briefer of The President's Daily Brief to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush,
I can attest to the fact that -- based on what has been revealed so far -- the Russian bounty story falls far short of the PDB
threshold."
Barbara Boland, a national security correspondent for the
American
Conservative
and a veteran journalist on intelligence issues, cited some "glaring problems" with the bounty charges. One
was that the Times' anonymous source stated that the assessment was based "on interrogations of captured Afghan militants and
criminals." Boland noted that John Kiriakou, a former analyst and case officer for the CIA who led the team that
captured senior al-Qaeda figure Abu Zubaydah in 2002, termed reliance on coercive interrogations "a red flag." Kiriakou
added, "When you capture a prisoner, and you're interrogating him, the prisoner is going to tell you what he thinks you want
to hear." Boland reminded readers that under interrogation Khalid Sheik Mohammed made at least 31 confessions, "many of which
were completely false."
A second problem Boland saw with the bounty story was
identifying a rational purpose for such
a
Russian initiative
since it was apparent to everyone that Trump was intent on pulling U.S. troops out. Moreover, she
emphasized, only eight U.S. military personnel were killed during the first six months of 2020, and the
New York Times
story
could not verify that even one fatality resulted from a bounty. If the program existed at all, then it was extraordinarily
ineffective.
Nevertheless, most media accounts breathlessly repeated the
charges as if they were proven. In the
New York Times
, David Sanger and Eric Schmitt
asserted
that,
given the latest incident, "it doesn't require a top-secret clearance and access to the government's most classified
information to see that the list of Russian aggressions in recent weeks rivals some of the worst days of the Cold War." Ray
McGovern responded to the Sanger-Schmitt article by impolitely reminding his readers about
Sanger's
dreadful record
during the lead-up to the Iraq War of uncritically repeating unverified leaks from intelligence sources
and hyping the danger of Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction.
Another prominent journalist who doubled down on the bounty
allegations was the
Washington Post's
Aaron
Blake
. The headline of his July 1 article read "The only people dismissing the Russia bounties intel: the Taliban, Russia
and Trump." Apparently, the NSA's willingness to go public with its doubts, as well as negative assessments of the allegations
by several veteran former intelligence officials, did not seem to matter to Blake. As evidence of how "serious" the situation
was (despite a perfunctory nod that the intelligence had not yet been confirmed), Blake quoted several of the usual hawks from
the president's own party.
As time passed, outnumbered media skeptics of the bounties
story nevertheless lobbed increasingly vigorous criticisms of the allegations. Their case for skepticism was warranted. It
became clear that even the CIA and other agencies that embraced the charges of bounties ascribed only "medium confidence" to
their conclusions. According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)
, there are three levels of
confidence, "high," "moderate," and "low." A "moderate" confidence level means "that the information is credibly sourced and
plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence." The NSA (and
apparently the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and possibly other portions of the intelligence community) gave the reports
the "low" confidence designation,
meaning
that
"the information's credibility and/or plausibility is questionable, or that the information is too fragmented or poorly
corroborated to make solid analytic inferences, or that [there are] significant concerns or problems with the sources."
Antiwar journalist Caitlin Johnstone offered an especially
brutal
indictment
of the media's performance regarding the latest installment of the "Russia is America's mortal enemy" saga.
"All parties involved in spreading this malignant psyop are absolutely vile," she wrote, "but a special disdain should be
reserved for the media class who have been entrusted by the public with the essential task of creating an informed populace
and holding power to account. How much of an unprincipled whore do you have to be to call yourself a journalist and
uncritically parrot the completely unsubstantiated assertions of spooks while protecting their anonymity?"
The media should not have ignored or blithely dismissed the
bounty allegation, but far too many members ran enthusiastically with a story based on extremely thin evidence, questionable
sourcing, and equally questionable logic. Once again, they seemed to believe the worst about Russia's behavior and Trump's
reaction to it because they had long ago mentally programmed themselves to believe such horror stories without doubt or
reservation. The
assessment
by
Alan MacLeod of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) is devastatingly accurate. With regard to the bounty story, he
concluded, "evidence-free claims from nameless spies became fact" in most media accounts. Instead of sober, restrained
inquiries from a skeptical, probing press, readers and viewers were treated to yet another installment of over-the-top
anti-Russia diatribes. That treatment had the effect, whether intended or unintended, of promoting even more hawkish policies
toward Moscow and undermining the already much-delayed withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. It was a biased,
unprofessional performance that should do nothing to restore the public's confidence in the media's already tattered
credibility.
Criticisms of "cancel culture" often is hypocrtical, as was the case with Weiss, and are connected with prioritizing speech that
shores up the status quo -- necon dominance in the US MSM.
An open letter published by Harper's magazine,
and signed by 150 prominent writers and public figures, has focused attention on the apparent dangers of what has been termed a new
"cancel culture".
The letter brings together an unlikely alliance of genuine leftists, such as Noam Chomsky and Matt Karp, centrists such as J K
Rowling and Ian Buruma, and neoconservatives such as David Frum and Bari Weiss, all speaking out in defence of free speech.
Although the letter doesn't explicitly use the term "cancel culture", it is clearly what is meant in the complaint about a "stifling"
cultural climate that is imposing "ideological conformity" and weakening "norms of open debate and toleration of differences".
It is easy to agree with the letter's generalized argument for tolerance and free and fair debate. But the reality is that many
of those who signed are utter hypocrites, who have shown precisely zero commitment to free speech, either in their words or in their
deeds.
Further, the intent of many them in signing the letter is the very reverse of their professed goal: they want to stifle free speech,
not protect it.
To understand what is really going on with this letter, we first need to scrutinize the motives , rather than the substance,
of the letter.
A new 'illiberalism'
"Cancel culture" started as the shaming, often on social media, of people who were seen to have said offensive things. But of
late, cancel culture has on occasion become more tangible, as the letter notes, with individuals fired or denied the chance to speak
at a public venue or to publish their work.
The letter denounces this supposedly new type of "illiberalism":
"We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls
for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought.
"Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred
from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; The result has been to steadily
narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion
among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient
zeal in agreement."
Tricky identity politics
The array of signatories is actually more troubling than reassuring. If we lived in a more just world, some of those signing –
like Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W Bush, and Anne-Marie Slaughter, a former US State Department official – would
be facing a reckoning before a Hague war crimes tribunal for their roles in promoting "interventions" in Iraq and Libya respectively,
not being held up as champions of free speech.
That is one clue that these various individuals have signed the letter for very different reasons.
Chomsky signed because he has been a lifelong and consistent defender of the right to free speech, even for those with appalling
opinions such as Holocaust denial.
Frum, who coined the term "axis of evil" that rationalised the invasion of Iraq, and Weiss, a New York Times columnist, signed
because they have found their lives getting tougher. True, it is easy for them to dominate platforms in the corporate media while
advocating for criminal wars abroad, and they have paid no career price when their analyses and predictions have turned out to be
so much dangerous hokum. But they are now feeling the backlash on university campuses and social media.
Meanwhile, centrists like Buruma and Rowling have discovered that it is getting ever harder to navigate the tricky terrain of
identity politics without tripping up. The reputational damage can have serious consequences.
Buruma famously lost his job as editor of the New York Review of Books two years ago after after he published and defended an
article that
violated
the new spirit of the #MeToo movement. And Rowling made the
mistake of thinking her followers would be as
fascinated by her traditional views on transgender issues as they are by her Harry Potter books.
'Fake news, Russian trolls'
But the fact that all of these writers and intellectuals agree that there is a price to be paid in the new, more culturally sensitive
climate does not mean that they are all equally interested in protecting the right to be controversial or outspoken.
Chomsky, importantly, is defending free speech for all , because he correctly understands that the powerful are only too
keen to find justifications to silence those who challenge their power. Elites protect free speech only in so far as it serves their
interests in dominating the public space.
If those on the progressive left do not defend the speech rights of everyone, even their political opponents, then any restrictions
will soon be turned against them. The establishment will always tolerate the hate speech of a Trump or a Bolsonaro over the justice
speech of a Sanders or a Corbyn.
By contrast, most of the rest of those who signed – the rightwingers and the centrists – are interested in free speech for
themselves and those like them . They care about protecting free speech only in so far as it allows them to continue dominating
the public space with their views – something they were only too used to until a few years ago, before social media started to level
the playing field a little.
The center and the right have been fighting back ever since with claims that anyone who seriously challenges the neoliberal status
quo at home and the neoconservative one abroad is promoting "fake news" or is a "Russian troll". This updating of the charge of being
"un-American" embodies cancel culture at its very worst.
Social media accountability
In other words, apart from in the case of a few progressives, the letter is simply special pleading – for a return to the status
quo. And for that reason, as we shall see, Chomsky might have been better advised not to have added his name, however much he agrees
with the letter's vague, ostensibly pro-free speech sentiments.
What is striking about a significant proportion of those who signed is their self-identification as ardent supporters of Israel.
And as Israel's critics know only too well, advocates for Israel have been at the forefront of the cancel culture – from long before
the term was even coined.
For decades, pro-Israel activists have sought to silence anyone seen to be seriously critiquing this small, highly militarized
state, sponsored by the colonial powers, that was implanted in a region rich with a natural resource, oil, needed to lubricate the
global economy, and at a terrible cost to its native, Palestinian population.
Nothing should encourage us to believe that zealous defenders of Israel among those signing the letter have now seen the error
of their ways. Their newfound concern for free speech is simply evidence that they have begun to suffer from the very same cancel
culture they have always promoted in relation to Israel.
They have lost control of the "cancel culture" because of two recent developments: a rapid growth in identity politics among liberals
and leftists, and a new popular demand for "accountability" spawned by the rise of social media.
Cancelling Israel's critics
In fact, despite their professions of concern, the evidence suggests that some of those signing the letter have been intensifying
their own contribution to cancel culture in relation to Israel, rather than contesting it.
That is hardly surprising. The need to counter criticism of Israel has grown more pressing as Israel has more obviously become
a pariah state. Israel has refused to countenance peace talks with the Palestinians and it has intensified its efforts to realize
long-harbored plans to annex swaths of the West Bank in violation of international law.
Rather than allow "robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters" on Israel, Israel's supporters have preferred the
tactics of those identified in the letter as enemies of free speech: "swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions
of speech and thought".
Just ask Jeremy Corbyn, the former leader of the Labour party who was reviled, along with his supporters, as an antisemite – one
of the worst smears imaginable – by several people on the Harper's list, including
Rowling and
Weiss . Such claims
were promoted even though his critics could produce no actual evidence of an antisemitism problem in the Labour party.
Similarly, think of the treatment of Palestinian solidarity activists who support a boycott of Israel (BDS), modeled on the one
that helped push South Africa's leaders into renouncing apartheid. BDS activists too have been smeared as antisemites – and Weiss
again has been a prime
offender .
The incidents highlighted in the Harper's letter in which individuals have supposedly been cancelled is trivial compared to the
cancelling of a major political party and of a movement that stands in solidarity with a people who have been oppressed for decades.
And yet how many of these free speech warriors have come forward to denounce the fact that leftists – including many Jewish anti-Zionists
– have been pilloried as antisemites to prevent them from engaging in debates about Israel's behavior and its abuses of Palestinian
rights?
How many of them have decried the imposition of a new definition of antisemitism, by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance,
that has been rapidly gaining ground in western countries?
That definition is designed to silence a large section of the left by prioritizing the safety of Israel from being criticized
before the safety of Jews from being vilified and attacked – something that even the lawyer who authored the definition has come
to
regret .
Why has none of this "cancel culture" provoked an open letter to Harper's from these champions of free speech?
Double-edge sword
The truth is that many of those who signed the letter are defending not free speech but their right to continue dominating the
public square – and their right to do so without being held accountable.
Bari Weiss, before she landed a job at the Wall Street Journal and then the New York Times, spent her student years trying to
get Muslim professors
fired from her university – cancelling them – because of their criticism of Israel. And she explicitly did so under the banner
of "academic freedom", claiming pro-Israel students felt intimidated in the classroom.
The New York Civil Liberties Union concluded that it was Weiss, not the professors, who was the real threat to academic freedom.
This was not some youthful indiscretion. In a book last year Weiss cited her efforts to rid Columbia university of these professors
as a formative experience on which she still draws.
Weiss and many of the others listed under the letter are angry that the rhetorical tools they used for so long to stifle the free
speech of others have now been turned against them. Those who lived for so long by the sword of identity politics – on Israel, for
example – are worried that their reputations may die by that very same sword – on issues of race, sex and gender.
Narcissistic concern
To understand how the cancel culture is central to the worldview of many of these writers and intellectuals, and how blind they
are to their own complicity in that culture, consider the case of Jonathan Freedland, a columnist with the supposedly liberal-left
British newspaper the Guardian. Although Freedland is not among those signing the letter, he is very much aligned with the centrists
among them and, of course, supported the letter in an article
published in the Guardian.
Freedland, we should note, led the "cancel culture" campaign against the Labour party referenced above. He was one of the key
figures in Britain's Jewish community who breathed life into the
antisemitism smears
against Corbyn and his supporters.
But note the brief clip below. In it, Freedland's voice can be heard cracking as he explains how he has been a victim of the cancel
culture himself: he confesses that he has suffered verbal and emotional abuse at the hands of Israel's most extreme apologists –
those who are even more unapologetically pro-Israel than he is.
He reports that he has been called a "kapo", the term for Jewish collaborators in the Nazi concentration camps, and a "sonderkommando",
the Jews who disposed of the bodies of fellow Jews killed in the gas chambers. He admits such abuse "burrows under your skin" and
"hurts tremendously".
And yet, despite the personal pain he has experienced of being unfairly accused, of being cancelled by a section of his own community,
Freedland has been at the forefront of the campaign to tar critics of Israel, including anti-Zionist Jews, as antisemites on the
flimsiest of evidence.
He is entirely oblivious to the ugly nature of the cancel culture – unless it applies to himself . His concern is purely
narcissistic. And so it is with the majority of those who signed the letter.
Conducting a monologue
The letter's main conceit is the pretence that "illiberalism" is a new phenomenon, that free speech is under threat, and that
the cancel culture only arrived at the moment it was given a name.
That is simply nonsense. Anyone over the age of 35 can easily remember a time when newspapers and websites did not have a talkback
section, when blogs were few in number and rarely read, and when there was no social media on which to challenge or hold to account
"the great and the good".
Writers and columnists like those who signed the letter were then able to conduct a monologue in which they revealed their opinions
to the rest of us as if they were Moses bringing down the tablets from the mountaintop.
In those days, no one noticed the cancel culture – or was allowed to remark on it. And that was because only those who held approved
opinions were ever given a media platform from which to present those opinions.
Before the digital revolution, if you dissented from the narrow consensus imposed by the billionaire owners of the corporate media,
all you could do was print your own primitive newsletter and send it by post to the handful of people who had heard of you.
That was the real cancel culture. And the proof is in the fact that many of those formerly obscure writers quickly found they
could amass tens of thousands of followers – with no help from the traditional corporate media – when they had access to blogs and
social media.
Silencing the left
Which brings us to the most troubling aspect of the open letter in Harper's. Under cover of calls for tolerance, given credibility
by Chomsky's name, a proportion of those signing actually want to restrict the free speech of one section of the population – the
part influenced by Chomsky.
They are not against the big cancel culture from which they have benefited for so long. They are against the small cancel culture
– the new more chaotic, and more democratic, media environment we currently enjoy – in which they are for the first time being held
to account for their views, on a range of issues including Israel.
Just as Weiss tried to get professors fired under the claim of academic freedom, many of these writers and public figures are
using the banner of free speech to discredit speech they don't like, speech that exposes the hollowness of their own positions.
Their criticisms of "cancel culture" are really about prioritizing "responsible" speech, defined as speech shared by centrists
and the right that shores up the status quo. They want a return to a time when the progressive left – those who seek to disrupt a
manufactured consensus, who challenge the presumed verities of neoliberal and neoconservative orthodoxy – had no real voice.
The new attacks on "cancel culture" echo the attacks on Bernie Sanders' supporters, who were framed as "Bernie Bros" – the evidence-free
allegation that he attracted a rabble of aggressive, women-hating men who tried to bully others into silence on social media.
Just as this claim was used to discredit Sanders' policies, so the center and the right now want to discredit the left more generally
by implying that, without curbs, they too will bully everyone else into silence and submission through their "cancel culture".
If this conclusion sounds unconvincing, consider that President Donald Trump could easily have added his name to the letter alongside
Chomsky's. Trump used his recent Independence Day
speech at Mount Rushmore to make similar points to the Harper's letter. He at least was explicit in equating "cancel culture"
with what he called "far-left fascism":
"One of [the left's] political weapons is 'Cancel Culture' – driving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters, and demanding
total submission from anyone who disagrees. This is the very definition of totalitarianism This attack on our liberty, our magnificent
liberty, must be stopped, and it will be stopped very quickly."
Trump, in all his vulgarity, makes plain what the Harper's letter, in all its cultural finery, obscures. That attacks on the new
"cancel culture" are simply another front – alongside supposed concerns about "fake news" and "Russian trolls" – in the establishment's
efforts to limit speech by the left.
Attention redirected
This is not to deny that there is fake news on social media or that there are trolls, some of them even Russian. Rather, it is
to point out that our attention is being redirected, and our concerns manipulated by a political agenda.
Despite the way it has been presented in the corporate media, fake news on social media has been mostly a problem of the right.
And the worst examples of fake news – and the most influential – are found not on social media at all, but on the front pages of
the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.
What genuinely fake news on Facebook has ever rivaled the lies justifying the invasion of Iraq in 2003 that were knowingly peddled
by a political elite and their stenographers in the corporate media. Those lies led directly to more than a million Iraqi deaths,
turned millions more into refugees, destroyed an entire country, and fuelled a new type of nihilistic Islamic extremism whose effects
we are still feeling.
Most of the worst lies from the current period – those that have obscured or justified US interference in Syria and Venezuela,
or rationalized war crimes against Iran, or approved the continuing imprisonment of Julian Assange for exposing war crimes – can
only be understood by turning our backs on the corporate media and looking to experts who can rarely find a platform outside of social
media.
I say this as someone who has concerns about the fashionable focus on identity politics rather than class politics. I say it also
as someone who rejects all forms of cancel culture – whether it is the old-style, "liberal" cancel culture that imposes on us a narrow
"consensus" politics (the Overton window), or the new "leftwing" cancel culture that too often prefers to focus on easy cultural
targets like Rowling than the structural corruption of western political systems.
But those who are impressed by the letter simply because Chomsky's name is attached should beware. Just as "fake news" has provided
the pretext for Google and social media platforms to change their algorithms to vanish left-wingers from searches and threads, just
as "antisemitism" has been redefined to demonize the left, so too the supposed threat of "cancel culture" will be exploited to silence
the left.
Protecting Bari Weiss and J K Rowling from a baying left-wing "mob" – a mob that that claims a right to challenge their views
on Israel or trans issues – will become the new rallying cry from the establishment for action against "irresponsible" or
"intimidating" speech.
Progressive leftists who join these calls out of irritation with the current focus on identity politics, or because they fear
being labelled an antisemite, or because they mistakenly assume that the issue really is about free speech, will quickly find that
they are the main targets.
In defending free speech, they will end up being the very ones who are silenced.
UPDATE:
You don't criticise Chomsky however tangentially and respectfully – at least not from a left perspective – without expecting a
whirlwind of opposition. But one issue that keeps being raised on my social media feeds in his defence is just plain wrong-headed,
so I want to quickly address it. Here's one my followers expressing the point succinctly:
"The sentiments in the letter stand or fall on their own merits, not on the characters or histories of some of the signatories,
nor their future plans."
The problem, as I'm sure Chomsky would explain in any other context, is that this letter fails not just because of the other people
who signed it but on its merit too . And that's because, as I explain above, it ignores the most oppressive and most established
forms of cancel culture, as Chomsky should have been the first to notice.
Highlighting the small cancel culture, while ignoring the much larger, establishment-backed cancel culture, distorts our understanding
of what is at stake and who wields power.
Chomsky unwittingly just helped a group of mostly establishment stooges skew our perceptions of free speech problems so that we
side with them against ourselves. There is no way that can be a good thing.
UPDATE 2:
There are still people holding out against the idea that it harmed the left to have Chomsky sign this letter. And rather than
address their points individually, let me try another way of explaining my argument:
Why has Chomsky not signed a letter backing the furore over "fake news", even though there is some fake news on social media?
Why has he not endorsed the "Bernie Bros" narrative, even though doubtless there are some bullying Sanders supporters on social media?
Why has he not supported the campaign claiming the Labour party has an antisemitism problem, even though there are some antisemites
in the Labour party (as there are everywhere)?
He hasn't joined any of those campaigns for a very obvious reason – because he understands how power works, and that on the left
you hit up, not down. You certainly don't cheerlead those who are up as they hit down.
Chomsky understands this principle only too well because here he is
setting it out in relation to Iran:
"Suppose I criticise Iran. What impact does that have? The only impact it has is in fortifying those who want to carry out policies
I don't agree with, like bombing."
For exactly the same reason he has not joined those pillorying Iran – because his support would be used for nefarious ends – he
shouldn't have joined this campaign. He made a mistake. He's fallible.
Also, this isn't about the left eating itself. Really, Chomsky shouldn't be the issue. The issue should be that a bunch
of centrists and right-wingers used this letter to try to reinforce a narrative designed to harm the left, and lay the groundwork
for further curbs on its access to social media. But because Chomsky signed the letter, many more leftists are now buying into that
narrative – a narrative intended to harm them. That's why Chomsky's role cannot be ignored, nor his mistake glossed over.
UPDATE 3:
I had not anticipated how many ways people on the left might find to justify this letter.
Here's the latest reasoning. Apparently, the letter sets an important benchmark that can in future be used to protect free speech
by the left when we are threatened with being "cancelled" – as, for example, with the antisemitism smears that were used against
anti-Zionist Jews and other critics of Israel in the British Labour party.
I should hardly need to point out how naive this argument is. It completely ignores how power works in our societies: who gets
to decide what words mean and how principles are applied. This letter won't help the left because "cancel culture" is being framed
– by this letter, by Trump, by the media – as a "loony left" problem. It is a new iteration of the "politically correct gone mad"
discourse, and it will be used in exactly the same way.
It won't help Steven Salaita, sacked from a university job because he criticised Israel's killing of civilians in Gaza, or Chris
Williamson, the Labour MP expelled because he defended the party's record on being anti-racist.
The "cancel culture" furore isn't interested in the fact that they were "cancelled". Worse still, this moral panic turns the whole
idea of cancelling on its head: it is Salaita and Williamson who are accused – and found guilty – of doing the cancelling, of cancelling
Israel and Jews.
Israel's supporters will continue to win this battle by claiming that criticism of Israel "cancels" that country ("wipes it off
the map"), "cancels" Israel's Jewish population ("drives them into the sea"), and "cancels" Jews more generally ("denies a central
component of modern Jewish identity").
Greater awareness of "cancel culture" would not have saved Corbyn from the antisemitism smears because the kind of cancel culture
that smeared Corbyn is never going to be defined as "cancelling".
For anyone who wishes to see how this works in practice, watch Guardian columnist Owen Jones cave in – as he has done so often
– to the power dynamics of the "cancel culture" discourse in this interview with Sky News. I actually agree with almost everything
Jones says in this clip, apart from his joining yet again in the witch-hunt against Labour's anti-Zionists. He doesn't see that witch-hunt
as "cancel culture", and neither will anyone else with a large platform like his to protect:
The Vatican may be the most influential element on US foreign policy, even more so than
Israel whose interests are not nearly as global. Via the Saker:
In can be argued that the Vatican's interest simply aligns with the "deep state" or it can
be argued that the Vatican is part of the deep state. Indeed the Vatican predates the "deep
state" by centuries and may be the first transational empire.
In any case, the Vatican has been the key player in major international operations from
Poland to Argentina to S Vietnam. Of course, lets not forget their unforgettable role in WW
II and the war against Serbia and the Soviet Union.
The posted article is well worth the long read. The Vatican has gotten a free pass in the
West for far too long with their mass rape of children, organizers of genocide, buddy-buddy
with organized crime and crooked bingo operations. Their role in Ukraine was particularly
eye-opening for me.
I would imagine that the Pope is absolutely fuming about that Russian military cathedral.
My take? That cathedral was built, in part, as a message to the Holy See that if they mess
with Russia or its church, the response will be swift and final.
The question is : what is the role of FBI in organizing and driving the current protests,
especially the action of antifa?
Notable quotes:
"... It would be fitting justice for AntiFa to go the way the Red Guards ..."
"... Not quite nine years later, almost no one is talking about banksters, incredibly, although the country has been plunged into a much worse economic hell Broke and enraged, mobs swarm American streets, but instead of targeting those who are imploding their society, they pull down statues, break windows, deface walls, loot stores and attack cops or each other. ..."
"... Pelosi said even if DC burns down to the ground, the US will be 100% for Israel. Why not include Wall Street, the money bag of Jewish Power? ..."
"... In a way, what we are seeing is the Japanization of White America. This is why the US should not have dropped the nukes and forced unconditional surrender. They should have allowed Japan to surrender with honor. Make Japan give up its empire and military ambitions but let the Japanese keep their culture and sacred myths. But the US forced unconditional surrender, turned the Emperor into Tokyo Shoeshine boy, occupied Japan(and still has bases there), used Japanese women as whores & mistresses, and turned Japanese men into castrated cuck-wussies. Sound familiar? ..."
Though government infiltrators undoubtedly helped to fragment Occupy, most protesters
gleefully went along with their own gelding, because, to them, it was never about rallying the
99% towards common goals, as they vaguely claimed, but airing minority grievances. Most
importantly, they could look
cool doing it.
With visual evidence uploaded onto FaceBook, Tumblr and Instagram, etc., soy boys from strip
malled subdivisions could accrue street cred.
Since "Occupy Everything, Demand
Nothing " became Occupy's rallying cry, it achieved literally nothing, predictably. A month
after all tents were cleared from Zuccotti Park, Time Magazine anointed "The Protester" as
Person Of The Year, so for being symbolically homeless for two months, the sans cazzo got a
participation lollipop from the bossman.
Since then, unscathed and smirking Wall Street has only amped up its state-of-the-art shell
games, punctuated by bailouts. What's left of the country's wealth keeps flowing to the
top.
Although Occupy Wall Street exposed widespread discontent, it was deftly tamed by the state,
without addressing any of the issues raised. Worsened economic malaise is papered over with
fake news and statistics. Unable to afford even an efficiency, the young and not so young
resignedly or bitterly move back home. I'm sure you know a few.
Beneath each basement, there's another, even darker and danker, Americans kept discovering,
so they just had to suck it up and simmer on, when not overdosing on opioids. It's the new
normal.
Occupy Wall Street protesters were mostly under-35-year-old whites, with at least some
college education. Now, the same demographic is back on the streets, but instead of chanting
for economic justice and representing, at least in theory, the 99%, they're fighting Fascism
and racism. With their inclusive definitions of such sins, however, they're warring against
most of the country.
... ... ...
On August 14th, 2018, CNN reeducated us, "There is no
national antifa group. It is mostly made up of people who are far left of center, who make it
their mission to battle Fascists, racists and alt right extremists." It's a grassroot,
homegrown resistance to hate, that's all. "Behind the masks are people from all walks of life,
artist, mom, ordinary American, as well as anarchist." Four most gentle faces were shown.
On June 16th, 2020, CNN reemphasized
that antifa was a belief system that unified all anti-Fascists, whatever their color, age or
background, so how could you be against it, unless you're a Fascist?! A burly, genial black man
explained, "It basically means that you are against Fascism. If you are against Fascism, then
you are antifa."
In a BLACK LIVES MATTER muscle-T, a white wuss added, "Antifa is not a group. It's not like
everybody sits in, like, some basement, talking about how to overthrow the Fascist regime. I
walked around picking up trash yesterday, behind the protesters. That's what antifa looks
like."
Burly black guy, "White people have to be involved in fighting racism, in fighting white
supremacy [ ] But if you are a white ally, remember that you still have to follow the lead of
people of color."
The New York Times and Washington Post have also written sympathetically about antifa. When
the corporate media give you a positive spin, it must mean you're serving the establishment.
Mussolini had his Blackshirts, Hitler his Brownshirts and Mao his Red Guards. America's rulers
have antifa.
Far from threatening the 1%, antifa sows dissension among the 99%. Ignoring Wall Street,
antifa trashes one Main Street after another.
Zealously branding its enemies as racist or Fascist, antifa generates more racism and
Fascism.
Slammed by the economic crisis of 2008, Americans started to look more closely at Wall
Street, Goldman Sachs and the Federal
Reserve , etc., and they were enlightened by people like Ron Paul and Matt Taibbi.
In Rolling Stone, Taibbi wrote, "The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is
that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid
wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that
smells like money."
Banksters were scrutinized with increasing intensity. It was in this climate that Occupy
Wall Street was born.
Not quite nine years later, almost no one is talking about banksters, incredibly, although
the country has been plunged into a much worse economic hell, with millions suddenly laid off,
and millions of mom and pops permanently ruined. Thanks to another monster bailout, only Wall
Street is doing well.
Broke and enraged, mobs swarm American streets, but instead of targeting those who are
imploding their society, they pull down statues, break windows, deface walls, loot stores and
attack cops or each other.
When your tyrants can't even be identified, much less found, no coup, uprising or revolution
is possible, and it's pointless to assassinate an American president, since he is but a puppet,
so who should be shot?
The month I was born, two presidents were killed. Though Ngo Dinh Diem has often been
caricatured as an American puppet, he obviously broke his strings, or he wouldn't have been
shot. Kennedy, too, went off script. His death was a warning. It works.
American elections are cathartic farces. Drawn out and elaborately staged, they're designed
to give false hopes and stoke emotions. With the national mood already so volatile and foul,
however, this year's balloting promises to be a horror show. Unable to aim at their oppressors,
Americans will be reduced to shooting each other.
"Far from threatening the 1%, antifa sows dissension among the 99%. Ignoring Wall Street,
antifa trashes one Main Street after another."
Kudos. Well said!!!
"Who should be shot?" I answer the question in the purely hypothetical, I am not in any
way suggesting this line of response. But the answer is obvious.
When Tsar Nicholas and his family were murdered by the communists, it put the fear of God
(or fear of something) in the hearts of the western plutocrats and we got the New Deal and
more than a half century of the working class getting at least sort of a reasonable cut of
the proceeds.
"Who shall we shoot?" If the Jeff Bezoses and Zuckerbergs and Soroses etc. of the world
take a personal hit – if they begin to think that even they, in their well-guarded
bubbles, are not safe – only then will we get any sort of consideration from the top.
It is personal fear, not morality, that will cause the elites to again begin to value
stability and order over rapacious looting.
No I am not in any way suggesting violence. Not me, no how. But it remains true that only
the threat of personal violence directed at the elites, will cause them to reconsider their
current socially destructive path.
Though Ngo Dinh Diem has often been caricatured as an American puppet, he obviously
broke his strings, or he wouldn't have been shot.
The CIA recruited Diem to be the puppet ruler of a nation they had created. He was living
in New Jersey and then became head of South Vietnam without an election. He had attended the
same elite school in Hue as Ho Chi Mihn and meant well. When he saw that fighting was
increasing he wanted to cut a deal with Ho Chi Mihn, who had won the 1954 elections was the
legitimate ruler of all Vietnam after the temporary cease fire line that divided Vietnam
ended in 1956. The DMZ was an illusion created by the CIA and Pentagon.
This is why Diem was killed by a CIA coup, and was followed by other puppet leaders. The
CIA's attempt to create a new nation that became known as South Vietnam failed by 1964, which
is why American troops arrived.
Mussolini had his Blackshirts, Hitler his Brownshirts and Mao his Red Guards. America's
rulers have antifa.
The Black Shirts were able to gracefully fade away for the most part, but the other two
groups had a rather difficult go once they had served their purpose. It would be fitting
justice for AntiFa to go the way the Red Guards once President Abrams is safely
ensconced: After all, you can't feed a country with hooligan student revolutionaries roving
the streets rather than working the farms.
The month I was born, two presidents were killed. Though Ngo Dinh Diem has often been
caricatured as an American puppet, he obviously broke his strings, or he wouldn't have been
shot. Kennedy, too, went off script. His death was a warning. It works.
Liz Chaney is thwarting Trump's troop draw-down in Afghanistan with help from Dems as well
as Republicans.
House Democrats, Working With Liz Cheney, Restrict Trump's Planned Withdrawal of
Troops From Afghanistan and Germany
Not quite nine years later, almost no one is talking about banksters, incredibly,
although the country has been plunged into a much worse economic hell Broke and enraged,
mobs swarm American streets, but instead of targeting those who are imploding their
society, they pull down statues, break windows, deface walls, loot stores and attack cops
or each other.
Pelosi said even if DC burns down to the ground, the US will be 100% for Israel. Why
not include Wall Street, the money bag of Jewish Power?
In a way, what we are seeing is the Japanization of White America. This is why the US
should not have dropped the nukes and forced unconditional surrender. They should have
allowed Japan to surrender with honor. Make Japan give up its empire and military ambitions
but let the Japanese keep their culture and sacred myths. But the US forced unconditional
surrender, turned the Emperor into Tokyo Shoeshine boy, occupied Japan(and still has bases
there), used Japanese women as whores & mistresses, and turned Japanese men into
castrated cuck-wussies. Sound familiar?
Great article.
"Their movement fizzled out, however, because it degenerated into an endless display of
narcissistic posturing, with everyone making self-important speeches about his or her pet
cause, to an audience of fifty, tops, which is not how a revolution is ever made."
"Far from threatening the 1%, antifa sows dissension among the 99%. Ignoring Wall Street,
antifa trashes one Main Street after another."
Is it ANY wonder why Elites love the post-modern, the PC, & antifa so much. Talk about
the "magic pudding" & the gift that just keeps on giving .
Broke and enraged, mobs swarm American streets, but instead of targeting those who
are imploding their society, they pull down statues, break windows, deface walls, loot
stores and attack cops or each other .
Hey! What the 19th century robber baron said has finally come true:
"I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half." -- Jay Gould
They are being paid: BLM and Antifa people are being bankrolled. Just tote up the
corporate donations the BLM in the past week and flip. More money than most nations have in
the treasury. As to Antifa, Soros funded them for years. All to get rid of white people.
You left out the Media Jackals. They are the willing and ever ready mouthpieces for the
Satanic Cult the Financial Elites would turn America into. In fact, the Media liars have as
much culpability as any group in the country for our current disaster.
Who should be shot? Start with the neocons (particularly the Jewish ones). They are the
head of the snake in the West – especially the U.S. – today. Most evils are
downstream from their actions/policies, directly or indirectly.
Who should be shot? It's hard imaging Americans staging a revolution. The DOD says 75% of
young Americans don't quality to serve in the military, because they are too fat or too dumb.
Our protesters protest because they get to appear virtuous -- they need some kind of
participation award.
...Upthread someone mentioned Bezos as being in the 1%. While he is certainly uber
wealthy, I've always thought of him in a different way. In my mind the 1% are the wall street
guys who financialize everything, and if they all went away tomorrow our (main street)
economy would greatly improve. If Amazon goes away, I'd have to start buying all my crap in
person. Ugh
The same fools assume the 1 percent will hang around when things become very adverse in
the US. Nope. They'll do what wealthy South Africans did and the US lumpens will do what
Boers did.
Nobody cares if the poor in the gutters of Wall Street go on hunger strike The one percent
does not care if the poor go hungry anyhow.
Average middle class Americans are naive as to how callous and unconcerned the one percent
is. The blacks and Hispanics at the bottom of society are aware, of course. That is why laws
and customs mean nothing, nor bourgeois values. But it is the middle class who is actually
naive enough to believe the one percent gives a fat rat's ass about them, about America,
about their feelings.
Both Antifa and the Patriots have a huge red-blue target painted on their backs. Unless
they can identify their overlords clearly, they will fight each other.
Hey Americans, who is it that you cannot criticize?
This is all about maintaining the US-centered global neoliberal empire. After empires is created the the USA became the
salve of imperial interests and in a way stopped existing as an independent country. Everything is thrown on the altar of "full
spectrum Dominance". The result is as close to a real political and economic disaster as we can get. Like USSR leadership the US
elite realized now that neoliberalism is not sustainable, but can't do anything as all bets were made for the final victory of
neoliberalism all over the world, much like Soviets hoped for the victory of communism. That did not happened and although the USA
now is in much better position then the USSR in 60th (but with the similar level of deterioration of cognitive abilities of the
politicians as the USSR). In this sense COVID-19 was a powerful catalyst of the crush of the US-centered neoliberal empire
Notable quotes:
"... On the other side are the targets of "inveterate antipathies." This also characterizes US Middle East policy. So hated are Iran and Syria that Washington, DC is making every effort to destroy their economies, ruin their people's livelihoods, wreck their hospitals, and starve their population. The respective governments are bad, to be sure, but do not threaten the US Yet, as the nation's first president explained to Americans, "Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy." ..."
"... Consider how close the US has come to foolish, unnecessary wars against both nations. There were manifold demands that the US enter the Syrian civil war, in which Americans have no stake. Short of combat the Obama administration indirectly aided the local affiliate of al-Qaeda, the terrorist group which staged 9/11 and supposedly was America's enemy. Moreover, there was constant pressure on America to attack Iran, targeted by the US since 1953, when the CIA helped replace Tehran's democracy with a brutal tyrant, whose rule was highlighted by corruption, torture, and a nuclear program – which then was taken over by Iran's Islamic revolutionaries, to America's horror. ..."
"... The US now is pushing toward a Cold War redux with Russia, after successive administrations treated Moscow as if it was of no account, lying about plans to expand NATO and acting in other ways that the US would never tolerate. Imagine the Soviet Union helping to overthrow an elected, pro-American government in Mexico City, seeking to redirect all commerce to Soviet allies in South America, and proposing that Mexico join the Warsaw Pact. US policymakers would be threatening war. ..."
"... In different ways many US policies illustrate the problem caused by "passionate attachments" – the almost routine and sometimes substantial sacrifice of US economic and security interests to benefit other governments. For instance, hysteria swept Washington at the president's recent proposal to simply reduce troop levels in Germany, which along with so many other European nations sees little reason to do much to defend itself. There are even those who demand American subservience to the Philippines, a semi-failed state of no significant security importance to the US Saudi Arabia is a rare case where the attachment is mostly cash and lobbyists. In most instances cultural, ethnic, religious, and historical ties provide a firmer foundation for foreign political influence and manipulation. ..."
Ben Rhodes, Barack Obama's deputy national security adviser, unkindly characterized the
foreign policy establishment in Washington, D.C., as "the Blob." Although policymakers
sometimes disagree on peripheral subjects, membership requires an absolute commitment to U.S.
"leadership," which means a determination to micro-manage the world.
Reliance on persuasion is not enough. Vital is the willingness to bomb, invade, and, if
necessary, occupy other nations to impose the Blob's dictates on other peoples. If foreigners
die, as they often do, remember the saying about eggs and omelets oft repeated by communism's
apologists. "Stuff happens" with the best-intentioned policies.
One might be inclined to forgive Blob members if their misguided activism actually benefited
the American people. However, all too often the Blob's policies instead aid other governments
and interests. Washington is overrun by the representatives of and lobbyists for other nations,
which constantly seek to take control of US policy for their own advantage. The result are
foreign interventions in which Americans do the paying and, all too often, the dying for
others.
The problem is primarily one of power. Other governments don't spend a lot of time
attempting to take over Montenegro's foreign policy because, well, who cares? Exactly what
would you do after taking over Fiji's foreign ministry other than enjoy a permanent vacation?
Seize control of international relations in Barbados and you might gain a great tax
shelter.
Subvert American democracy and manipulate US foreign policy, and you can loot America's
treasury, turn the US military into your personal bodyguard, and gain Washington's support for
reckless war-mongering. And given the natural inclination of key American policymakers to
intervene promiscuously abroad for the most frivolous reasons, it's surprisingly easy for
foreign interests to convince Uncle Sam that their causes are somehow "vital" and therefore
require America's attention. Indeed, it is usually easier to persuade Americans than foreign
peoples in their home countries to back one or another international misadventure.
The culprits are not just autocratic regimes. Friendly democratic governments are equally
ready to conspiratorially whisper in Uncle Sam's ear. Even nominally classical liberal
officials, who believe in limiting their own governments, argue that Americans are obligated to
sacrifice wealth and life for everyone else. The mantra seems to be liberty, prosperity, and
peace for all – except those living in the superpower tasked by heaven with protecting
everyone else's liberty, prosperity, and peace.
Although the problem has burgeoned in modern times, it is not new. Two centuries ago fans of
Greek independence wanted Americans to challenge the Ottoman Empire, a fantastic bit of
foolishness. Exactly how to effect an international Balkans rescue was not clear, since the
president then commanded no aircraft carriers, air wings, or nuclear-tipped missiles. Still,
the issue divided Americans and influenced John Quincy Adams' famous 1821 Independence Day
address.
Warned Adams:
"Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there
will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of
monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the
champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance
of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting
under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would
involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of
individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of
freedom."
"The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force . She
might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit .
[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a
spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has
been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of
mankind would permit, her practice."
Powerful words, yet Adams was merely following in the footsteps of another great American,
George Washington. Obviously, the latter was flawed as a person, general, and president.
Nevertheless, his willingness to set a critical precedent by walking away from power left an
extraordinary legacy. As did his insistence that the Constitution tasked Congress with deciding
when America would go to war. And his warning against turning US policy over to foreign
influences.
Concern over obsequious subservience to other governments and interests pervaded his famous
1796 Farewell Address. Applied today, his message indicts most of the policy currently made in
the city ironically named after him. He would be appalled by what presidents and Congresses
today do, supposedly for America.
Obviously, the US was very different 224 years ago. The new country was fragile, sharing the
Western hemisphere with its old colonial master, which still ruled Canada and much of the
Caribbean, as well as Spain and France. When later dragged into the maritime fringes of the
Napoleonic wars the US could huff and puff but do no more than inconvenience France and
Britain. The vastness of the American continent, not overweening national power, again
frustrated London when it sought to subjugate its former colonists.
Indeed, when George Washington spoke the disparate states were not yet firmly knit into a
nation. Only after the Civil War, when the national government waged four years of brutal
combat, which ravaged much of the country and killed upwards of 750,000 people in the name of
"union," did people uniformly say the United States "is" rather than "are." However, the
transformation was much more than rhetorical. The federal system that originally emerged in the
name of individual liberty spawned a high tax centralized government that employed one of the
world's largest militaries to kill on a mass scale to enforce the regime's dictates. The modern
American "republic" was born. It acted overseas only inconsistently until World War II, after
which imperial America was a constant, adding resonance to George Washington's message.
Today Washington, D.C.'s elites have almost uniformly decided that Russia is an enemy,
irrespective of American behavior that contributed to Moscow's hostility. And that Ukraine, a
country never important for American security, is a de facto military ally, appropriately armed
by the US for combat against a nuclear-armed rival. A reelection-minded president seems
determined to turn China into a new Cold War adversary, an enemy for all things perhaps for all
time. America remains ever entangled in the Middle East, with successive administrations in
permanent thrall of Israel and Saudi Arabia, allowing foreign leaders to set US Mideast policy.
Indeed, both states have avidly pressed the administration to make their enemy, Iran, America'
enemy. The resulting fixation caused the Trump administration to launch economic war against
the rest of the world to essentially prevent everyone on earth from having any commercial
dealing of any kind with anyone in Tehran.
Under Democrats and Republicans alike the federal government views nations that resist its
dictates as adversaries at best, appropriate targets of criticism, always, sanctions, often,
and even bombs and invasions, occasionally. No wonder foreign governments lobby hard to be
designated as allies, partners, and special relationships. Many of these ties have become
essentially permanent, unshakeable even when supposed friends act like enemies and supposed
enemies are incapable of hurting America. US foreign policy increasingly has been captured and
manipulated for the benefit of other governments and interests.
George Washington recognized the problem even in his day, after revolutionary France sought
to win America's support against Great Britain. He warned: "nothing is more essential than that
permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for
others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all
should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual
fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either
of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest."
Is there a better description of US foreign policy today? Even when a favored nation is
clearly, ostentatiously, murderously on the wrong side – consider Saudi Arabia's
unprovoked aggression against Yemen – many American policymakers refuse to allow a single
word of criticism to escape their lips. The US has indeed become "a slave," as George
Washington warned.
The consequences for the US and the world are highly negative. He observed that "likewise, a
passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the
favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no
real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the
former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement
or justification."
This is an almost perfect description of the current US approach. American colonists
revolted against what they believed had become ever more "foreign" control, yet the US backs
Israel's occupation and mistreatment of millions of Palestinians. American policymakers parade
the globe spouting the rhetoric of freedom yet subsidize Egypt as it imprisons tens of
thousands and oppresses millions of people. Washington decries Chinese aggressiveness, yet
provides planes, munitions, and intelligence to aid Riyadh in the slaughter of Yemeni civilians
and destruction of Yemeni homes, businesses, and hospitals. In such cases, policymakers have
betrayed America "into a participation in the quarrels and wars without adequate inducement or
justification."
On the other side are the targets of "inveterate antipathies." This also characterizes US
Middle East policy. So hated are Iran and Syria that Washington, DC is making every effort to
destroy their economies, ruin their people's livelihoods, wreck their hospitals, and starve
their population. The respective governments are bad, to be sure, but do not threaten the US
Yet, as the nation's first president explained to Americans, "Antipathy in one nation against
another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of
umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute
occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation,
prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the
best calculations of policy."
Consider how close the US has come to foolish, unnecessary wars against both nations. There
were manifold demands that the US enter the Syrian civil war, in which Americans have no stake.
Short of combat the Obama administration indirectly aided the local affiliate of al-Qaeda, the
terrorist group which staged 9/11 and supposedly was America's enemy. Moreover, there was
constant pressure on America to attack Iran, targeted by the US since 1953, when the CIA helped
replace Tehran's democracy with a brutal tyrant, whose rule was highlighted by corruption,
torture, and a nuclear program – which then was taken over by Iran's Islamic
revolutionaries, to America's horror.
Read George Washington and you would think he had gained a supernatural glimpse into today's
policy debates. He worried about the result when the national government "adopts through
passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation
subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and
pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the
victim."
What better describes US policy toward China and Russia? To be sure, these are nasty
regimes. Yet that has rarely bothered Uncle Sam's relations with other states. Saudi Arabia, a
corrupt and totalitarian theocracy, has been sheltered, protected, and reassured by the US even
after invading its poor neighbor. Among Washington's other best friends: Bahrain, Turkey,
Egypt, and United Arab Emirates, tyrannies all.
The US now is pushing toward a Cold War redux with Russia, after successive administrations
treated Moscow as if it was of no account, lying about plans to expand NATO and acting in other
ways that the US would never tolerate. Imagine the Soviet Union helping to overthrow an
elected, pro-American government in Mexico City, seeking to redirect all commerce to Soviet
allies in South America, and proposing that Mexico join the Warsaw Pact. US policymakers would
be threatening war.
Washington, DC also is treating China as a near-enemy, claiming the right to control China
along its own borders – essentially attempting to apply America's Monroe Doctrine to
Asia. This is something Americans would never allow another nation, especially China, to do to
the US Imagine the response if Beijing sent its navy up the East Coast, told the US how to
treat Cuba, and constantly talked of the possibility of war. America's consistently hostile,
aggressive policy is the result of "projects of pride, ambition, and other sinister and
pernicious motives."
This kind of foreign policy also corrupts the American political system. It encourages
officials and people to put foreign interests before that of America. As George Washington
observed, this mindset: "gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote
themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own
country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; guiding, with the appearances of a
virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal
for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation."
For instance, Woodrow Wilson and America's Anglophile establishment backed Great Britain
over the interests of the American people, dragging the US into World War I, a mindless
imperial slugfest that this nation should have avoided. After the Cold War's end Americans with
ties to Central and Eastern Europe pushed to expand NATO to their ancestral homes, which
created new defense obligations for America while inflaming Russian hostility. Ethnic Greeks
and Turks constantly battle over policy toward their ethnic homelands. Taiwan has developed
enduring ties with congressional Republicans, especially, ensuring US government support
against Beijing. Many evangelical Christians, especially those who hold a particularly bizarre
eschatology (basically, Jews must gather together in their national homeland to be slaughtered
before Jesus can return), back Israel in whatever it does to assist the apparently helpless God
of creation finish his job. The policies that result from such campaigns inevitably are shaped
to benefit foreign interests, not Americans.
Regarding the impact of such a system on the political system George Washington also was
prescient: "As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are
particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities
do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead
public opinion, to influence or awe the public council. Such an attachment of a small or weak
towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter."
In different ways many US policies illustrate the problem caused by "passionate attachments"
– the almost routine and sometimes substantial sacrifice of US economic and security
interests to benefit other governments. For instance, hysteria swept Washington at the
president's recent proposal to simply reduce troop levels in Germany, which along with so many
other European nations sees little reason to do much to defend itself. There are even those who
demand American subservience to the Philippines, a semi-failed state of no significant security
importance to the US Saudi Arabia is a rare case where the attachment is mostly cash and
lobbyists. In most instances cultural, ethnic, religious, and historical ties provide a firmer
foundation for foreign political influence and manipulation.
What to do about such a long-standing problem? George Washington was neither naïf nor
isolationist. He believed in what passed for globalism in those days: a commercial republic
should trade widely. He didn't oppose alliances, for limited purposes and durations. After all,
support from France was necessary for the colonies to win independence.
He proposed a practical policy tied to ongoing realities. The authorities should "steer
clear of permanent alliances," have with other states "as little political connection as
possible," and not "entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils" of other nations'
"ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice." Most important, the object of US foreign
policy was to serve the interests of the American people. In practice it was a matter of
prudence, to be adapted to circumstance and interest. He would not necessarily foreclose
defense of Israel, Saudi Arabia, or Germany, but would insist that such proposals reflect a
serious analysis of current realities and be decided based on what is best for Americans. He
would recognize that what might have been true a few decades ago likely isn't true today. In
reality, little of current US foreign policy would have survived his critical review.
George Washington was an eminently practical man who managed to speak through the ages.
America's recently disastrous experience of playing officious, obnoxious hegemon highlights his
good judgment. The US, he argued, should "observe good faith and justice towards all nations;
cultivate peace and harmony with all."
America may still formally be a republic, but its foreign policy long ago became imperial.
As John Quincy Adams warned, the US is "no longer the ruler of her own spirit." Americans have
learned at great cost that international affairs are too important to be left to the Blob and
foreign policy professionals, handed off to international relations scholars, or, worst of all,
subcontracted to other nations and their lobbyists. The American people should insist on their
nation's return to a true republican foreign policy.
Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute . A former Special Assistant to President Ronald
Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire .
The headline
blares that it's a big "administration" conspiracy to play up doubts and play down proofs
of the bounties plot, but the text itself reveals that it's the National Intelligence Council
that did the new review and that even the CIA , the agency out in front on this story,
has only "medium" or "moderate" confidence on the reality of the plot. Meanwhile DoD and NSA
both still say they give it low confidence and cannot verify.
You gotta appreciate the desperate spin of the Times reporters and their editors
here:
"A memo produced in recent days by the office of the nation's top intelligence official
acknowledged that the C.I.A. and top counterterrorism officials have assessed that Russia
appears to have offered bounties to kill American and coalition troops in Afghanistan, but
emphasized uncertainties and gaps in evidence, according to three officials."
Oh how cynical of the National Intelligence Council to "emphasize" doubts instead of
running with wild unverified claims! Their anonymous sources assure us that the memo "was
intended to bolster the Trump administration's attempts to justify its inaction" over the
alleged Russian interference. But intelligence officials tell the New York Times
lots of things .
I buried the lead nearly as badly as they did, but here it is before they go meandering
off saying nothing and refusing to acknowledge the importance of the following admission:
"The memo said that the C.I.A. and the National Counterterrorism Center had assessed
with medium confidence -- meaning credibly sourced and plausible, but falling short of near
certainty -- that a unit of the Russian military intelligence service, known as the G.R.U.,
offered the bounties, according to two of the officials briefed on its contents.
"But other parts of the intelligence community -- including the National Security
Agency, which favors electronic surveillance intelligence -- said they did not have
information to support that conclusion at the same level, therefore expressing lower
confidence in the conclusion, according to the two officials. A third official familiar with
the memo did not describe the precise confidence levels, but also said the C.I.A.'s was
higher than other agencies."
So Charlie Savage
admits that his whole stupid
story is based on a medium -confidence conclusion of the CIA against the
views of the NSA
and DoD . I wonder if he noticed the same people gave the story to the Wall Street
Journal and Washington Post at the same time as an
obvious attempt to use their stenography in a plot to prevent Trump from considering an
"early" withdrawal from Afghanistan.
"'Afghan officials said prizes of as much as $100,000 per killed soldier were offered
for American and coalition targets,' the Times reported. And yet, when Rukmini Callimachi, a
member of the reporting team breaking the story, appeared on MSNBC to elaborate further, she
noted that 'the funds were being sent from Russia regardless of whether the Taliban followed
through with killing soldiers or not. There was no report back to the GRU about casualties.
The money continued to flow.'
"There is just one problem -- that's not how bounties work."
And they will keep on jerking that rusty old chain.
Jonathan Guyer, managing editor of The American Prospect, has an unbelievably
well-reported piece on
the making of a Washington national security consultancy, starring two high placed Obama-era
officials and one of the Imperial City's more successful denizens -- Michele Flournoy.
Flournoy may not be a household name anywhere but the Beltway, but when she met Sergio
Aguirre and Nitin Chadda (Chiefs of staff to UN Ambassador Samantha Power and Secretary of
Defense Ash Carter respectively) she was already trading lucratively on her stints in two
Democratic administrations. In fact, according to Guyer, by 2017 she was pulling nearly a half
a million dollars a year a year wearing a number of hats: senior advisor for Boston Consulting
Group (where she helped increase their defense contracts to $32 million by 2016), founder and
CEO of the Democratic leaning Center for a New American Security, senior fellow at Harvard's
Belfer Center, and a member of various corporate boards.
Hungry to get their own consulting business going after Hillary Clinton's stunning loss in
2016, according to Guyer, Aguirre and Chadda approached Flournoy for her starpower inside the
Blob. Flournoy did not want "to have a firm with her name on it alone," so they sought and
added Tony Blinken, former Under Secretary of State and "right hand man" to Joe Biden for 20
years. WestExec Advisors, named after the street alongside the West Wing of the White House,
was born. "The name WestExec Advisors trades on its founders' recent knowledge of the highest
echelons of decision-making," writes Guyer. "It also suggests they'll be walking down WestExec
toward 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue someday soon."
Soon the firm was raking in corporate contracts and the high sums that go with it. They
weren't lobbying per se (wink, wink) but their names and connections provided the grease on the
skids their clients needed to make things happen in Washington. They shrewdly partnered with a
private equity group and a Google affiliate. Before long, Guyer says, they did not need to
market: CEO's were telling other CEO's to give them a call. More:
The founders told executives they would share their "passion" for helping new companies
navigate the complex bureaucracy of winning Pentagon contracts. They told giant defense
contractors how to explain cutting-edge technologies to visitors from Congress. Their
approach worked, and clients began to sign up.
One was an airline, another a global transportation company, a third a company that
makes drones that can almost instantly scan an entire building's interior. WestExec would
only divulge that it began working with "Fortune 100 types," including large U.S. tech;
financial services, including global-asset managers; aerospace and defense; emerging U.S.
tech; and nonprofits.
The Prospect can confirm that one of those clients is the Israeli
artificial-intelligence company Windward.
To say that the Flournoy helped WestExec establish itself as one of the most successful of
the Beltway's defense and national security consultancies is an understatement. For sure,
Flournoy has often been underestimated -- she is not flamboyant, nor glamorous, and is
absolutely unrecognizable outside of the Washington market because she doesn't do media (though
she is popular on
the think tank conference circuit ). She's a technocrat -- smart and efficient and highly
bred for Washington's finely tuned managerial class. She is a courtier for sure, but she is no
sop. She has staying power, quietly forging relationships with the right people and not trying
too hard to make a name or express ideas that might conflict with doctrine. She no doubt
learned much in two stints in the Pentagon, which typically chews up the less capable,
greedier, more narcissistic neophytes (not to mention idealists). She's not exactly known as a
visionary, however, and one has to wonder which hat she is wearing when she expounds on current
defense threats, like
this piece about beefing up the Pentagon budget to confront China .
But what does it all mean? Flournoy has been at the forefront of strategy and policy in two
administrations marked by overseas interventions (Clinton from 1993 to 2000) and Obama (2009 to
2012). All of her aforementioned qualities have helped her to personally succeed and profit --
especially now, no doubt helping weapons contractors get deals on the Hill, as Guyer susses out
in his piece, not to mention how well-placed she would be for an incoming Biden Administration.
But has it been in the best interest of the country? I think not. For this, she is queen of the
Blob.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.394.0_en.html#goog_87831358 00:12 / 00:59
00:00 Next Video × Next Video J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker,
Pro-family Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019 Cancel Autoplay is paused
But elite is as elite does. She went from Beverly Hills High School to Harvard to Oxford,
and then back to Harvard, before landing a political appointment in the Clinton Administration.
In between government perches, she did consulting and started CNAS in hopes of creating a
shadow national security council for Hillary Clinton. When Clinton didn't get the nomination,
Flournoy and her colleagues supported Obama and helped populate his administration,
supporting the military surge in Afghanistan and prolonging the war. She was called the
"mastermind"
behind Obama's Afghan strategy, which we now know was a failure, an effort at futility and
prolonging the inevitable. In fact, we know now that most of the war establishment was
lying through its teeth . But that hasn't stopped her from getting clients. They pay for
her influence, not her ability to win wars.
Queen of the Blob, Queen of Business as Usual -- a business, as we well know from Guyer's
excellent reporting, that pays off bigtime. But it has never paid off for the rest of America.
But really, why should she care? She was never really with "us" to begin with.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, executive editor, has been writing for TAC since 2007, focusing on
national security, foreign policy, civil liberties and domestic politics. She served for 15
years as a Washington bureau reporter for FoxNews.com, and at WTOP News in Washington from
2013-2017 as a writer, digital editor and social media strategist. She has also worked as a
beat reporter at Bridge News financial wire (now part of Reuters) and Homeland Security
Today, and as a regular contributor at Antiwar.com. A native Nutmegger, she got her start
in Connecticut newspapers, but now resides with her family in Arlington, Va.
I wish that you would cover this equally in both parties; the near entire senior level of
the political apparatus (apart from the few individuals truly invested in the best for all
Americans) has become corrupted informing the policies, or lack thereof; whether implemented,
ignored, or written into law.
We really need to get these "Blob" people out of our government. Electing Trump didn't fix
the problem, and judging by this article, electing Biden won't either. Half of them people
aren't even recognizably American. They're global elites, and they'll continue to use
Americans and what's left of America to further their globalist agenda. With someone like
Flournoy, selling powerful US technology to known spies and thieves like the Israelis, who
take our tech, copy it, and sell it to enemies like China, only scratches the surface of
what's going on. She should be in prison after all the damage she's done to America, not
looking forward to yet another national security role in which she can get more Americans
killed, wreck more foreign countries, and waste and steal more billions of taxpayer
money.
Ms. Flournoy is an example of the type of competent high level staffer of which the Trump
Administration is devoid. Do you think that Mr. Fluornoy that those who work for her would
have had anything overturned at the Supreme Court because they were too lazy to complete the
paperwork?
"Ms. Flournoy is an example of the type of competent high level staffer of which the Trump
Administration is devoid."
I have to agree that Trump's administration is devoid of competent people, but don't
forget that it was incompetents like Flournoy that got Trump elected.
If you want to ID the individual most likely for President Trump winning, look up Joel
Benenson. He was Hilary Clinton's chief of strategy and was convinced that Trump could not
win any of the blue wall states. Ms. Fluornoy had nothing to do with that. Mr. Fluornoy would
have been the Secretary of Defense in a Hillary Clinton Administration and probably would
have been more competent that the current Secretary of Defense.
You would have done better just to critique her article in Foreign Affairs. As it is, you
sound like you're mad at Michele because she makes more money than you do (presumably).
I think that it is a bit unfair, given the fact that the odds are stack the way they are.
Ms. Vlahos has dedicated many years (they are so many she only whispers the number) on issues
related with foreign policy. The path she has chosen is the harder path, the ethical, and
moral one, which was never going to pay. If Ms. Vlahos is incensed, I bet that it is not
because of the money, but because she sees that in Washington DC, only crime and wanton
murder pays. She is accusing Ms Flournoy that she is a sellout to the crime syndicate, like a
cop that has started herself supporting the drug trafficking.
You should know that people believe in more things than only making money. Ms. Flournoy it
seems, has decided that she wants a piece of the cake and to hell with this absurd idea of
"arms to plowshares"....
Ms. Valhos can speak for herself. No one should project onto others their values. But it
does seem that Valhos does make a point that Flournoy does not have any guiding philosophy .
Except to be in a position to make a fine living from her contacts.
Could be that Flournoy is more greedy than not. She sure has the resume that would get her
into any job which she wanted to interview for. And she paid her dues also.
When one looks at Valhos's resume it likewise is impressive. She too it seems to be proud
of her connection to the elites. We should not condem either. We all want our children to
excell. Unless Flournoy is an unindicted co conspirator, this article is just a piece of
fluff. Too much time on Valhos's hands perhaps?
While I don't have anything else to do, I had hoped to read some good dirt. Alas all I got
was one high achieving person carping bout another person of similar achievement. Bless them
both.
The dirt presented is facilitating arms contracts. By peddling the need of strong military
and war. Being a merchant of death, which Ms. Vlahos doesn't seem to be, disqualifies Ms.
Flournoy entirely. of anything.
Not sure what you mean " poorly for it". I tend not to get wrapped around the axle . But
like it when someone comments on me personally. Lost perspective in old age. Would like to
know more what you mean. Unless you just want to be mean
But really, why should she care? She was never really with "us" to begin with.
That's a bit harsh don't you think? I remember that time on September 11, 2001, I was in
the New York area when it happened, I even had a close acquaintance who died in the Twin
Towers. I remember when America was united in its blood lust, it its ravenous quest for
revenge, ... revenge on anything and anyone. When America's vengeful eye was set on the
Taliban government of Afghanistan, it was off to the races. Left and Right, liberal and
conservative, Democrat and Republican, ... all were united in avenging 9/11 on the evil
Taliban and Afghan tribal peoples for harboring OBL. And I'm sure both you Miss Vlahos and
Miss Flournoy were united as well in wanting someone to pay ... am I right? So don't give me
this BS about 'us' and 'them' okay? America is a democracy, the American people get the
government they vote for, they get the President, Senators and Members of Congress they vote
for, that means they also get the flunkies, hangers on and entourages of think tankers and
careerists they vote for. Understand? You get what you deserve, you don't get to whine and
complain when you're leaders are incompetent and corrupt okay? So don't give me this 'us and
them' nonsense and absolve yourself of the blood lust you once had all those years ago on
September 11, 2001.
No, liberals were not for taking it out on the Afghan tribal peoples. We were for getting
those responsible, and sorry no, we didn't include the Afghan tribal people in on that too,
despite any sympathies some of them may have had for AQ.
We had no 'blood lust' and we don't believe in collective punishment.
Did you just say liberals "don't believe in collective punishment"? I'm gonna give you the
benefit of the doubt and assume you're not lock-step in support of the #BLM and Critical Race
Theory...
But your other point about liberals being anti-war is also flawed. Just connect the
foreign intervention (not just wars, but also funding to foreign opposition groups) with some
humanitarian urgency (think of those Afghan women!) and liberals have always advocated for
the same foreign policies than neoconservatives.
"...I'm sure both you Miss Vlahos and Miss Flournoy..."
It's been decades since I've seen the word "Miss" used in print - except when I write to
my granddaughter. In my profession, I write to women all the time, and although it used to be
that unmarried ones were quite accepting of - and indeed expecting to receive - missives from
me addressing them as such, I would be embarrassed to use that appellation when addressing
adult women today in a professional or unacquainted capacity. Now, I only use it for women
who wish it - old women, unmarried Catholic women and irascible old-school lesbians.
Ah, yes. Highly educated, multiple degrees, cultivated....and extremely dangerous. All of
that wonderful education dedicated to wanton killing and influence peddling. These people,
the hidden professionals of pull, are the most difficult to fight because unlike a politician
or a bureaucrat they are nearly invisible. She can only be effective if she is not seen. To
her, public exposure is toxic. So expose away! Make her name known to everyone.
"... Glorifying war is disturbing but so is the normalization of war. Most do not realize that large standing armies and large police forces were unknown/unusual only a century ago. ..."
"... And very few understand the mentality of the power-elite or how they have secreted themselves and their objectives behind gated communities, political divisiveness, and unaccountable 'national security' bullshit (more like 'war strategy'). ..."
Glorifying war is disturbing but so is the normalization of war. Most do not
realize that large standing armies and large police forces were unknown/unusual only a
century ago.
And very few understand the mentality of the power-elite or how they have secreted
themselves and their objectives behind gated communities, political divisiveness, and
unaccountable 'national security' bullshit (more like 'war strategy').
The ideologies of the Empire are: neoConservativism(a form of aristocracy);neoLiberalism(a form of facism); and Zionism(a form of
colonialism).
In short, a combination of the worst inclinations in the Western tradition.
"... The most interesting document of all is an intelligence assessment by DHS in the run up to the now famous Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, which starkly contradicts the mainstream media and FBI's narrative. ..."
"... In a document dated August 9th, 2017, DHS wrote "We assess that anarchist extremists' use of violence as a means to oppose racism and white supremacist extremists' preparations to counterattack anarchist extremists are the principal drivers of violence at recent white supremacist rallies." ..."
"... Ideological uniformity is important in the FBI's relationship with local law enforcement, a flyer sent to law enforcement personnel in Texas shows. ..."
"... As Douglas Valentine points out, these fusion centers are Phoenix centers, which CIA developed in Vietnam to eradicate independent civil society. You can see the CIA mannerisms they teach the Junior Spy Cadets at the fusion center: pretend classmarks: (U//LES), Roger, Wilco, Over and Out! Breathless dumbshit cops get to use U just like real spies, but they don't get get collateral access and they have to make up little codes to try and blow off public records law. ..."
The Boston Regional Intelligence Center (BRIC) reported
similar information in its investigation of the Boston Free Speech Rally on August 19th, 2017.
BRIC noted that the nationalist and free speech demonstrators, about 60 of them in total, had a
permit for the event, while the anarchist groups that showed up to heckle-veto them were there
illegally.
The leftist rioters began attacking the protesters, and later, began engaging in gratuitous
yet apparently coordinated violence against police officers attempting to intervene, causing
multiple injuries.
The most interesting document of all is an intelligence assessment by DHS in the run up to
the now famous Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, which starkly contradicts the
mainstream media and FBI's narrative.
In a document
dated August 9th, 2017, DHS wrote "We
assess that anarchist extremists' use of violence as a means to oppose racism and white
supremacist extremists' preparations to counterattack anarchist extremists are the principal
drivers of violence at recent white supremacist rallies."
... ... ...
The close working relationship between mainstream social media companies, the FBI and "NGOs"
(the ADL and SPLC) is clear and assumed, adding a new layer of understanding when it comes to
tech censorship and the power of privately run organizations that are not subject general
ethics or government accountability.
Ideological uniformity is important in the FBI's relationship with local law enforcement, a
flyer sent to
law enforcement personnel in Texas shows.
The event, hosted by the FBI for local cops, featured lectures on "hate" (which is not a
crime) from a former member of the Westboro Baptist Church and the ex-lead singer of a skinhead
rock band. The conference was hosted in December 2017, so one can only imagine this
indoctrination has gotten more intense since then.
Ultimately, we can gather from these documents a climate of incompetence, rejection of facts
for political reasons, and a culture of selective prosecution. Those who post memes making fun
of the election are treated as conspirators against the Constitutional rights of others, while
anarchists who actively conspire in the open to do the same are rarely prosecuted by the
FBI.
The most disturbing aspect of all this is how groups like the Anti-Defamation League appear
to have more sway over the FBI's investigative priorities than intelligence provided to them by
local fusion centers.
It appears that in defense of their power, our elites are willing to do away with all
liberal pretenses and take on "emergency orders" that ultimately punishes peaceful dissent
while allowing real criminals to go free.
Law enforcement is fully aware of who provokes the fighting and rioting at riots: the
left. The documents from fusion centers across the country (intelligence provided by local
police departments) repeatedly report this.
But
Both the FBI and to a lesser extent the Department of Homeland Security are far more
concerned with political ideology and creating propaganda than upholding the law.
As Douglas Valentine points out, these fusion centers are Phoenix centers, which CIA
developed in Vietnam to eradicate independent civil society. You can see the CIA mannerisms
they teach the Junior Spy Cadets at the fusion center: pretend classmarks: (U//LES), Roger,
Wilco, Over and Out! Breathless dumbshit cops get to use U just like real spies, but they don't
get get collateral access and they have to make up little codes to try and blow off public
records law.
This is why when asshole cops strangle you, you can't complain to the city. CIA controls the
cops, not the city. This is most obvious in NYPD, with actual CIA secret police like Sanchez
and Cohen, arresting you like cops to facilitate illegal CIA domestic spying. DHS and FBI are
in there too, of course, fishing for dissent to repress but they're controlled by CIA focal
points.
So next time a pig kneels on your head you can't just burn down the precinct, you have to
burn down the CIA fusion center, and Langley too.
Aside from siccing cops on the latest internal enemies, CIA also uses fusion centers to
propagate the party line to cops, who will credulously swallow it and pass it on to show off
their double-secret spy connections. For instance, they circulated alt media disinfo claiming
KGB killed JFK. This happened to coincide with Unz and other bravura JFK coup exposes, and with
CIA's Russiagate fiasco.
"We assess that anarchist extremists' use of violence as a means to oppose racism and
white supremacist extremists' preparations to counterattack anarchist extremists are the
principal drivers of violence at recent white supremacist rallies."
Is there a bigger political statement than this? The anarchist extremists aren't opposing
racism, they are opposing the government(s). "White supremacist" is a pejorative label used to
discredit people's right to free assembly. Clearly, the only investigating the FBI does is on
whom it decides are political opponents.
I find it incredibly frustrating that all of this scandalous information is out there
confirming what we already knew to be true and yet these organizations, the media, and
especially elected officials continue on as if this isn't the case. It's vexing. Frustrating.
Enraging.
If this was a dictatorship, at least we could rage against that, but because it has the
words "democracy" slapped onto it, we are supposedly able to change things. And yet,
representative democracy has proven that nothing changes if the elites do not will it. It's
just a vile scheme by plutocrats to keep us in chains of our own imagination: "well, we voted
for this so I have to live with the results," no we didn't, and do we truly?
I think Solzhenitsyn would respectfully disagree on behalf of the 66 million Russian
Christians who were tortured, raped and slaughtered during 1917-1989, not to mention the
fourteen years he spent locked up in the gulags run by Jewish Communists.
Might also be a few Ukrainians who disagree with your assessment given the 11-17 million
murdered by Jewish Bolsheviks in the 1932 Holodomor, which to my knowledge is still the single
biggest genocide in human history.
Then we'd have a position of strength from which to force the end to Jewish occupation of
America – which is necessary before the rest of the world's gentile populations,
particularly Europe, can take similar action.
America freeing herself will be good for America, but not necessary for other nations. For
instance, Putin freed Russia from her oligarchs, the overwhelming majority of them Jewish, well
before America had shown any progress on this matter. Actually, Russia freed herself in
spite of America!
White man's welfare, they call it. They hold pigs in contempt just like everybody else. But
this is how CIA finds the eager beaver cops who'll break the law to suck up and play James Bond
with them.
That beaner psycho Sanchez blabbed CIA's real intention while he was illegally spying
undercover as a NYPD pig: they don't just want to solve crimes, they want to keep you from
committing crimes in the first place. They think it's their job to to keep you under control.
These drug-dealing, gun-running, money-laundering, kiddy-pimping criminal scumbags rule your
country because they can kill you and torture you and get away with it. Even if you're the
president. Your government is CIA, and CIA is a totalitarian state. Until you storm Langley
like the Germans stormed the Stasi, all your reforms and revolutions are worth shit.
Antifa members routinely cross state lines to violate the civil rights of those they
perceive as "fascists" yet the FBI does nothing. Since it's obvious the FBI is dominated by
partisan leftists who are either sympathetic with antifa (and BLM) or actively colluding them
them against pro-white and right of center groups engaged in lawful but politically incorrect
activity.
The FBI is clearly taking their marching orders from the ADL who's lobbied them for years to
take a more active and hostile stance towards the pro-white and anti-semitic right. But given
the leftist ideological proclivities of the average special agent and their superiors this
wasn't that hard of a sell.
The FBI declared that it would begin investigating memes posted on Twitter intended to
satirize low civic education by telling people to vote for Hillary Clinton via text message
as a "Conspiracy Against Rights Provided by the Constitution and Laws of the United
States"
Yet the FBI did absolutely nothing about the black panthers intimidating voters at a Philly
precinct in 2008. Their illegal actions were witnessed by several poll watchers yet the
Obama/Holder DOJ promptly dropped the charges upon taking office.
The FBI is awash in naked partisanship and corruption and should have at least 25% of its
funding cut and be barred from surveilling or infiltrating groups engaged in politically
incorrect but lawful activity. It's become an appendage of the Democrat party and radical left
wing establishment and should be treated as such.
You are both right. Soviet Communism was far more murderous and brutal, BUT the West faces a
greater crisis. After all, communism didn't wipe Russia off the map, and indeed, Russians began
to regain control and power after Stalin's death. Also, Stalin had done much to check Jewish
Power, and there was a kind of cultural conservatism in many walks of life.
@Levtraro to HIM and had City of London-Israeli financing. So what actually happened is
that the Jews, who had been ousted from power by Krushchev and Brezhnev in the post-ww2 era,
got back into positions of economic power in Russia. A position that, as I noted, they had
lost. This idea that Putin is a nationalist is simply not true. He is a Jew-boy lapdog who
takes his orders from Tel Aviv and London..
The Soviet economy has significant State ownership. Part of what Putin did was to put the oil
industry back into the hands of the State so the State would have the Revenues. Most countries
do this with Oil and Gas revenue. It is very popular and provides employment and desperately
needed money to pay the paltry pensions many Russians subside on.
Russia hasn't been free since 1917 and is still not free. To believe otherwise is to be blinded
by Eastern Jewish smoke and mirrors.
Chabbad is not having the time of its life in Russia. Neither are Zion uber alles like in
our Congress. It quite different in Russia. Russia has a bit more freedom that we do from Zion
uber alles.
For the eighth time this past decade, Russian authorities told a foreign Chabad rabbi
living in Russia to leave the country.
Josef Marozof, a New York-born rabbi who began working 12 years ago for Chabad in the city
of Ulyanovsk 400 miles east of Moscow, was ordered earlier this week to leave because the FSB
security service said he had been involved in unspecified "extremist behavior."
Has there been another mutiny in Trump's White House, as Obama's former ambassador to Russia
piles on the nonsense about Trump being in Putin's pocket?
Special to Consortium News
C orporate media are binging on leaked Kool Aid not unlike the WMD concoction they offered
18 years ago to "justify" the U.S.-UK war of aggression on Iraq.
Now Michael McFaul, ambassador to Russia under President Obama, has been enlisted by The
Washington Post 's editorial page honcho, Fred Hiatt, to draw on his expertise (read,
incurable Russophobia) to help stick President Donald Trump back into "Putin's pocket." (This
has become increasingly urgent as the canard of "Russiagate" -- including the linchpin claim
that Russia hacked the DNC -- lies gasping for air.)
In an
oped on Thursday McFaul presented a long list of Vladimir Putin's alleged crimes, offering
a more ostensibly sophisticated version of amateur Russian specialist, Rep. Jason Crow's (D-CO)
claim that: "Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to figure
out how to destroy American democracy."
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry with McFaul meeting Vladimir Putin and Russian Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov in Moscow, Russia, on May 7, 2013. (State Department)
McFaul had -- well, let's call it an undistinguished career in Moscow. He arrived with a
huge chip on his shoulder and proceeded to alienate just about all his hosts, save for the
rabidly anti-Putin folks he openly and proudly cultivated. In a sense, McFaul became the
epitome of what Henry Wooton described as the role of ambassador -- "an honest man sent to lie
abroad for the good of his country." What should not be so readily accepted is an ambassador
who comes back home and just can't stop misleading.
Not to doubt McFaul's ulterior motives; one must assume him to be an "honest man" -- however
misguided, in my opinion. He seems to be a disciple of the James Clapper-Curtis LeMay-Joe
McCarthy School of Russian Analysis.
Clapper, a graduate summa cum laude , certainly had the Russians pegged! Clapper was
allowed to stay as Barack Obama's director of national intelligence for three and a half years
after perjuring himself in formal Senate testimony (on NSA's illegal eavesdropping). On May 28,
2017 Clapper told NBC's Chuck
Todd about "the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically
driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique."
As a finale, in full knowledge of Clapper's proclivities regarding Russia, Obama appointed
him to prepare the evidence-impoverished, misnomered "Intelligence Community Assessment"
claiming that Putin did all he could, including hacking the DNC, to help Trump get elected --
the most embarrassing such "intelligence assessment" I have seen in half a century .
Obama and the National Security State
I have asked myself if Obama also had earned some kind of degree from the
Clapper/LeMay/McCarthy School, or whether he simply lacked the courage to challenge the
pitiably self-serving "analysis" of the National Security State. Then I re-read "Obama Misses the Afghan
Exit-Ramp" of June 24, 2010 and was reminded of how deferential Obama was to the generals and
the intelligence gurus, and how unconscionable the generals were -- like their predecessors in
Vietnam -- in lying about always seeing light at the end of the proverbial tunnel.
Thankfully, now ten years later, this is all
documented in Craig Whitlock's, "The Afghanistan Papers: At War With the Truth." Corporate
media, who played an essential role in that "war with the truth", have not given Whitlock's
damning story the attention it should command (surprise, surprise!). In any case, it strains
credulity to think that Obama was unaware he was being lied to on Afghanistan.
Some Questions
Clark Gable (l.) with Charles Laughton (r.) in Mutiny on the Bounty, 1935.
Does no one see the irony today in the Democrats' bashing Trump on Afghanistan, with the
full support of the Establishment media? The inevitable defeat there is one of the few
demonstrable disasters not attributable directly to Trump, but you would not know that from the
media. Are the uncorroborated reports of Russian bounties to kill U.S. troops aimed at making
it appear that Trump, unable to stand up to Putin, let the Russians drive the rest of U.S.
troops out of Afghanistan?
Does the current flap bespeak some kind of "Mutiny on the Bounties," so to speak, by a
leaker aping Eric Chiaramella? Recall that the Democrats lionized the CIA official seconded to
Trump's national security council as a "whistleblower" and proceeded to impeach Trump after
Chiaramella leaked information on Trump's telephone call with the president of Ukraine. Far
from being held to account, Chiaramella is probably expecting an influential job if his patron,
Joe Biden, is elected president. Has there been another mutiny in Trump's White House?
And what does one make of the
spectacle of Crow teaming up with Rep. Liz Cheney (R, WY) to restrict Trump's planned
pull-out of troops from Afghanistan, which The Los Angeles Timesreports
has now been blocked until after the election?
Hiatt & McFaul: Caveat Editor
And who published McFaul's oped? Fred Hiatt, Washington Post editorial page editor
for the past 20 years, who has a long record of listening to the whispers of anonymous
intelligence sources and submerging/drowning the subjunctive mood with flat fact. This was the
case with the (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the U.S.-UK attack.
Readers of the Post were sure there were tons of WMD in Iraq. That Hiatt has invited
McFaul on stage should come as no surprise.
To be fair, Hiatt belatedly acknowledged that the Post should have been more
circumspect in its confident claims about the WMD. "If you look at the editorials we write
running up [to the war], we state as flat fact that he [Saddam Hussein] has weapons of mass
destruction," Hiatt said in an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review . "If
that's not true, it would have been better not to say it." [CJR, March/April 2004]
At this word of wisdom, Consortium News founder, the late Robert Parry,
offered this comment: "Yes, that is a common principle of journalism, that if something isn't
real, we're not supposed to confidently declare that it is." That Hiatt is still in that job
speaks volumes.
'Uncorroborated, Contradicted, or Even Non-Existent'
It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the "intelligence" on WMD in Iraq was
not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never
held to account.
Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate
Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller ( D-WV)
said the attack on Iraq was launched "under false pretenses." He described the intelligence
conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even
non-existent."
Homework
Yogi Berra in 1956. (Wikipedia)
Here's an assignment due on Monday. Read McFaul's
oped carefully. It appears under the title: "Trump would do anything for Putin. No wonder
he's ignoring the Russian bounties: Russia's pattern of hostility matches Trump's pattern of
accommodation."
And to give you a further taste, here is the first paragraph:
"Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to have paid Taliban rebels in Afghanistan to
kill U.S. soldiers. Having resulted in at least one American death, and maybe more, these
Russian bounties reportedly produced the desired outcome. While deeply disturbing, this
effort by Putin is not surprising: It follows a clear pattern of ignoring international
norms, rules and laws -- and daring the United States to do anything about it."
Full assignment for Monday: Read carefully through each paragraph of McFaul's text and
select which of his claims you would put into one or more of the three categories adduced by
Sen. Rockefeller 12 years ago about WMD on Iraq. With particular attention to the evidence
behind McFaul's claims, determine which of the claims is (a) "uncorroborated"; which (b)
"contradicted"; and which (c) "non-existent;" or (d) all of the above. For extra credit, find
one that is supported by plausible evidence.
Yogi Berra might be surprised to hear us keep quoting him with "Deja vu, all over again."
Sorry, Yogi, that's what it is; you coined it.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27-year career as a CIA analyst, he prepared and
briefed The President's Daily Brief for Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. He is
co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
PleaseContributeto Consortium News on its25th Anniversary
Gad, one wonders if it can ever get much lower in the press and the answer is yes, it can
and will go lower, i.e. the mcfaul/hiatt tag team. They are still plumbing for the lows.
The question becomes just how stupid these two are or how stupid do they believe the
readership is to read and believe this garbage.
Voice from Europe , July 6, 2020 at 11:58
By now the Russia did it ! is in effect a joke in Russia. Economically, politically, geo
strategically China and Asia and Africa have become more important and reliable partners of
Russia than the USA. And Europe is also dropping fast on the trustworthy partners
list…..
John , July 5, 2020 at 12:55
Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt are both long-time members of the Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR), flagship of the globalist “liberal world order”. The CFR and its
many interlocking affiliates, along with their media assets and frontmen in government, have
dominated US policy since WW2. Most of the Fed chairmen and secretaries of State, Treasury,
Defense and CIA have been CFR members, including Jerome Powell and Mark Esper.
The major finance, energy, defense and media corporations are CFR sponsors, and several of
their execs are members. David Rubenstein, billionaire founder of the notorious Carlyle
Group, is the current CFR chairman. Laurence Fink, billionaire chairman of BlackRock, is a
CFR director. See lists at the CFR website.
Anna , July 6, 2020 at 09:38
Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt are both very active promoters of hate crimes. Neither has
any decency hence decency is allergic to war profiteers and opportunistic liars.
The poor USA; to descend to such a deep moral hole that both Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt
are still alive and prospering. Shamelessness and presstituting are paid well in the US.
Dems and Reps are already mad.You cannot destroy what does not exist;like Democracy in
these United States.Nor God or Putin could.This has always being a fallacy.This is not a
democracy;same thing with”comunist China or the USSR.Those two were never
socialist.There has never being a real Socialist or Communist country.
Guy , July 4, 2020 at 12:26
“It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the
“intelligence” on WMD in Iraq was not “mistaken;” it was fraudulent
from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never held to account.”
That statement goes to the crux of the matter .Why should journalists care about what is true
or a lie in their reports ,they know they will never be held to account .They should be held
to account through the court system . A lie by any journalist should be actionable by any
court of law . The fear of jail time would sort out the scam journalists we presently have to
endure . As it is they have perverted the profession of journalism and it is the law of the
jungle .No true democracy should put up with this. We are surrounded with lies that are
generated by the very establishment that should protect it’s citizens from same .
Skip Scott , July 4, 2020 at 15:36
They are spoon fed those lies by our “intelligence” agencies. As CNN’s
Jeff Zucker said, “We’re not investigators, we’re journalists”.
Replace “journalists” with “toadies” or “shills” for our
“intelligence” community and you’ve gotten to the truth of the matter.
Anna , July 6, 2020 at 09:50
The ‘journalists’ observe how things have been going on for Cheney the Traitor
and Bush the lesser — nothing happened to the mega criminals. The hate-bursting and
war-profiteering Cheney’s daughter has even squeezed into US Congress.
In a healthy society where human dignity is cherished, the Cheney family will be ostracized
and the family name became a synonym for the word ‘traitor.’ In the unhealthy
scoiety of Clintons, Obamas, Epstein, Mueller, Adelsons, Clapper, and Krystols, human dignity
is a sin.
Ricard Coleman , July 6, 2020 at 11:42
Our institutions including journalism are not merely corrupt, they are degenerate. That
is, the corruption is not occasional or the exception is is by design, desired and entirely
normal.
Stan W. , July 4, 2020 at 12:10
I’m still confident that Durham’s investigation will expose and successfully
prosecute the maggots that infest our government.
Skip Scott , July 4, 2020 at 15:29
What is the basis for this confidence?
John Puma , July 4, 2020 at 12:03
Re: whether Obumma “had earned some kind of degree from the Clapper/LeMay/McCarthy
School” of Russia Analytics.
It would be a worthy addition to his degree collection featuring that earned from the
Neville Chamberlain Night School of Critical Political Negotiation.
Jeff Harrison , July 4, 2020 at 11:16
Hmmm. Lessee. The US attacks Afghanistan with about the same legitimacy that we had when
we attacked Iraq and the Taliban are in charge. We oust the Taliban from power and put our
own puppets in place. What idiot thinks that the Taliban are going to need a bounty to kill
Americans?
Jeff Harrison, I like your logic. Plus, I understand that far fewer Americans are being
killed in Afghanistan than were under Obama’s administration.
AnneR , July 4, 2020 at 10:27
Frankly, I am sick to death of the unwarranted, indeed bestial Russophobia that is
megaphoned minute by minute on NPR and the BBC World Service (only radio here since my
husband died). If it isn’t this latest trumped up (ho ho) charge, there are repeated
mentions, in passing, of course, of the Russiagate, hacking, Kremlin control of the Strumpet
to back up the latest bunch of lies. Doesn’t matter at *all* that Russiagate was
debunked, that even Mueller couldn’t actually demonstrably pull the DNC/ruling elites
rabbit out of the hat, that the impeachment of the Strumpet went nowhere. And it clearly
– by its total absence on the above radio broadcasts – doesn’t matter one
iota that the Pentagonal hasn’t gone along, that gaping holes in the confabulation are
(and were) obvious to those who cared to think with half a mind awake and reflecting on past
US ruling elite lies, untruths, obfuscations. Nope. Just repeat, repeat, repeat. Orwell would
clap his hands (not because he agreed with the atrocious politics but the lesson is
learnt).
Added to the whipped up anti-Russia, decidedly anti-Putin crapola – is of course the
Russian peoples’ vote, decision making on their own country’s changes to the
Basic Law (a form of Constitution). When the radio broadcasts the usual sickening
anti-Russian/Putin propaganda regarding this vote immediately prior they would state that the
changes would install Putin for many more years: no mention that he would have to be elected,
i.e. voted by the populace into the presidency. (This was repeated ad infinitum without any
elaboration.) No other proposed changes were mentioned – certainly not that the Duma
would gain greater control over the governance of the country and over the president’s
cabinet. I.e. that the popularly elected (ain’t that what we call democracy??)
representatives in the Duma (parliament) would essentially have more power than the
president.
But most significantly, to my mind, no one has (well of course not – this is Russia)
raised the issue of the fact that it was the Russian people, the vox populi/hoi polloi, who
have had some say in how they are to be governed, how their government will work for them.
HOW much say have we had/do we have in how our government functions, works – let alone
for us, the hoi polloi? When did we the citizenry last have a voting say on ANY sentence in
the Constitution that governs us??? Ummm I do believe it was the creation of the wealthy
British descended slave holding, real estate ethnic-cleansing lot who wrote and ratified the
original document and the hardly dissimilar Congressional and state types who have over the
years written and voted on various amendments. And it is the members of the upper classes in
the Supreme Court who adjudicate on its application to various problems.
BUT We the hoi polloi have never, ever had a direct opportunity to individually vote for
or against any single part of the Constitution which is supposed to be the
“democratic” superstructure which governs us. Unlike the Russians a couple of
days ago.
Richard Coleman , July 6, 2020 at 15:48
“HOW much say have we had/do we have in how our government functions,
works…” See, that’s your mistake right there. WE don’t have a
government. We need one, but we ain’t got one. THEY have a government which they let us
go through the motions of electing. ‘Member back when Bernie was talking about a
Political Revolution?
Here’s a little fact for you. The five most populous states have a total of
123,000,000 people. That’s 10 Senators. The five least populated states have a total of
3.5 million. That’s also 10 Senators. Democracy anyone?
vinnieoh , July 4, 2020 at 09:37
There have been three coup d’état within the US within the lifetimes of most
that read these pages. The first was explained to us by Eisenhower only as he was exiting his
time from the national stage; the MIC had co-opted our government. The second happened in
2000, with the putsch in Florida and then the adoption by the neocon cabal of Bush /Chaney of
the PNAC blueprint “Strategies for Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (Defenses
– hahahaha – shit!). The third happened late last year and early this year when
the bottom-up grass-roots movement of progressivism was crushed by the DNC and the
cold-warrior hack Biden was inserted as the champion of “the opposition
party.”
And, make no mistake that Kamala Harris WILL be his running mate. It was always going to
be Harris. It was to be Harris at the TOP of the ticket as the primaries began, but she
wasn’t even placing in the top tier in any of the contests. However, the poohbahs and
strategists of the DNC are nothing if not determined and consistent. If Biden should win, we
should all start practicing now saying “President Harris” because that is what
the future holds. For the DNC, she looks the part, she sounds the part, but more importantly
she is the very definition of the status quo, corporate ass-kisser, MIC tool.
The professional political class have fully colluded to fatally cripple this democratic
republic. “Democracy” is just a word they say like, “Where’s my
kickback?” (excuse me – my “motivation”.) This bounty scam and the
rehabilitation of GW Bush are nothing but a full blitzkrieg flanking of Trump on the right.
And Trump of course is so far out of his depth that he actually believes that Israel is his
friend. (A hint Donny: Israel is NO-ONE’S friend.)
What is most infuriating? hope-crushing? plain f$%&*#g scary? is that the majority of
Americans from all quarters do not want any of what the professional political class keeps
dumping on us. The very attempt at performing this upcoming election will finally and forever
lay completely bare the collapse of a functioning government. It’s going to be very
ugly, and it may very well be the end. Dog help us all.
Richard Coleman , July 6, 2020 at 15:51
Don’t you think that the assassination of JFK counts as a coup d’etat?
Zhu , July 7, 2020 at 02:10
Apres moi, le Deluge.
John Drake , July 7, 2020 at 11:25
Oh gosh how can you forget the Kennedy Assassination. Most people don’t realize he
was had ordered the removal of a thousand advisors from Vietnam starting the process of
completely cutting bait there, as he had in Laos and Cambodia. All of which made the generals
apoplectic. The great secret about Vietnam-which Ellsberg discovered much latter, and
mentioned in his book Secrets, another good read- was that every president had been warned it
was likely futile. Kennedy was the only one who took that intelligence seriously-like it was
actually intelligent intelligence.
Enter stage right Allen Dulles(fired CIA chief), the anti Castro Cubans, the Mafia and
most important the MIC; exit Jack Kennedy.
Douglas, JFK why he died and why it matters is the best work on the subject. And no Oswald
did not do it; it was a sniper team from different angles, but read the book it gets
complicated.
Roger , July 4, 2020 at 09:11
from Counterpunch.org : “Around 15,000 Soviet troops perished in the Afghan War
between 1979 and 1989. The US funneled more than $20 billion to the Mujahideen and other
anti-Soviet fighters over that same period. This works out to a “bounty” of $1.33
million for each Soviet soldier killed.”
Skip Scott , July 4, 2020 at 08:35
I am wondering how Cheney and Crow can block Trump from withdrawing the troops from
Afghanistan. Is Trump Commander in Chief, or not? How can two senators stop the Commander in
Chief from commanding troop movements? I realize they control the budget, but aren’t
they crossing into illegality by restricting Trump’s ability to
“command”?
Toad Sprocket , July 4, 2020 at 16:49
Yeah, I imagine it’s illegal. Didn’t Lindsay Graham threaten the same thing
when Trump was thinking of pulling troops/”advisers” from Syria? And other
congress warmongers joined in though I don’t think any legislation was passed. They
can’t be bothered to authorize the starts of wars but want to step in when someone
tries to end them.
Oh, and Schumer on South Korea troops, I think that one did pass. Almost certainly illegal
if it came down to it, but our government is of course lawless. And our courts full of judges
who are bought off or moronic or both.
dean 1000 , July 4, 2020 at 06:52
The soft coup attempt continues Ray. More lies and bullshit. It may continue until
election day. Will the media fess-up to its lies after the fact again?
Francis Lee , July 4, 2020 at 04:49
“Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to figure
out how to destroy American democracy.”
Yes, of course it is a well-known ‘fact’ that Putin has nothing better to do
than destory American democracy, and I bet he has dreams about it too! But I am minded to
think that if anybody has a penchant for destroying American democracy it is the powers that
be in the US deep state, intelligence agencies, and zionist cliques controlling the President
and Congress.
”Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.”
The American establishment seems to be suffering from a bad case of
‘projection’ as psychiatrists call it. That is to say accusing others of what
they are themselves actually doing.
The whole idiotic circus would be hilarious if it were not so serious.
Antonia Young , July 4, 2020 at 12:20
Putin’s (and by extension the Russian Federation’s) primary objective is
international stability. “Destroying America, dividing Americans is the last thing he
wants.) Putin learned many lessons during the break-up of the U.S.S.R. observing the carpet
baggers/oligarchs/vultures who descended on the weak nation, absconding with it’s
wealth and resources at mere fractions of their real value. The deep state’s worst fear
is the co-operation btwn Putin and President Trump to make the world more peaceful, stable,
co-operative and prosperous.
rosemerry , July 4, 2020 at 16:10
The whole conceited and arrogant “belief” that
1. the USA has any resemblance to a democracy and
2 Pres. Putin has nothing else to do but think how he could do a better job of showing the
destructive and irresponsible behavior of the USA than its own leaders” and media can
do with no help
has no basis in reality.
If anything, Putin is such a stickler for international law, negotiations, avoidance of
conflict that he is regarded by many as too Christian for this modern, individualistic,
LBGTQ,”nobody matters but me” worldview of the USA!
Steve Naidamast , July 5, 2020 at 19:54
“If the enemy is self destructing, let them continue to do so…”
Napoleon
Zhu , July 7, 2020 at 02:17
“zionist cliques”: Christian Zionist fighting Fundies, eager for the End of
the World, the Second Coming of Jesus.
delia ruhe , July 4, 2020 at 01:09
Yup, we got a Bountygate. Since my early morning visit to the Foreign Policy site, the
place has exploded with breathless articles on the dastardly Putin and the cowardly Trump,
who has so far failed to hold Putin to account. Reminded me of a similar explosion there when
Russiagate finally got the attention the Dems thought it deserved.
(Anyone think that the intel community pays a fee to each of the FP columnists whenever
one of their a propaganda narratives needs a push to get it off the ground?)
He wrote a sensational book about the practices he experienced of the CIA paying German
journalists to publish certain stories.
The book was a big best seller in Germany.
Its English translation was suppressed for years, but I believe is now available.
Susan Siens , July 5, 2020 at 16:30
Reply to John Chuckman: I’d love to read this book but it wasn’t available a
few years ago when I looked. I’ll look again!
Voice from Europe , July 6, 2020 at 11:52
Gekaufte journalisten.
Ulfkotte admitted he signed off on numerous articles that were prepared for him during his
career. The last year’s of his life he changed his mores and advocated “better
die in truth than live with lies”.
Richard A. , July 4, 2020 at 00:59
I remember the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour from decades ago. Real experts on Russia like
Dimitri Simes and Stephen Cohen were the ones to appear on that NewsHour. The NewsHour of
today rarely has experts on Russia, just experts on Russia bashing–like Michael McFaul.
Oh how the mighty have fallen.
Antonia Young , July 3, 2020 at 23:35
Thank you, Ray for your clarion voice in the midst of WMD-seventeen-point-oh. Will the
American people have the wisdom to notice how many times we’re being fooled? And
finally wake up and stop supporting these questionable news outlets? With appreciation for
your excellent analysis, as usual. ~Tonia Young (Formerly with the Topanga Peace
Alliance)
The majority of Americans have a lot more to worry about than the latest nonsense about
Russia. I think most people just tune it out.
The ones being fooled are the fools who have been lapping this crap up from the get go. The
supposed educated class who think themselves superior and well informed because they read and
listen to the propaganda of PBS, NPR, NYT etc.
They don’t seem to realize the ship is sinking while they’re playing these
ridiculous games.
Susan Siens , July 5, 2020 at 16:34
The supposedly educated class, yes! It can be stunning how people believe anything they
hear on PBS or NPR, and then they make fun of people who believe anything they hear on Fox
News. What’s the difference? Both are propaganda tools.
And, yes, watch us go down in flames while so-called progressives boo-hoo about Trump
thinking he’s above the law (like every other president before him). Our local
“peace and justice” group sent me an email asking me to sign a petition
supporting Robert Mueller. I was gobsmacked, and then I realized our local “peace and
justice” group had been taken over by Democratic Party “resisters.”
Jeezums, why is every word hijacked?
t includes Iraq and Afghanistan, 53,000 to 35,000. Deaths of U.S. contractors since
September 2001 are approximately 8,000, compared to 7,000 troops. Yet contractors receive
neither the public recognition nor the honor of serving abroad, despite the increased risks
they face. The Camo Economy is politically useful, as the White House can claim troop
reductions while at the same time increasing U.S. presence abroad by relying more heavily on
contractors.
The financial costs of military contracting are also opaque. While we know some top-line
numbers, we know very few details about where our tax dollars go once they are paid out to
contractors. We do know that contracting is more expensive, as contractors have limited
incentives to reduce costs and they build profits into their contract agreements. As
contractors then use sub-contractors, who also build in profits, there can be multiple layers
of guaranteed profits built into a contract between the sub-contractors performing the work and
DOD paying the prime contractor. Add in the waste, fraud, and abuse in addition to the
excessive profits, and the costs to government quickly balloon.
It will not be easy to reform the Camo Economy. Firms such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop
Grumman, and Raytheon each spent about $13 million on lobbying last year. Political connections
operate alongside high profits and paychecks to keep the Camo Economy entrenched and growing.
But reforms can be made. Reducing the size of the military budget is a vital first step. The
National
Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies has detailed various ways to do
this.
Next, the portion of military spending that is paid to contractors should be reduced and
some services should be brought back in-house, including those on and near the battlefield. And
third, the contracting process itself should be reformed, so that more contracts are
legitimately competitive and create incentives for firms to reduce costs.
Heidi Peltier is Director of "20 Years of War," a Costs of War initiative based at
Boston University's Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future. She is also a board
member of the Institute for Policy Studies.
When Colin Powell of all people has to appear on MSNBC to slam
fake reporting you know mainstream media has lost the plot.
In a rare moment, the former Secretary of State under Bush slammed the wall-to-wall coverage
of the Russian bounties in Afghanistan story as "almost hysterical" . It's all the more awkard
for MSNBC, which had him on the network Thursday to talk about it, given he's one of those
'never Trump' Bush-era officials, who despite a legacy of having fed the world lie after lie to
invade Iraq, has since been given "resistance hero" status among liberals.
Describing that military commanders on the ground didn't give credence to The New York Times
claim that Russia's GRU was paying Taliban and other militants to kill American soldiers,
Powell said the media "got kind of out of control" in the first days after the initial report
weeks ago.
"I know that our military commanders on the ground did not think that it was as serious a
problem as the newspapers were reporting and television was reporting," Powell told MSNBC's
Andrea Mitchell. "It got kind of out of control before we really had an understanding of what
had happened. I'm not sure we fully understand now."
"It's our commanders who are going to go deal with this kind of a threat, using intelligence
given to them by the intelligence community," Powell continued. "But that has to be analyzed.
It has to be attested. And then you have to go find out who the enemy is. And I think we were
on top of that one, but it just got almost hysterical in the first few days."
He also deflated the ongoing manufactured atmosphere which seeks to maintain a perpetual
Washington hawkish position vis-a-vis Moscow, based on perceived "Russian aggression".
"I don't think we're in a position to go to war with the Russians," Powell said. "I know Mr.
Putin rather well. He's just figuring out a way to stay in power until 2036. The last thing
he's looking for is a war, and the last thing he's looking for is a war with the United States
of America."
Did CIA launched this provocation on its own or this is another Ciaramella from NSC in play?
This psy-op was a stunning success. But reaction of the part of the US audience was very damaging
for the NYT credibility, if such was left.
NYT is not journalism. It's good only to wipe your ***.
Salsa Verde , 1 hour ago
Doesn't matter what gets proven or disproven; rumors and baseless allegations ARE the new
"facts" of the woke left.
naro , 2 hours ago
NYSlimes has lost all credibility. When I see "anonymouse" source I just see a lazy,
lying, affirmative action hired reporter. ay_arrow
WTFUD , 2 hours ago
The only way you can stop this diarrhea is to publicly hang the perpetrators.
fackbankz , 2 hours ago
I can't believe they're still trying to sell that "Russian interference" nonsense.
No, actually, I can because they're still trying to sell this COVID-1984 nonsense.
scaleindependent , 2 hours ago
Now they tells us, right after the fake story was used to cancel the end of the
Afghanistan war.
JedClampIt , 3 hours ago
I'm surprised Tyler hasn't yet ripped apart today's NYT editorial, which proves that when
you're wrong, just keep repeating it louder.
Stable-Genius , 3 hours ago
I would trust a Russian far more than I would trust any democrat
zerohedgeguy , 3 hours ago
Here's another theory : the democrats placed these bounties
Thordoom , 3 hours ago
It doesn't matter it was a BS story.
Everybody who at least have some sense and knowledge of the world knew it made no sense
whatsoever.
The damage has been done.
Most of the americans now hate russians even more than ever and even want them dead or
sanctioned to hell.
This psy-op was a stunning success.
consider me gone , 3 hours ago
Like the Taliban needs money to inspire them to kill Americans. They do that as community
service work on their days off. Now if you told me the Russians gave them some weapons to
help, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised. But the US would never do that to the Russians
and certainly not in Afghanistan.
@36 Jackrabbit Sure, Kayfabe explains why the NYTimes ran with this story NOW, as in, July
2020.
I'm pointing out how and why that story originated back in 2018 i.e. way back then.
The story was concocted then as a way for the CIA to divert everyone else's attention away
from the massive cash-flow that resulted from the Taliban/CIA cooperative business venture
otherwise known as "the heroin trade".
That was why the "Russian bounty" nonsense was created, to blind the US military to what
was happening.
Nothing more.
No less.
It is NOW being bandied around in the New York Times and the Washington Post for a
completely different reason i.e. to create a new scandal in an attempt - once more, yet again
- to "get" Trump for reasons of... reasons. Whatever. He's not liked in most corridors of
power in Washington.
I don't doubt that this story coming out NOW has horrified the CIA because - and let's be
honest here - the "Russian Bounty!!!" story is so preposterous that it really can't stand up
to much scrutiny at all, as we have all just seen.
As a fanciful story it worked with the US military in Afghanistan because it validated
their worse fears and prejudices.
It doesn't work as a front-page story in the New York Times because (did I mention this
already?) it is preposterous nonsense.
"The memo said that the C.I.A. and the National Counterterrorism Center had
assessed".....
I said a week ago that the CIA - not the US military in Afghanistan - was responsible for
concocting this original story about "Russian Bounties".
They did so because the US military in Afghanistan had noticed all the cash sloshing
around the Taliban and wanted the CIA to find out where it came from.
The CIA could hardly admit It Came From Us, Baby! but also couldn't just shrug the
shoulders and mutter "I dunno, go find out for yer'self" in case the military did exactly
that.
But this? Why, "Russian bounty" is sure to push all the right buttons with the military,
and is guaranteed to concentrate the minds of both the soldiers and the generals. It's a
perfect distraction.
But I think b might be onto something here. Even if the claim originated as a bit of
deliberate misdirection for the benefit of a puzzled Army of Occupation, once the story gets
into the ears of someone like Schiff then it's going to be like a red rag to a bull.
Everytime Trump says he is going to pull out of somewhere something comes up that allows
him to not do so.
The Dems just playing their role so he can explain to his base why he could not pull out
of Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.
The US will never, ever leave Iraq (oil), Syria (Israel), or Afghanistan (poppy), just
like we never left Germany, Japan or Korea (and many other places)
Trump never had any intention of pulling out. Which is one reason he stopped reporting on
deployments to Afghanistan. Iraq and Syria in 2017
He has bipartisan support for staying in, the MIC wants to stay in, more important is
Israel demands it.
Try and give up your false 2 party paradigm. Both parties are united on almost every major
issue except the fluff social issues . Its just Kayfabe.
You conclude: "But the short live (sic) of the false claims made certain that it failed to
achieve this." This is not true. A bipartisan bill has now been introduced that, if enacted,
will give Congress oversight of the drawdown of troops in Afghanistan. Trump wants the troops
out, the sooner the better. Congress clearly wants to prevent that. So the false story in the
NYT and the WaPo does appear to be achieving its purpose.
as usual, by the time the truth had its boots on the lie had already spread halfway
around the world . the liars have an intrinsic edge here as long as they still have some
credibility with the msm consuming public. as long as they own the msm.
"... I basically doubt that Trump will matter more then Obama did. Didn't Trump claim more or less directly Obama created ISIS by withdrawing the troops from Iraq? ..."
"... Only when foreign-policy elites cease to cite isolationism to explain why the "sole superpower" has stumbled of late will they be able to confront the issues that matter. Ranking high among those issues is an egregious misuse of American military power and an equally egregious abuse of American soldiers. Confronting the vast disparity between U.S. military ambitions since 9/11 and the results actually achieved is a necessary first step toward devising a serious response to Donald Trump's reckless assault on even the possibility of principled statecraft. ..."
We're under attack so we must stay to get killed??
...
@Caliman | Jul 7 2020 17:25 utc | 1
I basically doubt that Trump will matter more then Obama did. Didn't Trump claim more or less directly Obama created ISIS by
withdrawing the troops from Iraq?
The Old Normal. Why we can't beat our addiction to war, by Andrew J. Bacevich, Harper's March 2020 issue:
Only when foreign-policy elites cease to cite isolationism to explain why the "sole superpower" has stumbled of late will
they be able to confront the issues that matter. Ranking high among those issues is an egregious misuse of American military
power and an equally egregious abuse of American soldiers. Confronting the vast disparity between U.S. military ambitions
since 9/11 and the results actually achieved is a necessary first step toward devising a serious response to Donald Trump's reckless
assault on even the possibility of principled statecraft.
So they dusted of McFaul to provide the support for bounty provocation. I wonder whether
McFaul one one of Epstein guests, or what ?
So who was the clone of Ciaramella this time? People want to know the hero
Notable quotes:
"... Not to doubt McFaul's ulterior motives; one must assume him to be an "honest man" -- however misguided, in my opinion. He seems to be a disciple of the James Clapper-Curtis LeMay-Joe McCarthy School of Russian Analysis. ..."
"... Clapper, a graduate summa cum laude , certainly had the Russians pegged! Clapper was allowed to stay as Barack Obama's director of national intelligence for three and a half years after perjuring himself in formal Senate testimony (on NSA's illegal eavesdropping). On May 28, 2017 Clapper told NBC's Chuck Todd about "the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique." ..."
"... As a finale, in full knowledge of Clapper's proclivities regarding Russia, Obama appointed him to prepare the evidence-impoverished, misnomered "Intelligence Community Assessment" claiming that Putin did all he could, including hacking the DNC, to help Trump get elected -- the most embarrassing such "intelligence assessment" I have seen in half a century . ..."
"... Does no one see the irony today in the Democrats' bashing Trump on Afghanistan, with the full support of the Establishment media? The inevitable defeat there is one of the few demonstrable disasters not attributable directly to Trump, but you would not know that from the media. Are the uncorroborated reports of Russian bounties to kill U.S. troops aimed at making it appear that Trump, unable to stand up to Putin, let the Russians drive the rest of U.S. troops out of Afghanistan? ..."
"... Does the current flap bespeak some kind of "Mutiny on the Bounties," so to speak, by a leaker aping Eric Chiaramella? Recall that the Democrats lionized the CIA official seconded to Trump's national security council as a "whistleblower" and proceeded to impeach Trump after Chiaramella leaked information on Trump's telephone call with the president of Ukraine. Far from being held to account, Chiaramella is probably expecting an influential job if his patron, Joe Biden, is elected president. Has there been another mutiny in Trump's White House? ..."
"... It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the "intelligence" on WMD in Iraq was not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never held to account. ..."
"... Here's an assignment due on Monday. Read McFaul's oped carefully. It appears under the title: "Trump would do anything for Putin. No wonder he's ignoring the Russian bounties: Russia's pattern of hostility matches Trump's pattern of accommodation." ..."
"... Full assignment for Monday: Read carefully through each paragraph of McFaul's text and select which of his claims you would put into one or more of the three categories adduced by Sen. Rockefeller 12 years ago about WMD on Iraq. With particular attention to the evidence behind McFaul's claims, determine which of the claims is (a) "uncorroborated"; which (b) "contradicted"; and which (c) "non-existent;" or (d) all of the above. For extra credit, find one that is supported by plausible evidence. ..."
"... Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt are both long-time members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), flagship of the globalist “liberal world order”. The CFR and its many interlocking affiliates, along with their media assets and frontmen in government, have dominated US policy since WW2. Most of the Fed chairmen and secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense and CIA have been CFR members, including Jerome Powell and Mark Esper. ..."
"... The major finance, energy, defense and media corporations are CFR sponsors, and several of their execs are members. David Rubenstein, billionaire founder of the notorious Carlyle Group, is the current CFR chairman. Laurence Fink, billionaire chairman of BlackRock, is a CFR director. See lists at the CFR website. ..."
"... “It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the “intelligence” on WMD in Iraq was not “mistaken;” it was fraudulent from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never held to account.” ..."
"... They are spoon fed those lies by our “intelligence” agencies. As CNN’s Jeff Zucker said, “We’re not investigators, we’re journalists”. Replace “journalists” with “toadies” or “shills” for our “intelligence” community and you’ve gotten to the truth of the matter. ..."
"... In the unhealthy society of Clintons, Obamas, Epstein, Mueller, Adelsons, Clapper, and Krystols, human dignity is a sin. ..."
"... Our institutions including journalism are not merely corrupt, they are degenerate. That is, the corruption is not occasional or the exception is is by design, desired and entirely normal. ..."
"... from Counterpunch.org : “Around 15,000 Soviet troops perished in the Afghan War between 1979 and 1989. The US funneled more than $20 billion to the Mujahideen and other anti-Soviet fighters over that same period. This works out to a “bounty” of $1.33 million for each Soviet soldier killed.” ..."
"... Yes, of course it is a well-known ‘fact’ that Putin has nothing better to do than destory American democracy, and I bet he has dreams about it too! But I am minded to think that if anybody has a penchant for destroying American democracy it is the powers that be in the US deep state, intelligence agencies, and zionist cliques controlling the President and Congress. ..."
"... Udo Ulfkotte was a German journalist. He wrote a sensational book about the practices he experienced of the CIA paying German journalists to publish certain stories. The book was a big best seller in Germany. Its English translation was suppressed for years, but I believe is now available. ..."
"... Gekaufte journalisten. Ulfkotte admitted he signed off on numerous articles that were prepared for him during his career. The last year’s of his life he changed his mores and advocated “better die in truth than live with lies”. ..."
Has there been another mutiny in Trump's White House, as Obama's former ambassador to Russia
piles on the nonsense about Trump being in Putin's pocket?
C orporate media are binging on leaked Kool Aid not unlike the WMD concoction they offered
18 years ago to "justify" the U.S.-UK war of aggression on Iraq.
Now Michael McFaul, ambassador to Russia under President Obama, has been enlisted by The
Washington Post 's editorial page honcho, Fred Hiatt, to draw on his expertise (read,
incurable Russophobia) to help stick President Donald Trump back into "Putin's pocket." (This
has become increasingly urgent as the canard of "Russiagate" -- including the linchpin claim
that Russia hacked the DNC -- lies gasping for air.)
In an
oped on Thursday McFaul presented a long list of Vladimir Putin's alleged crimes, offering
a more ostensibly sophisticated version of amateur Russian specialist, Rep. Jason Crow's (D-CO)
claim that: "Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to figure
out how to destroy American democracy."
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry with McFaul meeting Vladimir Putin and Russian Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov in Moscow, Russia, on May 7, 2013. (State Department)
McFaul had -- well, let's call it an undistinguished career in Moscow. He arrived with a
huge chip on his shoulder and proceeded to alienate just about all his hosts, save for the
rabidly anti-Putin folks he openly and proudly cultivated. In a sense, McFaul became the
epitome of what Henry Wooton described as the role of ambassador -- "an honest man sent to lie
abroad for the good of his country." What should not be so readily accepted is an ambassador
who comes back home and just can't stop misleading.
Not to doubt McFaul's ulterior motives; one must assume him to be an "honest man" --
however misguided, in my opinion. He seems to be a disciple of the James Clapper-Curtis
LeMay-Joe McCarthy School of Russian Analysis.
Clapper, a graduate summa cum laude , certainly had the Russians pegged! Clapper
was allowed to stay as Barack Obama's director of national intelligence for three and a half
years after perjuring himself in formal Senate testimony (on NSA's illegal eavesdropping). On
May 28, 2017 Clapper told NBC's Chuck
Todd about "the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically
driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian
technique."
As a finale, in full knowledge of Clapper's proclivities regarding Russia, Obama
appointed him to prepare the evidence-impoverished, misnomered "Intelligence Community
Assessment" claiming that Putin did all he could, including hacking the DNC, to help Trump get
elected -- the most embarrassing such "intelligence assessment" I have seen in half a century
.
Obama and the National Security State
I have asked myself if Obama also had earned some kind of degree from the
Clapper/LeMay/McCarthy School, or whether he simply lacked the courage to challenge the
pitiably self-serving "analysis" of the National Security State. Then I re-read "Obama Misses the Afghan
Exit-Ramp" of June 24, 2010 and was reminded of how deferential Obama was to the generals and
the intelligence gurus, and how unconscionable the generals were -- like their predecessors in
Vietnam -- in lying about always seeing light at the end of the proverbial tunnel.
Thankfully, now ten years later, this is all
documented in Craig Whitlock's, "The Afghanistan Papers: At War With the Truth." Corporate
media, who played an essential role in that "war with the truth", have not given Whitlock's
damning story the attention it should command (surprise, surprise!). In any case, it strains
credulity to think that Obama was unaware he was being lied to on Afghanistan.
Some Questions
Clark Gable (l.) with Charles Laughton (r.) in Mutiny on the Bounty, 1935.
Does no one see the irony today in the Democrats' bashing Trump on Afghanistan, with the
full support of the Establishment media? The inevitable defeat there is one of the few
demonstrable disasters not attributable directly to Trump, but you would not know that from the
media. Are the uncorroborated reports of Russian bounties to kill U.S. troops aimed at making
it appear that Trump, unable to stand up to Putin, let the Russians drive the rest of U.S.
troops out of Afghanistan?
Does the current flap bespeak some kind of "Mutiny on the Bounties," so to speak, by a
leaker aping Eric Chiaramella? Recall that the Democrats lionized the CIA official seconded to
Trump's national security council as a "whistleblower" and proceeded to impeach Trump after
Chiaramella leaked information on Trump's telephone call with the president of Ukraine. Far
from being held to account, Chiaramella is probably expecting an influential job if his patron,
Joe Biden, is elected president. Has there been another mutiny in Trump's White House?
And what does one make of the
spectacle of Crow teaming up with Rep. Liz Cheney (R, WY) to restrict Trump's planned
pull-out of troops from Afghanistan, which The Los Angeles Timesreports
has now been blocked until after the election?
Hiatt & McFaul: Caveat Editor
And who published McFaul's oped? Fred Hiatt, Washington Post editorial page editor
for the past 20 years, who has a long record of listening to the whispers of anonymous
intelligence sources and submerging/drowning the subjunctive mood with flat fact. This was the
case with the (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the U.S.-UK attack.
Readers of the Post were sure there were tons of WMD in Iraq. That Hiatt has invited
McFaul on stage should come as no surprise.
To be fair, Hiatt belatedly acknowledged that the Post should have been more
circumspect in its confident claims about the WMD. "If you look at the editorials we write
running up [to the war], we state as flat fact that he [Saddam Hussein] has weapons of mass
destruction," Hiatt said in an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review . "If
that's not true, it would have been better not to say it." [CJR, March/April 2004]
At this word of wisdom, Consortium News founder, the late Robert Parry,
offered this comment: "Yes, that is a common principle of journalism, that if something isn't
real, we're not supposed to confidently declare that it is." That Hiatt is still in that job
speaks volumes.
'Uncorroborated, Contradicted, or Even Non-Existent'
It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the "intelligence" on WMD in Iraq was
not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never
held to account.
Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate
Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller ( D-WV)
said the attack on Iraq was launched "under false pretenses." He described the intelligence
conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even
non-existent."
Homework
Yogi Berra in 1956. (Wikipedia)
Here's an assignment due on Monday. Read McFaul's
oped carefully. It appears under the title: "Trump would do anything for Putin. No wonder
he's ignoring the Russian bounties: Russia's pattern of hostility matches Trump's pattern of
accommodation."
And to give you a further taste, here is the first paragraph:
"Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to have paid Taliban rebels in Afghanistan to
kill U.S. soldiers. Having resulted in at least one American death, and maybe more, these
Russian bounties reportedly produced the desired outcome. While deeply disturbing, this
effort by Putin is not surprising: It follows a clear pattern of ignoring international
norms, rules and laws -- and daring the United States to do anything about it."
Full assignment for Monday: Read carefully through each paragraph of McFaul's text and
select which of his claims you would put into one or more of the three categories adduced by
Sen. Rockefeller 12 years ago about WMD on Iraq. With particular attention to the evidence
behind McFaul's claims, determine which of the claims is (a) "uncorroborated"; which (b)
"contradicted"; and which (c) "non-existent;" or (d) all of the above. For extra credit, find
one that is supported by plausible evidence.
Yogi Berra might be surprised to hear us keep quoting him with "Deja vu, all over again."
Sorry, Yogi, that's what it is; you coined it.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27-year career as a CIA analyst, he prepared and
briefed The President's Daily Brief for Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. He is
co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
Tarus77 , July 6, 2020 at 14:25
Gad, one wonders if it can ever get much lower in the press and the answer is yes, it can
and will go lower, i.e. the mcfaul/hiatt tag team. They are still plumbing for the lows.
The question becomes just how stupid these two are or how stupid do they believe the
readership is to read and believe this garbage.
Voice from Europe , July 6, 2020 at 11:58
By now the Russia did it ! is in effect a joke in Russia. Economically, politically, geo
strategically China and Asia and Africa have become more important and reliable partners of
Russia than the USA. And Europe is also dropping fast on the trustworthy partners
list…..
John , July 5, 2020 at 12:55
Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt are both long-time members of the Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR), flagship of the globalist “liberal world order”. The CFR and its
many interlocking affiliates, along with their media assets and frontmen in government, have
dominated US policy since WW2. Most of the Fed chairmen and secretaries of State, Treasury,
Defense and CIA have been CFR members, including Jerome Powell and Mark Esper.
The major finance, energy, defense and media corporations are CFR sponsors, and several of
their execs are members. David Rubenstein, billionaire founder of the notorious Carlyle
Group, is the current CFR chairman. Laurence Fink, billionaire chairman of BlackRock, is a
CFR director. See lists at the CFR website.
Anna , July 6, 2020 at 09:38
Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt are both very active promoters of hate crimes. Neither has
any decency hence decency is allergic to war profiteers and opportunistic liars.
The poor USA; to descend to such a deep moral hole that both Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt
are still alive and prospering. Shamelessness and presstituting are paid well in the US.
Dems and Reps are already mad. You cannot destroy what does not exist; like Democracy in
these United States. Nor God or Putin could. This has always being a fallacy. This is not a
democracy; same thing with ”communist" China or the USSR .Those two were never
socialist. There has never being a real Socialist or Communist country.
Guy , July 4, 2020 at 12:26
“It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the
“intelligence” on WMD in Iraq was not “mistaken;” it was fraudulent
from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never held to account.”
That statement goes to the crux of the matter.Why should journalists care about what is true
or a lie in their reports ,they know they will never be held to account .They should be held
to account through the court system . A lie by any journalist should be actionable by any
court of law . The fear of jail time would sort out the scam journalists we presently have to
endure .
As it is they have perverted the profession of journalism and it is the law of the
jungle .No true democracy should put up with this. We are surrounded with lies that are
generated by the very establishment that should protect it’s citizens from same .
Skip Scott , July 4, 2020 at 15:36
They are spoon fed those lies by our “intelligence” agencies. As CNN’s
Jeff Zucker said, “We’re not investigators, we’re journalists”.
Replace “journalists” with “toadies” or “shills” for our
“intelligence” community and you’ve gotten to the truth of the matter.
Anna , July 6, 2020 at 09:50
The ‘journalists’ observe how things have been going on for Cheney the Traitor
and Bush the lesser — nothing happened to the mega criminals. The hate-bursting and
war-profiteering Cheney’s daughter has even squeezed into US Congress.
In a healthy society where human dignity is cherished, the Cheney family will be ostracized
and the family name became a synonym for the word ‘traitor.’ In the unhealthy society of Clintons, Obamas, Epstein, Mueller, Adelsons, Clapper, and Krystols, human dignity
is a sin.
Ricard Coleman , July 6, 2020 at 11:42
Our institutions including journalism are not merely corrupt, they are degenerate. That
is, the corruption is not occasional or the exception is is by design, desired and entirely
normal.
Stan W. , July 4, 2020 at 12:10
I’m still confident that Durham’s investigation will expose and successfully
prosecute the maggots that infest our government.
Skip Scott , July 4, 2020 at 15:29
What is the basis for this confidence?
John Puma , July 4, 2020 at 12:03
Re: whether Obumma “had earned some kind of degree from the Clapper/LeMay/McCarthy
School” of Russia Analytics.
It would be a worthy addition to his degree collection featuring that earned from the
Neville Chamberlain Night School of Critical Political Negotiation.
Jeff Harrison , July 4, 2020 at 11:16
Hmmm. Lessee. The US attacks Afghanistan with about the same legitimacy that we had when
we attacked Iraq and the Taliban are in charge. We oust the Taliban from power and put our
own puppets in place. What idiot thinks that the Taliban are going to need a bounty to kill
Americans?
Jeff Harrison, I like your logic. Plus, I understand that far fewer Americans are being
killed in Afghanistan than were under Obama’s administration.
AnneR , July 4, 2020 at 10:27
Frankly, I am sick to death of the unwarranted, indeed bestial Russophobia that is
megaphoned minute by minute on NPR and the BBC World Service (only radio here since my
husband died). If it isn’t this latest trumped up (ho ho) charge, there are repeated
mentions, in passing, of course, of the Russiagate, hacking, Kremlin control of the Strumpet
to back up the latest bunch of lies.
Doesn’t matter at *all* that Russiagate was
debunked, that even Mueller couldn’t actually demonstrably pull the DNC/ruling elites
rabbit out of the hat, that the impeachment of the Strumpet went nowhere. And it clearly
– by its total absence on the above radio broadcasts – doesn’t matter one
iota that the Pentagonal hasn’t gone along, that gaping holes in the confabulation are
(and were) obvious to those who cared to think with half a mind awake and reflecting on past
US ruling elite lies, untruths, obfuscations. Nope. Just repeat, repeat, repeat. Orwell would
clap his hands (not because he agreed with the atrocious politics but the lesson is
learnt).
Added to the whipped up anti-Russia, decidedly anti-Putin crapola – is of course the
Russian peoples’ vote, decision making on their own country’s changes to the
Basic Law (a form of Constitution). When the radio broadcasts the usual sickening
anti-Russian/Putin propaganda regarding this vote immediately prior they would state that the
changes would install Putin for many more years: no mention that he would have to be elected,
i.e. voted by the populace into the presidency. (This was repeated ad infinitum without any
elaboration.) No other proposed changes were mentioned – certainly not that the Duma
would gain greater control over the governance of the country and over the president’s
cabinet. I.e. that the popularly elected (ain’t that what we call democracy??)
representatives in the Duma (parliament) would essentially have more power than the
president.
But most significantly, to my mind, no one has (well of course not – this is Russia)
raised the issue of the fact that it was the Russian people, the vox populi/hoi polloi, who
have had some say in how they are to be governed, how their government will work for them.
HOW much say have we had/do we have in how our government functions, works – let alone
for us, the hoi polloi? When did we the citizenry last have a voting say on ANY sentence in
the Constitution that governs us??? Ummm I do believe it was the creation of the wealthy
British descended slave holding, real estate ethnic-cleansing lot who wrote and ratified the
original document and the hardly dissimilar Congressional and state types who have over the
years written and voted on various amendments. And it is the members of the upper classes in
the Supreme Court who adjudicate on its application to various problems.
BUT We the hoi polloi have never, ever had a direct opportunity to individually vote for
or against any single part of the Constitution which is supposed to be the
“democratic” superstructure which governs us. Unlike the Russians a couple of
days ago.
Richard Coleman , July 6, 2020 at 15:48
“HOW much say have we had/do we have in how our government functions,
works…” See, that’s your mistake right there. WE don’t have a
government. We need one, but we ain’t got one. THEY have a government which they let us
go through the motions of electing. ‘Member back when Bernie was talking about a
Political Revolution?
Here’s a little fact for you. The five most populous states have a total of
123,000,000 people. That’s 10 Senators. The five least populated states have a total of
3.5 million. That’s also 10 Senators. Democracy anyone?
vinnieoh , July 4, 2020 at 09:37
There have been three coup d’état within the US within the lifetimes of most
that read these pages. The first was explained to us by Eisenhower only as he was exiting his
time from the national stage; the MIC had co-opted our government. The second happened in
2000, with the putsch in Florida and then the adoption by the neocon cabal of Bush /Chaney of
the PNAC blueprint “Strategies for Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (Defenses
– hahahaha – shit!). The third happened late last year and early this year when
the bottom-up grass-roots movement of progressivism was crushed by the DNC and the
cold-warrior hack Biden was inserted as the champion of “the opposition
party.”
And, make no mistake that Kamala Harris WILL be his running mate. It was always going to
be Harris. It was to be Harris at the TOP of the ticket as the primaries began, but she
wasn’t even placing in the top tier in any of the contests. However, the poohbahs and
strategists of the DNC are nothing if not determined and consistent. If Biden should win, we
should all start practicing now saying “President Harris” because that is what
the future holds. For the DNC, she looks the part, she sounds the part, but more importantly
she is the very definition of the status quo, corporate ass-kisser, MIC tool.
The professional political class have fully colluded to fatally cripple this democratic
republic. “Democracy” is just a word they say like, “Where’s my
kickback?” (excuse me – my “motivation”.) This bounty scam and the
rehabilitation of GW Bush are nothing but a full blitzkrieg flanking of Trump on the right.
And Trump of course is so far out of his depth that he actually believes that Israel is his
friend. (A hint Donny: Israel is NO-ONE’S friend.)
What is most infuriating? hope-crushing? plain f$%&*#g scary? is that the majority of
Americans from all quarters do not want any of what the professional political class keeps
dumping on us. The very attempt at performing this upcoming election will finally and forever
lay completely bare the collapse of a functioning government. It’s going to be very
ugly, and it may very well be the end. Dog help us all.
Richard Coleman , July 6, 2020 at 15:51
Don’t you think that the assassination of JFK counts as a coup d’etat?
Zhu , July 7, 2020 at 02:10
Apres moi, le Deluge.
John Drake , July 7, 2020 at 11:25
Oh gosh how can you forget the Kennedy Assassination. Most people don’t realize he
was had ordered the removal of a thousand advisors from Vietnam starting the process of
completely cutting bait there, as he had in Laos and Cambodia. All of which made the generals
apoplectic. The great secret about Vietnam-which Ellsberg discovered much latter, and
mentioned in his book Secrets, another good read- was that every president had been warned it
was likely futile. Kennedy was the only one who took that intelligence seriously-like it was
actually intelligent intelligence.
Enter stage right Allen Dulles (fired CIA chief), the anti Castro Cubans, the Mafia and
most important the MIC; exit Jack Kennedy.
Douglas, JFK why he died and why it matters is the best work on the subject. And no Oswald
did not do it; it was a sniper team from different angles, but read the book it gets
complicated.
Roger , July 4, 2020 at 09:11
from Counterpunch.org : “Around 15,000 Soviet troops perished in the Afghan War
between 1979 and 1989. The US funneled more than $20 billion to the Mujahideen and other
anti-Soviet fighters over that same period. This works out to a “bounty” of $1.33
million for each Soviet soldier killed.”
Skip Scott , July 4, 2020 at 08:35
I am wondering how Cheney and Crow can block Trump from withdrawing the troops from
Afghanistan. Is Trump Commander in Chief, or not? How can two senators stop the Commander in
Chief from commanding troop movements? I realize they control the budget, but aren’t
they crossing into illegality by restricting Trump’s ability to
“command”?
Toad Sprocket , July 4, 2020 at 16:49
Yeah, I imagine it’s illegal. Didn’t Lindsay Graham threaten the same thing
when Trump was thinking of pulling troops/”advisers” from Syria? And other
congress warmongers joined in though I don’t think any legislation was passed. They
can’t be bothered to authorize the starts of wars but want to step in when someone
tries to end them.
Oh, and Schumer on South Korea troops, I think that one did pass. Almost certainly illegal
if it came down to it, but our government is of course lawless. And our courts full of judges
who are bought off or moronic or both.
dean 1000 , July 4, 2020 at 06:52
The soft coup attempt continues Ray. More lies and bullshit. It may continue until
election day. Will the media fess-up to its lies after the fact again?
Francis Lee , July 4, 2020 at 04:49
“Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to figure
out how to destroy American democracy.”
Yes, of course it is a well-known ‘fact’ that Putin has nothing better to do
than destory American democracy, and I bet he has dreams about it too! But I am minded to
think that if anybody has a penchant for destroying American democracy it is the powers that
be in the US deep state, intelligence agencies, and zionist cliques controlling the President
and Congress.
”Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.”
The American establishment seems to be suffering from a bad case of
‘projection’ as psychiatrists call it. That is to say accusing others of what
they are themselves actually doing.
The whole idiotic circus would be hilarious if it were not so serious.
Antonia Young , July 4, 2020 at 12:20
Putin’s (and by extension the Russian Federation’s) primary objective is
international stability. “Destroying America, dividing Americans is the last thing he
wants.) Putin learned many lessons during the break-up of the U.S.S.R. observing the carpet
baggers/oligarchs/vultures who descended on the weak nation, absconding with it’s
wealth and resources at mere fractions of their real value. The deep state’s worst fear
is the co-operation btwn Putin and President Trump to make the world more peaceful, stable,
co-operative and prosperous.
rosemerry , July 4, 2020 at 16:10
The whole conceited and arrogant “belief” that
The USA has any resemblance to a democracy and
Pres. Putin has nothing else to do but think how he could do a better job of showing the
destructive and irresponsible behavior of the USA than its own leaders” and media can
do with no help
has no basis in reality.
If anything, Putin is such a stickler for international law, negotiations, avoidance of
conflict that he is regarded by many as too Christian for this modern, individualistic,
LBGTQ, ”nobody matters but me” worldview of the USA!
Steve Naidamast , July 5, 2020 at 19:54
“If the enemy is self destructing, let them continue to do so…”
Napoleon
Zhu , July 7, 2020 at 02:17
“zionist cliques”: Christian Zionist fighting Fundies, eager for the End of
the World, the Second Coming of Jesus.
delia ruhe , July 4, 2020 at 01:09
Yup, we got a Bountygate. Since my early morning visit to the Foreign Policy site, the
place has exploded with breathless articles on the dastardly Putin and the cowardly Trump,
who has so far failed to hold Putin to account. Reminded me of a similar explosion there when
Russiagate finally got the attention the Dems thought it deserved.
(Anyone think that the intel community pays a fee to each of the FP columnists whenever
one of their a propaganda narratives needs a push to get it off the ground?)
Udo Ulfkotte was a German journalist. He wrote a sensational book about the practices he experienced of the CIA paying German
journalists to publish certain stories. The book was a big best seller in Germany. Its English translation was suppressed for years, but I believe is now available.
Susan Siens , July 5, 2020 at 16:30
Reply to John Chuckman: I’d love to read this book but it wasn’t available a
few years ago when I looked. I’ll look again!
Voice from Europe , July 6, 2020 at 11:52
Gekaufte journalisten.
Ulfkotte admitted he signed off on numerous articles that were prepared for him during his
career. The last year’s of his life he changed his mores and advocated “better
die in truth than live with lies”.
Richard A. , July 4, 2020 at 00:59
I remember the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour from decades ago. Real experts on Russia like
Dimitri Simes and Stephen Cohen were the ones to appear on that NewsHour. The NewsHour of
today rarely has experts on Russia, just experts on Russia bashing–like Michael McFaul.
Oh how the mighty have fallen.
Antonia Young , July 3, 2020 at 23:35
Thank you, Ray for your clarion voice in the midst of WMD-seventeen-point-oh. Will the
American people have the wisdom to notice how many times we’re being fooled? And
finally wake up and stop supporting these questionable news outlets? With appreciation for
your excellent analysis, as usual. ~Tonia Young (Formerly with the Topanga Peace
Alliance)
The majority of Americans have a lot more to worry about than the latest nonsense about
Russia. I think most people just tune it out.
The ones being fooled are the fools who have been lapping this crap up from the get go. The
supposed educated class who think themselves superior and well informed because they read and
listen to the propaganda of PBS, NPR, NYT etc.
They don’t seem to realize the ship is sinking while they’re playing these
ridiculous games.
Susan Siens , July 5, 2020 at 16:34
The supposedly educated class, yes! It can be stunning how people believe anything they
hear on PBS or NPR, and then they make fun of people who believe anything they hear on Fox
News. What’s the difference? Both are propaganda tools.
And, yes, watch us go down in flames while so-called progressives boo-hoo about Trump
thinking he’s above the law (like every other president before him). Our local
“peace and justice” group sent me an email asking me to sign a petition
supporting Robert Mueller. I was gobsmacked, and then I realized our local “peace and
justice” group had been taken over by Democratic Party “resisters.”
Jeezums, why is every word hijacked?
"... "The purpose of this shabby round of 'Russiagate' nonsense was to hinder Trump's plans to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan before the election ..." ..."
"... is the part I don't understand from the MSM: so, even if it was true that the Russkies and the Iranians (our go-to baddies in the area) WERE paying bounties to kill American soldiers, how the Hell is that an argument for staying longer? We're under attack so we must stay to get killed?? ..."
"... Once again the Democrats of being stupid will probably lose the election. I always thought Russia could be great friend to the west and the USA , in the mean time China is more dangerous than Russia ..."
"... If you're a military-industrial contractor, or for that matter, one that is helping smuggle opium out of Afghanistan, you want the US to stay. Saying that Russians are paying the Taliban bounties might cause the US to reinforce its force level in Afghanistan. ..."
"... Don't neglect American mass psychology. Americans never retreat. Advance to the rear, perhaps, but America's mighty military machine will never run away. If the narrative that American troops are being hunted for bounties takes root in the American public's warped imaginations, then the New York Langley Times and the Washington Bezos Post can attack Trump as a coward who runs away while the fight is still on. That's not an image Trump can tolerate so he would be forced to keep troops there and even do some air strikes. ..."
"... No doubt China is laughing its ass off at this latest attempt at RussiaGate 2.0. Both the Dems and Trump continue to do Beijing's bidding, whether it's witting or not. ..."
"... Taliban isn't truly the enemy when you remove the veil, or certainly not anymore than al Qaeda is/was and Daesh. They're all American inventions and as such, America will tell them when and where to kill American soldiers, not uppity Russia. ..."
"... SEARCHING FOR LEAKERS THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION has opened an internal investigation to try to uncover who leaked intelligence about Russians paying the Taliban bounties to kill American soldiers. The administration maintains the story is overcooked and the leaks cherry-picked despite a steady stream of follow-ups from media outlets across the globe. ..."
"... "How the Hell is than an argument for staying longer?" -- It is the result of 'staying in Afghanistan' that matters to these folks, not the quality or the rationale of the argument. With the MSM echo chamber and Trump's ability to put his tweet in his mouth I don't think anyone can predict in advance what might stick. Throw enough shit at a wall, something will stick. They can't control trump, they can't really bruise him more than they have, so they just continually shotgun hopeful crisis at him. Pass the popcorn, I have a feeling this is about to get really good. ..."
"... The reasons for staying in Afghanistan are the true problem. Opioids (the CIA might go bankrupt), Pipelines (US control of oil), and Military Power Projection (borders with Iran, China, and the Russian dominated Stans). It is hard to say how much or if any of this benefits the American people, but it certainly benefits those clinging to corporate profits and retaining their piece fo the global economic pie. ..."
"... It seems likely that the 'Russian bounties' story was arranged with the full knowledge of the Trump Administration. USA doesn't really want to pull out. ..."
"... Unfortunately, the trumped up story is NOT a dud; it did its job. Congress has made it impossible to bring home troops from Afghanistan, ensuring that the murder machine/grift combo can continue, with more money to be made by those on the inside getting paid to support the efforts. ..."
"... The CIA won't go broke when the flow of afghani opium dries up. That stuff is just a trickle anyway, compared to the tidal waves of cocaine coming out of South America. And I don't even believe that they really need any dope money to keep themselves afloat. It's simply important that noone else gets to benefit from that mountain of easy cash. ..."
"... This says Russia paying bounties to the Taliban was exposed as a hoax. Yes, it was a partisan hoax. No, it is not really "exposed." It is believed as an article of faith now by a vast number of people. It is now in the "birther" phase: nonsense people believe because they want to believe it. ..."
"... There is a good chance that the origins of this story lie with MI6, The Guardian's current proprietor. Like the Steele dossier, Skripal, the links between Manafort and Wikileaks, the "hacking" of the DNC and much else in the attempt to revive the Cold War (when MI6 had lots of fun and money was no object- the halcyon days of LeCarre and Ian Fleming) this bears the fingerprints of British spooks. ..."
"... Luke Harding's friends and colleagues at the Integrity Initiative and the Institute for Statecraft would like a honorable mention too, for all the hard work they put in, even if it is well rewarded at the British tax payers's expense. ..."
July 07, 2020
The Latest 'Russiagate' BOMBSHELL Took Just One Week To Be Exposed As Dud. Who Was Its
Source?
Within just one week the recent attempt to revive 'Russiagate' has failed. It was an
embarrassing failure for the media who pushed it. Their 'journalists' fell for obvious
nonsense. They let their sources abused them for political purposes.
On June 27 the New York Times and the Washington Postpublished
stories which claimed that Trump was informed about alleged Russian bounty payments to the
Taliban for killing U.S. soldiers and did nothing about it:
A Russian military spy unit offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants to attack coalition
forces in Afghanistan, including U.S. and British troops, in a striking escalation of the
Kremlin's hostility toward the United States, American intelligence has found.
The Russian operation, first reported by the New York Times, has generated an intense
debate within the Trump administration about how best to respond to a troubling new tactic by
a nation that most U.S. officials regard as a potential foe but that President Trump has
frequently embraced as a friend, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity
to discuss a sensitive intelligence matter.
The story ran on page A-1 of the paper version of the NYT .
We immediately
called it out as the obvious nonsense that it was:
Now the intelligence services make another claim that fits right into the above
['Russiagate'] scheme.
Reporters from the New York Times and the Washington Post were called up by
unnamed 'officials' and told to write that Russia pays some Afghans to kill U.S. soldiers in
Afghanistan. There is zero evidence that the claim is true. The Taliban spokesman denies it.
The numbers of U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan is minimal. The alleged sources of the
claims are criminals the U.S. has taken as prisoners in Afghanistan.
All that nonsense is again used to press against Trump's wish for better relations with
Russia. Imagine - Trump was told about these nonsensical claims and he did nothing about
it!
But that the story was obviously bullshit did not prevent Democrats in Congress, including
'Russiagate' swindler Adam Schiff, to bluster about it and to call for immediate briefings and
new sanctions
on Russia .
Just a day after it was published the main accusation, that Trump was briefed on the
'intelligence' died. The Director of National Intelligence, the National Security Advisor and
the CIA publicly rejected the claim. Then the rest of the story started to crumble. On June 2,
just one week after it was launched, the story was
declared dead :
A memo produced in recent days by the office of the nation's top intelligence official
acknowledged that the C.I.A. and top counterterrorism officials have assessed that Russia
appears to have offered bounties to kill American and coalition troops in Afghanistan, but
emphasized uncertainties and gaps in evidence , according to three officials.
...
The memo said that the C.I.A. and the National Counterterrorism Center had assessed with
medium confidence -- meaning credibly sourced and plausible, but falling short of near
certainty -- that a unit of the Russian military intelligence service, known as the G.R.U.,
offered the bounties, according to two of the officials briefed on its contents.
But other parts of the intelligence community -- including the National Security Agency,
which favors electronic surveillance intelligence -- said they did not have information to
support that conclusion at the same level, therefore expressing lower confidence in the
conclusion, according to the two officials.
The NYT buried the above quoted dead corpse of the original story page A-19.
Last week we also learned that Adam Schiff, who had blamed Trump for not reacting to the
fake 'intelligence' and who used the story to call for more Russia sanctions,
had been briefed on the very same 'intelligence' months ago:
Top committee staff for Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, were briefed in February on intelligence about Russia
offering the Taliban bounties in Afghanistan, but he took no action in response to the
briefing, multiple intelligence sources familiar with the briefing told The Federalist.
...
The revelation raises serious questions that Schiff is once again politicizing, and perhaps
even deliberately misrepresenting, key data for partisan gain.
Asked by a reporter Tuesday if he had any knowledge of the Russia story prior to the New
York Times report, Schiff said "I can't comment on specifics."
Schiff's recent complaints that Trump took no action against Russia in response to rumors
of Russian bounties are curious given that Schiff himself took no action after his top staff
were briefed by intelligence officials. As chairman of the intelligence committee, Schiff had
the authority to immediately brief the full committee and convene hearings on the matter.
Schiff, however, did nothing.
As Schiff and his committee staff knew about the claims they may well have been the ones who
pushed it to the reporters.
Consider that both papers, the NYT and the WaPo , attribute their knowledge to
'officials'. There is a code for anonymous sources in U.S. political reporting that is usual
adhered to. Sources are described as 'White House officials', 'administration officials',
'Pentagon officials' or 'intelligence officials' when they are working for the government.
Congressional sources are usually described as 'officials' without any additional
attribute.
The original sources also made the false claim that Trump had been briefed on the
'intelligence'. Source in the White House or the CIA would have likely known that this had not
been the case. Sources from Congress had no way of knowing that.
That makes it quite likely that Schiff and/or members of his staff were the original sources
of the fake story. Consider that it was Schiff who for two years had claimed
again and again that there was 'direct evidence" that the Trump campaign had colluded with
the Russian government. That has turned out to have been a lie. It is certainly not beyond
Schiff to sell a dubious 'intelligence' report, based on circumstantial evidence, as alarming
news that required immediate action.
The purpose of this shabby round of 'Russiagate' nonsense was to hinder
Trump's plans to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan before the election, to sabotage the
cooperation between Russia and the U.S. on the negotiations with the Taliban and to blame Trump
of another 'collusion' with the ever hated Russia.
But the short live of the false claims made certain that it failed to achieve this.
Posted by b on July 7, 2020 at 17:08 UTC |
Permalink
"The purpose of this shabby round of 'Russiagate' nonsense was to hinder Trump's plans to
withdraw all troops from Afghanistan before the election ..."
is the part I don't understand from the MSM: so, even if it was true that the Russkies and
the Iranians (our go-to baddies in the area) WERE paying bounties to kill American soldiers,
how the Hell is that an argument for staying longer? We're under attack so we must stay to
get killed??
It doesn't even make sense as an effort to tarnish the peace deal with the Taliban: how is
making peace with them after 20 years of war a worse idea knowing they may be getting paid to
kill our folks, as well as doing it for their own purposes? If anything, it makes it even
more imperative to make peace!
Once again the Democrats of being stupid will probably lose the election. I always thought
Russia could be great friend to the west and the USA , in the mean time China is more
dangerous than Russia, with the stupid MIC and the haters of Russia are pushing Russia
toward the east , it will be a war between the US , Europe against Russia , China and Iran
.
Guess who is going to win .
We're under attack so we must stay to get
killed??
Yes. If you're a military-industrial contractor, or for that matter, one that is helping
smuggle opium out of Afghanistan, you want the US to stay. Saying that Russians are paying
the Taliban bounties might cause the US to reinforce its force level in Afghanistan.
I mean, yeah, it makes no sense - but then staying in Afghanistan for almost twenty years
didn't make any sense anyway. So "any excuse will do" is the idea - and always has been.
There was never a rational reason to invade Afghanistan in the first place. It was all about
oil and heroin from the get-go.
"...even if it was true that the Russkies and the Iranians (our go-to baddies
in the area) WERE paying bounties to kill American soldiers, how the Hell is that an argument
for staying longer? We're under attack so we must stay to get killed??"
Don't neglect American mass psychology. Americans never retreat. Advance to the rear,
perhaps, but America's mighty military machine will never run away. If the narrative that
American troops are being hunted for bounties takes root in the American public's warped
imaginations, then the New York Langley Times and the
Washington Bezos Post can attack Trump as a coward who runs away while the
fight is still on. That's not an image Trump can tolerate so he would be forced to keep
troops there and even do some air strikes.
In other words, the fake news about bounties was just one part of the operation to keep US
troops in Afghanistan.
No doubt China is laughing its ass off at this latest attempt at RussiaGate 2.0. Both the
Dems and Trump continue to do Beijing's bidding, whether it's witting or not.
1.5 billion people in the span of several decades have transformed into ravenous,
rapacious, insatiable consumers on a finite planet's with already severely diminished
resources and a climate out of equilibrium.
All of that plus COVFEFE-19, plus a potential Swine Flu pandemic on top of it and the
Bubonic Plague, and the corporatist media is focusing on Russia paying the Taliban to kill
American soldiers when allegedly that's what the Taliban is doing any way?
America taking umbrage with the Russian bounties, even if true, tells me that perhaps the Taliban isn't truly the enemy
when you remove the veil, or certainly not anymore than al Qaeda is/was and Daesh. They're all American inventions and as such, America will tell them
when and where to kill American soldiers, not uppity Russia.
Politico reports Trump is opening an investigation into who sourced those articles.
-- SEARCHING FOR LEAKERS THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION has opened an internal investigation to
try to uncover who leaked intelligence about Russians paying the Taliban bounties to kill
American soldiers. The administration maintains the story is overcooked and the leaks
cherry-picked despite a steady stream of follow-ups from media outlets across the globe.
THE ADMINISTRATION has interviewed people with access to the intelligence, and believes
it has narrowed down the universe of suspects to fewer than 10 people.
THE ADMINISTRATION has said it would search for leakers in its ranks on many occasions.
Notably, they vowed to find out who wrote an anonymous op-ed in the NYT almost two years
ago. They said they'd find who leaked the president's calendars in February 2019. Most of
these probes fizzled out or faded away.
BUT, THE ADMINISTRATION seems a bit more worked up about these leaks, due to the highly
classified nature of the intelligence.
"How the Hell is than an argument for staying longer?" -- It is the result of 'staying in
Afghanistan' that matters to these folks, not the quality or the rationale of the argument.
With the MSM echo chamber and Trump's ability to put his tweet in his mouth I don't think
anyone can predict in advance what might stick. Throw enough shit at a wall, something will
stick. They can't control trump, they can't really bruise him more than they have, so they
just continually shotgun hopeful crisis at him. Pass the popcorn, I have a feeling this is
about to get really good.
The reasons for staying in Afghanistan are the true problem. Opioids (the CIA might go
bankrupt), Pipelines (US control of oil), and Military Power Projection (borders with Iran,
China, and the Russian dominated Stans). It is hard to say how much or if any of this
benefits the American people, but it certainly benefits those clinging to corporate profits
and retaining their piece fo the global economic pie.
America sure did retreat from Libya and the irony is, the instigator, Sarkozy, never got
what he strategized to get from it, which was reelection. America and NATO left it to the
other aspiring imperialist pretenders, Turkey and Russia, and look what a mess they're making
of it. It's as messy as if America was conducting the occupation and civil war itself. Maybe
the point of Libya is as a military playground for imperialist pretenders to strut their
stuff. A catwalk of sorts.
... the short live of the false claims made certain that it failed ...
I disagree. The committee voted to delay removing troops and the Russiagate nonsense was
refreshed in the public's mind. I'd bet that Schiff's previous knowledge of Russia offering
bounties doesn't get much USA media attention. The controversy didn't have to persist very
long for it to be successful. It was largely already over when the news about Schiff came
out.
To say it failed seems like projection and wishful thinking.
And consider this: Is it really possible that Trump didn't know - or couldn't have quickly
found out - that Schiff had been briefed? It seems likely that the 'Russian bounties' story
was arranged with the full knowledge of the Trump Administration. USA doesn't really want to
pull out.
The real story here is the dog that didn't bark at the dog that didn't
bark.
Speaking to the House Armed Services Committee, Gen. Frank McKenzie, commander of U.S.
Central Command, said the military is following through on its part of a landmark peace
agreement the Trump administration struck with the Taliban late last month to reduce the
number of American troops in the country, but he also told lawmakers he has "no confidence"
in the Taliban's willingness to pursue a peace process with the U.S.-backed Afghan
government in Kabul.
"We're going to go to 8,600 by the summer. Conditions on the ground will dictate if
we go below that,"
Meanwhile. not a word from the corporatist media about Maxwell and Epstein being blackmailers
for the intelligence services. Instead, they were just some rogue, random, wealthy,
highly-connected sex freaks. Maxwell and Epstein is the REAL election interference story.
RussiaGate is the distracting cover for it.
thanks b... interesting theory schiff is behind the ongoing russiagate news, or the latest
episode - bountygate... of course the dem party never miss a chance to shot themselves in the
foot... or is it that the major players want another 4 years of trumps excellent leadership
record? snark! tough call as to who is zooming who here, but if i want to be distracted, i
will know to read what wg refers to as the langley times, or the bezos post... bad enough i
read moa, lol...
Unfortunately, the trumped up story is NOT a dud; it did its job. Congress has made it
impossible to bring home troops from Afghanistan, ensuring that the murder machine/grift
combo can continue, with more money to be made by those on the inside getting paid to support
the efforts.
The CIA won't go broke when the flow of afghani opium dries up. That stuff is just a trickle
anyway, compared to the tidal waves of cocaine coming out of South America. And I don't even
believe that they really need any dope money to keep themselves afloat. It's simply important
that noone else gets to benefit from that mountain of easy cash.
However, if the USA leaves Afghanistan today, the first pipeline will be laid down
tomorrow, connecting Iranian oilfields to Chinese industry.
This says Russia paying bounties to the Taliban was exposed as a hoax. Yes, it was a partisan hoax. No, it is not really "exposed." It is believed as an article of faith now by a vast number
of people. It is now in the "birther" phase: nonsense people believe because they want to believe
it.
I doubt truth will ever catch up with this lie, because those who purport to be fact
checkers and truth tellers are the perpetrators and benefactors of this lie.
Any chance you could send a message to the "journalists" at the Guardian that the story is
nonsense.
They are going full "Russians bad, Trump stupid"
Don't worry about the facts.
There is a good chance that the origins of this story lie with MI6, The Guardian's current
proprietor. Like the Steele dossier, Skripal, the links between Manafort and Wikileaks, the
"hacking" of the DNC and much else in the attempt to revive the Cold War (when MI6 had lots
of fun and money was no object- the halcyon days of LeCarre and Ian Fleming) this bears the
fingerprints of British spooks.
The Guardian is on a voyage across the Atlantic, looking for economic security, and stories
like these, fabricated by Luke Harding on orders from above, are meant to endear the failing
rag to those for whom a trillion bucks a year for the Pentagon is easily delivered.
And what is even worse is if you told those believers that the US was doing that very
thing when it was the Russian military there they would be joyously applauding.
Luke Harding's friends and colleagues at the Integrity Initiative and the Institute for
Statecraft would like a honorable mention too, for all the hard work they put in, even if it
is well rewarded at the British tax payers's expense.
Other than that, given England's near century head start and resulting lead at imperial
decline vis-á-vis their former colony, I doubt that these operations are entirely
concocted by Her Majesty's diligent servants alone. I'd wager that the limeys are excellent
cutouts for domestic operations that hold potential to become a little too close to full-bore
treason for comfortable and plausible denial. Even when they are all in it together (apart
from you and me of course). It's all a matter of perception.
"They would"?? They DID! Have you forgotten all about Rambo in Afghanistan ? Even Starship Troopers, a totally over the top satire of that genre got those murkins
fist-pumpin 'n yeah-brawling at the theaters.
@Robert White how self-important, arrogant, and entitled these jerks are, they would
understand the volcanic rage directed at Trump. But there is more. Many of these people
really are utterly corrupt in the sense that they have made huge amounts of money through
illegal deals, influence-peddling, etc. They felt secure in the knowledge that Hillary
Clinton was surely not going to go after them, though she might have insisted on a piece of
the pie,, like the greasy, small-town lawyer she is. Now things are not nearly so sure and
they know it.
Trump is far from perfect, in any way you can imagine. Come November, after he has used Joe
Biden as a dishrag, Mr. White and friends will suffer a real case of the sadz.
Ray McGovern's latest piece in Consortium is a good summary of the Russia bounty story
with some details about Michael McFaul, former hack diplomat and Putin hater under Obama, now
working for Fred Hiatt at the WAPO. As usual, McGovern names names and tells a story that
makes sense while including his own perspective as a daily briefer to Reagan.
Bottom lines, Dems are getting weirder and scarier. https://consortiumnews.com/2020/07/03/ray-mcgovern-mutiny-on-the-bounties/
Russia since Putin does not offer much global profit; Xi Jinping on the other hand does,
for (manufacturing) stock market darlings like Apple, Amazon or Walmart etc. The five Eyes
need an enemy to keep budgets up, anyone will do, and Russia is Wall street's favorite bogey,
keeping China out of the limelight.
Western left keeps on supporting Xi, bedazzled by his orchestrated propaganda of being a
benign ruler. They barely care about Russia, the main activity is denigrating their own West:
"we" are bad = some European colonialists and fascists of two or more generations
ago .
Max Blumenthal breaks down the "Russian bounty" story's flaws and how it aims to prolong
the war in Afghanistan -- and uses Russiagate tactics to continue pushing the Democratic Party
to the right
Multiple US media outlets, citing anonymous intelligence officials, are claiming that Russia
offered bounties to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan, and that President Trump has taken no
action.
Others are contesting that claim. "Officials said there was disagreement among
intelligence officials about the strength of the evidence about the suspected Russian
plot," the New York Times reports. "Notably, the National Security Agency, which specializes in
hacking and electronic surveillance, has been more skeptical."
"The constant flow of Russiagate disinformation into the bloodstream of the Democratic Party
and its base is moving that party constantly to the right, while pushing the US deeper into
this Cold War," Blumenthal says.
Guest: Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone and author of several books, including his
latest "The Management of Savagery."
TRANSCRIPT
AARON MATÉ: Welcome to Pushback, I'm Aaron Maté. There is a new
supposed Trump-Russia bombshell. The New York Times and other outlets reporting that
Russia has been paying bounties to Afghan militants to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan. Trump
and the White House were allegedly briefed on this information but have taken no action.
Now, the story has obvious holes, like many other Russiagate bombshells. It is sourced to
anonymous intelligence officials. The New York Times says that the claim comes from
Afghan detainees. And it also has some logical holes. The Taliban have been fighting the US
and Afghanistan for nearly two decades and never needed Russian payments before to kill the
Americans that they were fighting; [this] amongst other questions are raised about this
story. But that has not stopped the usual chorus from whipping up a frenzy.
RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC: Vladimir Putin is offering bounties for the scalps of
American soldiers in Afghanistan. Not only offering, offering money [to] the people who kill
Americans, but some of the bounties that Putin has offered have been collected, meaning the
Russians at least believe that their offering cash to kill Americans has actually worked to
get some Americans killed.
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Donald Trump has continued his embarrassing
campaign of deference and debasing himself before Vladimir Putin. He had has [sic] this
information according to The Times, and yet he offered to host Putin in the United
States and sought to invite Russia to rejoin the G7. He's in his entire presidency has been a
gift to Putin, but this is beyond the pale.
CHUCK TODD, NBC: Let me ask you this. Do you think that part of the that the
president is afraid to make Putin mad because maybe Putin did help him win the election and
he doesn't want to make him mad for 2020?
SENATE MINORITY LEADER CHUCK SCHUMER: I was not briefed on the Russian military
intelligence, but it shows that we need in this coming defense bill, which we're debating
this week, tough sanctions against Russia, which thus far Mitch McConnell has resisted.
Joining me now is Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone, author of The Management of
Savagery . Max, welcome to Pushback. What is your reaction to this story?
MAX BLUMENTHAL: I mean, it just feels like so many other episodes that we've
witnessed over the past three or four years, where American intelligence officials basically
plant a story in one outlet, The New York Times , which functions as the media wing of
the Central Intelligence Agency. Then no reporting takes place whatsoever, but six reporters,
or three to six reporters are assigned to the piece to make it look like it was some
last-minute scramble to confirm this bombshell story. And then the story is confirmed again
by The Washington Post because their reporters, their three to six reporters in, you
know, capitals around the world with different beats spoke to the same intelligence
officials, or they were furnished different officials who fed them the same story. And, of
course, the story advances a narrative that the United States is under siege by Russia and
that we have to escalate against Russia just ahead of another peace summit or some kind of
international dialogue.
This has sort of been the general framework for these Russiagate bombshells, and of course
they can there's always an anti-Trump angle. And because, you know, liberal pundits and the,
you know, Democratic Party operatives see this as a means to undermine Trump as the election
heats up. They don't care if it's true or not. They don't care what the consequences are.
They're just gonna completely roll with it. And it's really changed, I think, not just US
foreign policy, but it's changed the Democratic Party in an almost irreversible way, to have
these constant "quote-unquote" bombshells that are really generated by the Central
Intelligence Agency and by other US intelligence operations in order to turn up the heat to
crank up the Cold War, to use these different media organs which no longer believe in
reporting, which see Operation Mockingbird as a kind of blueprint for how to do journalism,
to turn them into keys on the CIA's Mighty Wurlitzer. That's what happened here.
AARON MATÉ: What do you make of the logic of this story? This idea that the
Taliban would need Russian money to kill Americans when the Taliban's been fighting the US
for nearly two decades now. And the sourcing for the story, the same old playbook: anonymous
intelligence officials who are citing vague claims about apparently what was said by Afghan
detainees.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: This story has, as I said, it relies on zero reporting. The only
source is anonymous American intelligence officials. And I tweeted out a clip of a former CIA
operations officer who managed the CIA's operation in Angola, when the US was actually
fighting on the side of apartheid South Africa against a Marxist government that was backed
up by Cuban troops. His name was John Stockwell. And Stockwell talked about how one-third of
his covert operations staff were propagandists, and that they would feed imaginary stories
about Cuban barbarism that were completely false to reporters who were either CIA assets
directly or who were just unwitting dupes who would hang on a line waiting for American
intelligence officials to feed them stories. And one out of every five stories was completely
false, as Stockwell said. We could play some of that clip now; it's pretty remarkable to
watch it in light of this latest fake bombshell.
JOHN STOCKWELL: Another thing is to disseminate propaganda to influence people's
minds, and this is a major function of the CIA. And unfortunately, of course, it overlaps
into the gathering of information. You, you have contact with a journalist, you will give him
true stories, you'll get information from him, you'll also give him false stories.
OFF-CAMERA REPORTER: Can you do this with responsible reporters?
JOHN STOCKWELL: Yes, the Church Committee brought it out in 1975. And then Woodward
and Bernstein put an article in Rolling Stone a couple of years later. Four hundred
journalists cooperating with the CIA, including some of the biggest names in the
business.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: So, basically, I mean, you get the flavor of what someone who was
in the CIA at the height of the Cold War I mean, he did the same thing in Vietnam. And the
playbook is absolutely the same today. These this story was dumped on Friday in The New
York Times by "quote-unquote" American intelligence officials, as a breakthrough had been
made in Afghan peace talks and a conference was finally set for Doha, Qatar, that would
involve the Taliban, which had been seizing massive amounts of territory.
Now, it's my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the Taliban had been
fighting one of the most epic examples of an occupying army in modern history, just
absolutely chewing away at one of the most powerful militaries in human history in their
country for the last 19 years, without bounties from Vladimir Putin or
private-hotdog-salesman-and-Saint-Petersburg-troll-farm-owner Yevgeny Prigozhin , who always comes up
in these stories. It's always the hotdog guy who's doing everything bad from, like, you know,
fake Facebook ads to poisoning Sergei Skripal or whatever.
But I just don't see where the Taliban needs encouragement from Putin to do that. It's
their country. They want the US out and they have succeeded in seizing large amounts of
territory. Donald Trump has come into office with a pledge to remove US troops from
Afghanistan and ink this deal. And along comes this story as the peace process begins to
advance.
And what is the end-result? We haven't gotten into the domestic politics yet, but the
end-result is you have supposedly progressive senators like Chris Murphy of Connecticut
attacking Trump for not fighting Russia in Afghanistan. I mean, they want a straight-up proxy
war for not escalating. You have Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign
Relations, someone who's aligned with the Democratic Party, who supported the war in Iraq
and, you know, supports just endless war, demanding that the US turn up the heat not just in
Afghanistan but in Syria. So, you know, the escalatory rhetoric is at a fever pitch right
now, and it's obviously going to impact that peace conference.
Let's remember that three days before Trump's summit with Putin was when Mueller chose to
release the indictment of the GRU agents for supposedly hacking the DNC servers. Let's
remember that a day before the UN the United Nations Geneva peace talks opened on Syria in
2014 was when US intelligence chose to feed these shady Caesar photos, supposedly showing
industrial slaughter of Syrian prisoners, to The New York Times in an investigation
that had been funded by Qatar. Like, so many shady intelligence dumps have taken place ahead
of peace summits to disrupt them, because the US doesn't feel like it has enough skin in the
game or it just simply doesn't want peace in these areas.
So, that's what happened here. That's really, I think, the essential backdrop for the
timing of this story. It really reveals how completely decayed mainstream media is as an
institution, that none of these reporters protested the story, didn't see fit to do any
independent investigation into it. At best they would print a Russian denial which counts for
nothing in the US, or a Taliban denial which counts for nothing in the US. And then and this
gets into the domestic political angle because so much of Russiagate, while it's been crafted
by former or current intelligence officials, depends on the Democratic Party and it
punditocracy, MSNBC and mainstream media as a projection megaphone, as its Mighty Wurlitzer.
That took place in this case because, according to this story, Donald Trump had been briefed
on Putin paying bounties to the Taliban and he chose to do nothing. Which, of course Trump
denies, but that counts for nothing as well. But, again, there's been no independent
confirmation of any of this. And now we get into the domestic part, which is that this new
Republican anti-Trump operation, The Lincoln Project, had a flashy ad ready to go almost
minutes after the story dropped.
THE LINCOLN PROJECT AD: Now we know Vladimir Putin pays a bounty for the murder of
American soldiers. Donald Trump knows, too, and does nothing. Putin pays the Taliban cash to
slaughter our men and women in uniform and Trump is silent, weak, controlled. Instead of
condemnation he insists Russia be treated as our equal.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: I mean, maybe they're just really good editors and brilliant
politicians who work overtime. They're just, like, on meth at Steve Schmidt's political
Batcave, just churning this material out. But I feel like they had an inkling, like this
story was coming. It just the coordination and timing was impeccable.
And The Lincoln Project is something that James Carville, the veteran Democratic
consultant, has said is doing more than any Democrat or any Democratic consultant to elect
Joe Biden. They're always out there doing the hard work. Who are they? Well, Steve Schmidt is
a former campaign manager for John McCain 2008. And you look at the various personnel
affiliated with it, they're all McCain former McCain aides or people who worked on the Jeb
and George W. Bush campaigns, going back to Texas and Florida. This is sort of the corporate
wing of the Republican Party, the white-glove-country-club-patrician Republicans who are very
pro-war, who hate Donald Trump.
And by doing this, by them really taking the lead on this attack, as you pointed out,
Aaron, number one, they are sucking the oxygen out of the more progressive anti-Trump
initiatives that are taking place, including in the streets of American cities. They're
taking the wind out of anti-Trump more progressive anti-Trump critiques. For example, I think
it's actually more powerful to attack Trump over the fact that he used, basically, chemical
weapons on American peaceful protesters to do a fascistic photo-op. I don't know why there
wasn't some call for congressional investigations on that. And they are getting skin in the
game on the Biden campaign. It really feels to me like this Lincoln campaign operation, this
moderate Republican operation which is also sort of a venue for neocons, will have more
influence after events like this than the Bernie Sanders campaign, which has an enormous
amount of delegates.
So, that's what I think the domestic repercussion is. It's just this constant it's the
constant flow of Russiagate disinformation into the bloodstream of the Democratic Party and
its base that's moving that party constantly to the right, while pushing the US deeper into
this Cold War that only serves, you know, people who are associated with the national
security state who need to justify their paycheck and the budget of the institutions that
employ them.
AARON MATÉ: Let's assume for a second that the allegation is true, although,
you know, you've laid out some of the reasons why it's not. Can you talk about the history
here, starting with Afghanistan, something you cover a lot in your book, The Management of
Savagery, where the US aim was to kill Russians, going right on through to Syria, where
just recently the US envoy for the coalition against ISIS, James Jeffery, who handles Syria,
said that his job now is to basically put the Russians in a quagmire in Syria.
JAMES JEFFREY: This isn't Afghanistan. This isn't Vietnam. This isn't a quagmire.
My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah, I mean, it feels like a giant act of psychological and
political projection to accuse Russia of using an Islamist militia in Afghanistan as a proxy
against the US to bleed the US into leaving, because that's been the US playbook in Central
Asia and the Middle East since at least 1979. I just tweeted a photo of Dan Rather in
Afghanistan, just crossing the Pakistani border and going to meet with some of the Mujahideen
in 1980. Dan Rather was panned in The New York in The Washington Post by Tom
Toles [Tom Shales], who was the media critic at the time, as "Gunga Dan," because he was so
gung-ho for the Afghan mujahideen. In his reports he would complain about how weak their
weaponry was, you know, how they needed more how they needed more funding. I mean, you could
call it bounties, but it was really just CIA funding.
DAN RATHER: These are the best weapons you have, huh? They only have about twenty
rounds for this?
TRANSLATOR: That's all. They have twenty rounds. Yes, and they know that these are
all old weapons and they really aren't up to doing anything to the Russian weaponry that's
around. But that's all they have, and this is why they want help. And he is saying that
America seems to be asleep. It doesn't seem to realize that if Afghanistan goes and the
Russians go over to the Gulf, that in a very short time it's going to be the turn of the
United States as well.
DAN RATHER: But I'm sure he knows that in Vietnam we got our fingers burned.
Indeed, we got our whole hands burned when we tried to help in this kind of situation.
TRANSLATOR [translating to the Afghan man and then his reply]: Your hands were
burned in Vietnam, but if you don't agree to help us, if you don't ally yourself with us,
then all of you, your whole body will be burnt eventually, because there is no one in the
world who can really fight and resist as well as the as much and as well as the Afghans
are.
DAN RATHER: But no American mother wants to send her son to Afghanistan.
TRANSLATOR [translating to the Afghan man and then his reply]: We don't need
anybody's soldiers here to help us, but we are being constantly accused that the Americans
are helping us with weapons. What we need, actually, are the American weapons. We don't need
or want American soldiers. We can do the fighting ourselves.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: And a year or several months before, the Carter Administration, at
the urging of national security chief Zbigniew Brzezinski, had enacted what would become
Operation Cyclone under Reagan, an arm-and-equip program to arm the Afghan mujahideen. The
Saudis put up a matching fund which helped bring the so-called Services Bureau into the field
where Osama bin Laden became a recruiter for international jihadists to join the battlefield.
And, you know, the goal was, in the words of Brzezinski, as he later admitted to a French
publication, was to force the Red Army, the Soviet Red Army, to intervene to protect the
pro-Soviet government in Kabul, which they proceeded to do. And then with the introduction of
the Stinger missile, the Afghan mujahideen, hailed as freedom fighters in Washington, were
able to destroy Russian supply lines, exact a heavy toll, and forced the Red Army to leave in
retreat. They helped create what's considered the Soviet Union's Vietnam.
So that was really but the blueprint for what Russian for what Russia is being accused of
now, and that same model was transferred over to Syria. It was also actually proposed for
Iraq in the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998. Then Senate Foreign Relations chair Jesse Helms
actually said that the Afghan mujahideen should be our model for supporting the Iraqi
resistance. So, this kind of proxy war was always on the table. Then the US did it in Syria,
when one out of every $13 in the CIA budget went to arm the so-called "moderate rebels" in
Syria, who we later found out were 31 flavors of jihadi, who were aligned with al-Qaeda's
local affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra and helped give rise to ISIS. Michael Morell, I tweeted some
video of him on Charlie Rose back in, I think, 2016. He's the former acting director for the
CIA, longtime deputy director. He said, you know, the reason that we're in Syria, what we
should be doing is causing Iran and Russia, the two allies of Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian
president, to pay a heavy price.
MICHAEL MORELL: We need to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. We need to make
the Russians pay a price. The other thing
CHARLIE ROSE: We make them pay the price by killing killing Russians?
MICHAEL MORELL: Yes.
CHARLIE ROSE: And killing Iranians.
MICHAEL MORELL: Yes, covertly. You don't tell the world about it, right? You don't
stand up at the Pentagon and say we did this, right? But you make sure they know it in Moscow
and Tehran.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: What he means is by basically paying bounties, which the US was
literally doing along with its Gulf allies, to exact the toll on the allies of Assad, Russia.
So, let's just say it's true, according to your question, let's just say this is all true. It
would be a retaliation for what the United States has done to Russia in areas where it was
actually legally invited in by the governments in charge, either in Kabul or Damascus. And
that's, I think, the kind of ironic subtext that can hardly be understated when you see
someone like Dan Rather wag his finger at Putin for paying the Taliban as proxies. But, I
mean, it's such a ridiculous story that it's just hard to even fathom that it's real.
AARON MATÉ: Let me read Dan Rather's tweet, because it's so it speaks to
just how pervasive Russiagate culture is now. People have learned absolutely nothing from
it.
Rather says, "Reporters are trained to look for patterns that are suspicious, and time and
again one stands out with Donald Trump. Why is he so slavishly devoted to Putin? There is a
spectrum of possible answers ranging from craven to treasonous. One day I hope and suspect we
will find out."
It's like he forgot, perhaps, that Robert Mueller and his team spent three years
investigating this very issue and came up with absolutely nothing. But the narrative has
taken hold, and it's, as you talked about before, it's been the narrative we've been
presented as the vehicle for understanding and opposing Donald Trump, so it cannot be
questioned. And now it's like it's a matter of, what else is there to find out about Trump
and Russia after Robert Mueller and the US intelligence agencies looked for everything they
could and found nothing? They're still presented as if it's some kind of mystery that has to
be unraveled.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: And it was after, like, a week of just kind of neocon resistance
mind-explosion, where first John Bolton was hailed as this hero and truthteller about Trump.
Then Dick Cheney was welcomed into the resistance, you know, because he said, "Wear a mask."
I mean, you know, his mask was strangely not spattered with the blood of Iraqi children. But,
you know, it was just amazing like that. Of course, it was the Lincoln project who hijacked
the minds of the resistance, but basically people who used to work on Cheney's campaign said,
"Dick Cheney, welcome to the resistance." I mean, that was remarkable. And then you have this
and it, you know, today as you pointed out, Chuck Todd, "Chuck Toddler", welcomes on Meet
the Press John Bolton as this wise voice to comment on Donald Trump's slavish devotion to
Vladimir Putin and how we need to escalate.
CHUCK TODD, NBC: Let me ask you this. Do you think that part of the that the
president is afraid to make Putin mad because maybe Putin did help him win the election and
he doesn't want to make him mad for 2020?
MAX BLUMENTHAL: I mean, just a few years ago, maybe it was two years ago, before
Bolton was brought into the Trump NSC, he was considered just an absolute marginal crank who
was a contributor to Fox News. He'd been forgotten. He was widely hated by Democrats. Now
here he is as a sage voice to tell us how dangerous this moment is. And, you know, he's not
being even brought on just to promote his book; he's being brought on as just a sober-minded
foreign policy expert on Meet the Press . That's where we're at right now.
AARON MATÉ: Yeah, and when his critique of Trump is basically that Trump was
not hawkish enough. Bolton's most the biggest critique Bolton has of Trump is, as he writes
about in his book, is when Trump declined to bomb Iran after Iran shot down a drone over its
territory. And Bolton said that to him was the most irrational thing he's ever seen a
president do.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well, Bolton was mad that Trump confused body bags with missiles,
because he said Trump thought that there would be 150 dead Iranians, and I said, "No, Donald,
you're confused. It will be 150 missiles that we're firing into Iran." Like that's better!
Like, "Oh, okay, that makes everything all right," that we fire a hundred missiles for one
drone and maybe that wouldn't that kill possibly more than 150 people?
Well, in Bolton's world this was just another stupid move by Trump. If Bolton were, I
mean, just, just watch all the interviews with Bolton. Watch him on The View where the
only pushback he received was from Meghan McCain complaining that he ripped off a
Hamilton song for his book The Room Where It Happened , and she asked, "Don't
you have any apology to offer to Hamilton fans?" That was the pushback that Bolton
received. Just watch all of these interviews with Bolton and try to find the pushback. It's
not there. This is what Russiagate has done. It's taken one of the most Strangelovian,
psychotic, dangerous, bloodthirsty, sadistic monsters in US foreign policy circles and turned
him into a sober-minded, even heroic, truthteller.
AARON MATÉ: And inevitably the only long-term consequence that I can see
here is ultimately helping Trump, because, if history is a pattern, these Russiagate supposed
bombshells always either go nowhere or they get debunked. So, if this one gets forcefully
debunked, because I think it's quite possible, because Trump has said that he was never
briefed on this and they'll have to prove that he's lying, you know. It should be easy to do.
Someone could come out and say that. If they can't prove that he's lying, then this one, I
think, will blow up in their face. And all they will have done is, at a time when Trump is
vulnerable over the pandemic with over a hundred thousand people dead on his watch, all these
people did was ultimately try to bring the focus back to the same thing that failed for
basically the entirety of Trump's presidency, which is Russiagate and Trump's
supposed―and non-existent in reality―subservience to Vladimir Putin.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: But have you ever really confronted one of your liberal friends who
maybe doesn't follow these stories as closely as you do? You know, well-intentioned liberal
friend who just has this sense that Russia controls Trump, and asked them to really defend
that and provide the receipts and really explain where the Trump administration has just
handed the store to Russia? Because what we've seen is unprecedented since the height of the
Cold War, an unprecedented deterioration of US-Russia relations with new sanctions on Russia
every few months. You ask them to do that. They can't do it. It's just a sense they get, it's
a feeling they get. And that's because these bombshells drop, they get reported on the front
pages under banners of papers that declare that "democracy dies in darkness," whose brand is
something that everybody trusts, The New York Times , The Washington Post ,
Woodward and Bernstein, and everybody repeats the story again and again and again. And then,
if and when it gets debunked, discredited or just sort of disappears, a few days later
everybody forgets about it. And those people who are not just, like, 24/7 media consumers but
critical-minded media consumers, they're left with that sense that Russia actually controls
us and that we must do something to escalate with Russia. So, that's the point of these: by
the time the disinformation is discredited, the damage has already been done. And that same
tactic was employed against Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, to the point where so many people were
left with the sense that he must be an antisemite, although not one allegation was ever
proven.
AARON MATÉ: Yeah, and now to the point where, in the Labour Party―we
should touch on this for a second―where you had a Labour Party member retweet an
article recently that mentioned some criticism of Israel and for that she was expelled from
her position in the shadow cabinet.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah, well, you know, as a Jew I was really threatened by that
retweet [laughter]. I don't know about you.
I mean, this is Rebecca Long Bailey. She's one of the few Corbynites left in a high
position in Labour who hasn't been effectively burned at the stake for being a, you know, Jew
hater who wants to throw us all in gas chambers because she retweets an interview with some
celebrity I'd never heard of before, who didn't even say anything that extreme. But it really
shows how the Thought Police have taken control of the Labour Party through Sir Keir Starmer,
who is someone who has deep links to the national security state through the Crown
Prosecution Service, which he used to head, where he was involved in the prosecution of
Julian Assange. And he has worked with The Times of London, which is a, you know,
favorite paper of the national security state and the MI5 in the UK, for planting stories
against Jeremy Corbyn. He was intimately involved in that campaign, and now he's at the head
of the Labour Party for a very good reason. I really would recommend everyone watching this,
if you're interested more in who Keir Starmer really is, read "Five Questions for [New Labour
Leader] Sir Keir Starmer" by Matt Kennard at The Grayzone. It really lays it out and shows
you what's happening.
We're just in this kind of hyper-managed atmosphere, where everything feels so much more
controlled than it's ever been. And even though every sane rational person that I know seems
to understand what's happening, they feel like they're not allowed to say it, at least not in
any official capacity.
AARON MATÉ: From the US to Britain, everything is being co-opted. In the US
it's, you know, genuine resistance to Trump, in opposition to Trump, it gets co-opted by the
right. Same thing in Britain. People get manipulated into believing that Jeremy Corbyn, this
lifelong anti-racist is somehow an antisemite. It's all in the service of the same agenda,
and I have to say we're one of the few outlets that are pushing back on it. Everyone else is
getting swept up on it and it's a scary time.
We're gonna wrap. Max, your final comment.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well, yeah, we're pushing back. And I saw today Mint Press
[News], which is another outlet that has pushed back, their Twitter account was just
briefly removed for no reason, without explanation. Ollie Vargas, who's an independent
journalist who's doing some of the most important work in the English language from Bolivia,
reporting on the post-coup landscape and the repressive environment that's been created by
the junta installed with US help under Jeanine Áñez, his account has been taken
away on Twitter. The social media platforms are basically under the control of the national
security state. There's been a merger between the national security state and Silicon Valley,
and the space for these kinds of discussions is rapidly shrinking. So, I think, you know,
it's more important than ever to support alternative media and also to really have a clear
understanding of what's taking place. I'm really worried there just won't be any space for us
to have these conversations in the near future.
AARON MATÉ: Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone, author of The
Management of Savagery , thanks a lot.
Aaron Maté is a journalist and producer. He hosts Pushback with Aaron
Maté on The Grayzone. He is also is contributor to The Nation magazine and former
host/producer for The Real News and Democracy Now!. Aaron has also presented and produced for
Vice, AJ+, and Al Jazeera.
"... the essential backdrop for the timing of this story. It really reveals how completely decayed mainstream media is as an institution, that none of these reporters protested the story, didn't see fit to do any independent investigation into it. At best they would print a Russian denial which counts for nothing in the US, or a Taliban denial which counts for nothing in the US. And then and this gets into the domestic political angle because so much of Russiagate, while it's been crafted by former or current intelligence officials, depends on the Democratic Party and it punditocracy, MSNBC and mainstream media as a projection megaphone, as its Mighty Wurlitzer. ..."
"... That took place in this case because, according to this story, Donald Trump had been briefed on Putin paying bounties to the Taliban and he chose to do nothing. Which, of course Trump denies, but that counts for nothing as well. But, again, there's been no independent confirmation of any of this. And now we get into the domestic part, which is that this new Republican anti-Trump operation, The Lincoln Project, had a flashy ad ready to go almost minutes after the story dropped. ..."
"... They're just, like, on meth at Steve Schmidt's political Batcave, just churning this material out. But I feel like they had an inkling, like this story was coming. It just the coordination and timing was impeccable. ..."
"... And The Lincoln Project is something that James Carville, the veteran Democratic consultant, has said is doing more than any Democrat or any Democratic consultant to elect Joe Biden. ..."
"... the Carter Administration, at the urging of national security chief Zbigniew Brzezinski, had enacted what would become Operation Cyclone under Reagan, an arm-and-equip program to arm the Afghan mujahideen. The Saudis put up a matching fund which helped bring the so-called Services Bureau into the field where Osama bin Laden became a recruiter for international jihadists to join the battlefield. And, you know, the goal was, in the words of Brzezinski, as he later admitted to a French publication, was to force the Red Army, the Soviet Red Army, to intervene to protect the pro-Soviet government in Kabul, which they proceeded to do. ..."
"... What he means is by basically paying bounties, which the US was literally doing along with its Gulf allies, to exact the toll on the allies of Assad, Russia. So, let's just say it's true, according to your question, let's just say this is all true. It would be a retaliation for what the United States has done to Russia in areas where it was actually legally invited in by the governments in charge, either in Kabul or Damascus. And that's, I think, the kind of ironic subtext that can hardly be understated when you see someone like Dan Rather wag his finger at Putin for paying the Taliban as proxies. But, I mean, it's such a ridiculous story that it's just hard to even fathom that it's real. ..."
"... just kind of neocon resistance mind-explosion, where first John Bolton was hailed as this hero and truthteller about Trump. ..."
"... And then you have this and it, you know, today as you pointed out, Chuck Todd, "Chuck Toddler", welcomes on Meet the Press John Bolton as this wise voice to comment on Donald Trump's slavish devotion to Vladimir Putin and how we need to escalate. ..."
"... This is what Russiagate has done. It's taken one of the most Strangelovian, psychotic, dangerous, bloodthirsty, sadistic monsters in US foreign policy circles and turned him into a sober-minded, even heroic, truthteller. ..."
Max Blumenthal breaks down the "Russian bounty" story's flaws and how it aims to prolong the
war in Afghanistan -- and uses Russiagate tactics to continue pushing the Democratic Party to
the right
Multiple US media outlets, citing anonymous intelligence officials, are claiming that Russia
offered bounties to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan, and that President Trump has taken no
action.
Others are contesting that claim. "Officials said there was disagreement among
intelligence officials about the strength of the evidence about the suspected Russian
plot," the New York Times reports. "Notably, the National Security Agency, which specializes in
hacking and electronic surveillance, has been more skeptical."
"The constant flow of Russiagate disinformation into the bloodstream of the Democratic Party
and its base is moving that party constantly to the right, while pushing the US deeper into
this Cold War," Blumenthal says.
Guest: Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone and author of several books, including his
latest "The Management of Savagery."
TRANSCRIPT
AARON MATÉ: Welcome to Pushback, I'm Aaron Maté. There is a new supposed
Trump-Russia bombshell. The New York Times and other outlets reporting that Russia has
been paying bounties to Afghan militants to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan. Trump and the
White House were allegedly briefed on this information but have taken no action.
Now, the story has obvious holes, like many other Russiagate bombshells. It is sourced to
anonymous intelligence officials. The New York Times says that the claim comes from
Afghan detainees. And it also has some logical holes. The Taliban have been fighting the US and
Afghanistan for nearly two decades and never needed Russian payments before to kill the
Americans that they were fighting; [this] amongst other questions are raised about this story.
But that has not stopped the usual chorus from whipping up a frenzy.
RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC: Vladimir Putin is offering bounties for the scalps of American
soldiers in Afghanistan. Not only offering, offering money [to] the people who kill Americans,
but some of the bounties that Putin has offered have been collected, meaning the Russians at
least believe that their offering cash to kill Americans has actually worked to get some
Americans killed.
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Donald Trump has continued his embarrassing campaign
of deference and debasing himself before Vladimir Putin. He had has [sic] this information
according to The Times, and yet he offered to host Putin in the United States and sought
to invite Russia to rejoin the G7. He's in his entire presidency has been a gift to Putin, but
this is beyond the pale.
CHUCK TODD, NBC: Let me ask you this. Do you think that part of the that the
president is afraid to make Putin mad because maybe Putin did help him win the election and he
doesn't want to make him mad for 2020?
SENATE MINORITY LEADER CHUCK SCHUMER: I was not briefed on the Russian military
intelligence, but it shows that we need in this coming defense bill, which we're debating this
week, tough sanctions against Russia, which thus far Mitch McConnell has resisted.
Joining me now is Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone, author of The Management of
Savagery . Max, welcome to Pushback. What is your reaction to this story?
MAX BLUMENTHAL: I mean, it just feels like so many other episodes that we've
witnessed over the past three or four years, where American intelligence officials basically
plant a story in one outlet, The New York Times , which functions as the media wing of
the Central Intelligence Agency. Then no reporting takes place whatsoever, but six reporters,
or three to six reporters are assigned to the piece to make it look like it was some
last-minute scramble to confirm this bombshell story. And then the story is confirmed again by
The Washington Post because their reporters, their three to six reporters in, you know,
capitals around the world with different beats spoke to the same intelligence officials, or
they were furnished different officials who fed them the same story. And, of course, the story
advances a narrative that the United States is under siege by Russia and that we have to
escalate against Russia just ahead of another peace summit or some kind of international
dialogue.
This has sort of been the general framework for these Russiagate bombshells, and of course
they can there's always an anti-Trump angle. And because, you know, liberal pundits and the,
you know, Democratic Party operatives see this as a means to undermine Trump as the election
heats up. They don't care if it's true or not. They don't care what the consequences are.
They're just gonna completely roll with it. And it's really changed, I think, not just US
foreign policy, but it's changed the Democratic Party in an almost irreversible way, to have
these constant "quote-unquote" bombshells that are really generated by the Central Intelligence
Agency and by other US intelligence operations in order to turn up the heat to crank up the
Cold War, to use these different media organs which no longer believe in reporting, which see
Operation Mockingbird as a kind of blueprint for how to do journalism, to turn them into keys
on the CIA's Mighty Wurlitzer. That's what happened here.
AARON MATÉ: What do you make of the logic of this story? This idea that the
Taliban would need Russian money to kill Americans when the Taliban's been fighting the US for
nearly two decades now. And the sourcing for the story, the same old playbook: anonymous
intelligence officials who are citing vague claims about apparently what was said by Afghan
detainees.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: This story has, as I said, it relies on zero reporting. The only
source is anonymous American intelligence officials. And I tweeted out a clip of a former CIA
operations officer who managed the CIA's operation in Angola, when the US was actually fighting
on the side of apartheid South Africa against a Marxist government that was backed up by Cuban
troops. His name was John Stockwell. And Stockwell talked about how one-third of his covert
operations staff were propagandists, and that they would feed imaginary stories about Cuban
barbarism that were completely false to reporters who were either CIA assets directly or who
were just unwitting dupes who would hang on a line waiting for American intelligence officials
to feed them stories. And one out of every five stories was completely false, as Stockwell
said. We could play some of that clip now; it's pretty remarkable to watch it in light of this
latest fake bombshell.
JOHN STOCKWELL: Another thing is to disseminate propaganda to influence people's
minds, and this is a major function of the CIA. And unfortunately, of course, it overlaps into
the gathering of information. You, you have contact with a journalist, you will give him true
stories, you'll get information from him, you'll also give him false stories.
OFF-CAMERA REPORTER: Can you do this with responsible reporters?
JOHN STOCKWELL: Yes, the Church Committee brought it out in 1975. And then Woodward
and Bernstein put an article in Rolling Stone a couple of years later. Four hundred
journalists cooperating with the CIA, including some of the biggest names in the business.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: So, basically, I mean, you get the flavor of what someone who was in
the CIA at the height of the Cold War I mean, he did the same thing in Vietnam. And the
playbook is absolutely the same today. These this story was dumped on Friday in The New York
Times by "quote-unquote" American intelligence officials, as a breakthrough had been made
in Afghan peace talks and a conference was finally set for Doha, Qatar, that would involve the
Taliban, which had been seizing massive amounts of territory.
Now, it's my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the Taliban had been fighting
one of the most epic examples of an occupying army in modern history, just absolutely chewing
away at one of the most powerful militaries in human history in their country for the last 19
years, without bounties from Vladimir Putin or
private-hotdog-salesman-and-Saint-Petersburg-troll-farm-owner Yevgeny Prigozhin , who always comes up
in these stories. It's always the hotdog guy who's doing everything bad from, like, you know,
fake Facebook ads to poisoning Sergei Skripal or whatever.
But I just don't see where the Taliban needs encouragement from Putin to do that. It's their
country. They want the US out and they have succeeded in seizing large amounts of territory.
Donald Trump has come into office with a pledge to remove US troops from Afghanistan and ink
this deal. And along comes this story as the peace process begins to advance.
And what is the end-result? We haven't gotten into the domestic politics yet, but the
end-result is you have supposedly progressive senators like Chris Murphy of Connecticut
attacking Trump for not fighting Russia in Afghanistan. I mean, they want a straight-up proxy
war for not escalating. You have Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign
Relations, someone who's aligned with the Democratic Party, who supported the war in Iraq and,
you know, supports just endless war, demanding that the US turn up the heat not just in
Afghanistan but in Syria. So, you know, the escalatory rhetoric is at a fever pitch right now,
and it's obviously going to impact that peace conference.
Let's remember that three days before Trump's summit with Putin was when Mueller chose to
release the indictment of the GRU agents for supposedly hacking the DNC servers. Let's remember
that a day before the UN the United Nations Geneva peace talks opened on Syria in 2014 was when
US intelligence chose to feed these shady Caesar photos, supposedly showing industrial
slaughter of Syrian prisoners, to The New York Times in an investigation that had been
funded by Qatar. Like, so many shady intelligence dumps have taken place ahead of peace summits
to disrupt them, because the US doesn't feel like it has enough skin in the game or it just
simply doesn't want peace in these areas.
So, that's what happened here. That's really, I think, the essential backdrop for the timing
of this story. It really reveals how completely decayed mainstream media is as an institution,
that none of these reporters protested the story, didn't see fit to do any independent
investigation into it. At best they would print a Russian denial which counts for nothing in
the US, or a Taliban denial which counts for nothing in the US. And then and this gets into the
domestic political angle because so much of Russiagate, while it's been crafted by former or
current intelligence officials, depends on the Democratic Party and it punditocracy, MSNBC and
mainstream media as a projection megaphone, as its Mighty Wurlitzer.
That took place in this
case because, according to this story, Donald Trump had been briefed on Putin paying bounties
to the Taliban and he chose to do nothing. Which, of course Trump denies, but that counts for
nothing as well. But, again, there's been no independent confirmation of any of this. And now
we get into the domestic part, which is that this new Republican anti-Trump operation, The
Lincoln Project, had a flashy ad ready to go almost minutes after the story dropped.
THE LINCOLN PROJECT AD: Now we know Vladimir Putin pays a bounty for the murder of
American soldiers. Donald Trump knows, too, and does nothing. Putin pays the Taliban cash to
slaughter our men and women in uniform and Trump is silent, weak, controlled. Instead of
condemnation he insists Russia be treated as our equal.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: I mean, maybe they're just really good editors and brilliant
politicians who work overtime. They're just, like, on meth at Steve Schmidt's political Batcave, just churning this material out. But I feel like they had an inkling, like this story
was coming. It just the coordination and timing was impeccable.
And The Lincoln Project is something that James Carville, the veteran Democratic consultant,
has said is doing more than any Democrat or any Democratic consultant to elect Joe Biden.
They're always out there doing the hard work. Who are they? Well, Steve Schmidt is a former
campaign manager for John McCain 2008. And you look at the various personnel affiliated with
it, they're all McCain former McCain aides or people who worked on the Jeb and George W. Bush
campaigns, going back to Texas and Florida. This is sort of the corporate wing of the
Republican Party, the white-glove-country-club-patrician Republicans who are very pro-war, who
hate Donald Trump.
And by doing this, by them really taking the lead on this attack, as you pointed out, Aaron,
number one, they are sucking the oxygen out of the more progressive anti-Trump initiatives that
are taking place, including in the streets of American cities. They're taking the wind out of
anti-Trump more progressive anti-Trump critiques. For example, I think it's actually more
powerful to attack Trump over the fact that he used, basically, chemical weapons on American
peaceful protesters to do a fascistic photo-op. I don't know why there wasn't some call for
congressional investigations on that. And they are getting skin in the game on the Biden
campaign. It really feels to me like this Lincoln campaign operation, this moderate Republican
operation which is also sort of a venue for neocons, will have more influence after events like
this than the Bernie Sanders campaign, which has an enormous amount of delegates.
So, that's what I think the domestic repercussion is. It's just this constant it's the
constant flow of Russiagate disinformation into the bloodstream of the Democratic Party and its
base that's moving that party constantly to the right, while pushing the US deeper into this
Cold War that only serves, you know, people who are associated with the national security state
who need to justify their paycheck and the budget of the institutions that employ them.
AARON MATÉ: Let's assume for a second that the allegation is true, although, you
know, you've laid out some of the reasons why it's not. Can you talk about the history here,
starting with Afghanistan, something you cover a lot in your book, The Management of
Savagery, where the US aim was to kill Russians, going right on through to Syria, where
just recently the US envoy for the coalition against ISIS, James Jeffery, who handles Syria,
said that his job now is to basically put the Russians in a quagmire in Syria.
JAMES JEFFREY: This isn't Afghanistan. This isn't Vietnam. This isn't a quagmire. My
job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah, I mean, it feels like a giant act of psychological and
political projection to accuse Russia of using an Islamist militia in Afghanistan as a proxy
against the US to bleed the US into leaving, because that's been the US playbook in Central
Asia and the Middle East since at least 1979. I just tweeted a photo of Dan Rather in
Afghanistan, just crossing the Pakistani border and going to meet with some of the Mujahideen
in 1980. Dan Rather was panned in The New York in The Washington Post by Tom
Toles [Tom Shales], who was the media critic at the time, as "Gunga Dan," because he was so
gung-ho for the Afghan mujahideen. In his reports he would complain about how weak their
weaponry was, you know, how they needed more how they needed more funding. I mean, you could
call it bounties, but it was really just CIA funding.
DAN RATHER: These are the best weapons you have, huh? They only have about twenty
rounds for this?
TRANSLATOR: That's all. They have twenty rounds. Yes, and they know that these are
all old weapons and they really aren't up to doing anything to the Russian weaponry that's
around. But that's all they have, and this is why they want help. And he is saying that America
seems to be asleep. It doesn't seem to realize that if Afghanistan goes and the Russians go
over to the Gulf, that in a very short time it's going to be the turn of the United States as
well.
DAN RATHER: But I'm sure he knows that in Vietnam we got our fingers burned. Indeed,
we got our whole hands burned when we tried to help in this kind of situation.
TRANSLATOR [translating to the Afghan man and then his reply]: Your hands were burned
in Vietnam, but if you don't agree to help us, if you don't ally yourself with us, then all of
you, your whole body will be burnt eventually, because there is no one in the world who can
really fight and resist as well as the as much and as well as the Afghans are.
DAN RATHER: But no American mother wants to send her son to Afghanistan.
TRANSLATOR [translating to the Afghan man and then his reply]: We don't need
anybody's soldiers here to help us, but we are being constantly accused that the Americans are
helping us with weapons. What we need, actually, are the American weapons. We don't need or
want American soldiers. We can do the fighting ourselves.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: And a year or several months before, the Carter Administration, at
the urging of national security chief Zbigniew Brzezinski, had enacted what would become
Operation Cyclone under Reagan, an arm-and-equip program to arm the Afghan mujahideen. The
Saudis put up a matching fund which helped bring the so-called Services Bureau into the field
where Osama bin Laden became a recruiter for international jihadists to join the battlefield.
And, you know, the goal was, in the words of Brzezinski, as he later admitted to a French
publication, was to force the Red Army, the Soviet Red Army, to intervene to protect the
pro-Soviet government in Kabul, which they proceeded to do.
And then with the introduction of
the Stinger missile, the Afghan mujahideen, hailed as freedom fighters in Washington, were able
to destroy Russian supply lines, exact a heavy toll, and forced the Red Army to leave in
retreat. They helped create what's considered the Soviet Union's Vietnam.
So that was really but the blueprint for what Russian for what Russia is being accused of
now, and that same model was transferred over to Syria. It was also actually proposed for Iraq
in the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998. Then Senate Foreign Relations chair Jesse Helms actually
said that the Afghan mujahideen should be our model for supporting the Iraqi resistance. So,
this kind of proxy war was always on the table. Then the US did it in Syria, when one out of
every $13 in the CIA budget went to arm the so-called "moderate rebels" in Syria, who we later
found out were 31 flavors of jihadi, who were aligned with al-Qaeda's local affiliate Jabhat
al-Nusra and helped give rise to ISIS. Michael Morell, I tweeted some video of him on Charlie
Rose back in, I think, 2016. He's the former acting director for the CIA, longtime deputy
director. He said, you know, the reason that we're in Syria, what we should be doing is causing
Iran and Russia, the two allies of Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, to pay a heavy
price.
MICHAEL MORELL: We need to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. We need to make
the Russians pay a price. The other thing
CHARLIE ROSE: We make them pay the price by killing killing Russians?
MICHAEL MORELL: Yes.
CHARLIE ROSE: And killing Iranians.
MICHAEL MORELL: Yes, covertly. You don't tell the world about it, right? You don't
stand up at the Pentagon and say we did this, right? But you make sure they know it in Moscow
and Tehran.
MAX BLUMENTHAL:What he means is by basically paying bounties, which the US was
literally doing along with its Gulf allies, to exact the toll on the allies of Assad, Russia.
So, let's just say it's true, according to your question, let's just say this is all true. It
would be a retaliation for what the United States has done to Russia in areas where it was
actually legally invited in by the governments in charge, either in Kabul or Damascus. And
that's, I think, the kind of ironic subtext that can hardly be understated when you see someone
like Dan Rather wag his finger at Putin for paying the Taliban as proxies. But, I mean, it's
such a ridiculous story that it's just hard to even fathom that it's real.
AARON MATÉ: Let me read Dan Rather's tweet, because it's so it speaks to just
how pervasive Russiagate culture is now. People have learned absolutely nothing from it.
Rather says, "Reporters are trained to look for patterns that are suspicious, and time and
again one stands out with Donald Trump. Why is he so slavishly devoted to Putin? There is a
spectrum of possible answers ranging from craven to treasonous. One day I hope and suspect we
will find out."
It's like he forgot, perhaps, that Robert Mueller and his team spent three years
investigating this very issue and came up with absolutely nothing. But the narrative has taken
hold, and it's, as you talked about before, it's been the narrative we've been presented as the
vehicle for understanding and opposing Donald Trump, so it cannot be questioned. And now it's
like it's a matter of, what else is there to find out about Trump and Russia after Robert
Mueller and the US intelligence agencies looked for everything they could and found nothing?
They're still presented as if it's some kind of mystery that has to be unraveled.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: And it was after, like, a week of just kind of neocon resistance
mind-explosion, where first John Bolton was hailed as this hero and truthteller about Trump.
Then Dick Cheney was welcomed into the resistance, you know, because he said, "Wear a mask." I
mean, you know, his mask was strangely not spattered with the blood of Iraqi children. But, you
know, it was just amazing like that. Of course, it was the Lincoln project who hijacked the
minds of the resistance, but basically people who used to work on Cheney's campaign said, "Dick
Cheney, welcome to the resistance." I mean, that was remarkable. And then you have this and it,
you know, today as you pointed out, Chuck Todd, "Chuck Toddler", welcomes on Meet the
Press John Bolton as this wise voice to comment on Donald Trump's slavish devotion to
Vladimir Putin and how we need to escalate.
CHUCK TODD, NBC: Let me ask you this. Do you think that part of the that the
president is afraid to make Putin mad because maybe Putin did help him win the election and he
doesn't want to make him mad for 2020?
MAX BLUMENTHAL: I mean, just a few years ago, maybe it was two years ago, before
Bolton was brought into the Trump NSC, he was considered just an absolute marginal crank who
was a contributor to Fox News. He'd been forgotten. He was widely hated by Democrats. Now here
he is as a sage voice to tell us how dangerous this moment is. And, you know, he's not being
even brought on just to promote his book; he's being brought on as just a sober-minded foreign
policy expert on Meet the Press . That's where we're at right now.
AARON MATÉ: Yeah, and when his critique of Trump is basically that Trump was not
hawkish enough. Bolton's most the biggest critique Bolton has of Trump is, as he writes about
in his book, is when Trump declined to bomb Iran after Iran shot down a drone over its
territory. And Bolton said that to him was the most irrational thing he's ever seen a president
do.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well, Bolton was mad that Trump confused body bags with missiles,
because he said Trump thought that there would be 150 dead Iranians, and I said, "No, Donald,
you're confused. It will be 150 missiles that we're firing into Iran." Like that's better!
Like, "Oh, okay, that makes everything all right," that we fire a hundred missiles for one
drone and maybe that wouldn't that kill possibly more than 150 people?
Well, in Bolton's world this was just another stupid move by Trump. If Bolton were, I mean,
just, just watch all the interviews with Bolton. Watch him on The View where the only
pushback he received was from Meghan McCain complaining that he ripped off a Hamilton
song for his book The Room Where It Happened , and she asked, "Don't you have any
apology to offer to Hamilton fans?" That was the pushback that Bolton received. Just
watch all of these interviews with Bolton and try to find the pushback. It's not there. This is
what Russiagate has done. It's taken one of the most Strangelovian, psychotic, dangerous,
bloodthirsty, sadistic monsters in US foreign policy circles and turned him into a
sober-minded, even heroic, truthteller.
AARON MATÉ: And inevitably the only long-term consequence that I can see here is
ultimately helping Trump, because, if history is a pattern, these Russiagate supposed
bombshells always either go nowhere or they get debunked. So, if this one gets forcefully
debunked, because I think it's quite possible, because Trump has said that he was never briefed
on this and they'll have to prove that he's lying, you know. It should be easy to do. Someone
could come out and say that. If they can't prove that he's lying, then this one, I think, will
blow up in their face. And all they will have done is, at a time when Trump is vulnerable over
the pandemic with over a hundred thousand people dead on his watch, all these people did was
ultimately try to bring the focus back to the same thing that failed for basically the entirety
of Trump's presidency, which is Russiagate and Trump's supposed―and non-existent in
reality―subservience to Vladimir Putin.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: But have you ever really confronted one of your liberal friends who
maybe doesn't follow these stories as closely as you do? You know, well-intentioned liberal
friend who just has this sense that Russia controls Trump, and asked them to really defend that
and provide the receipts and really explain where the Trump administration has just handed the
store to Russia? Because what we've seen is unprecedented since the height of the Cold War, an
unprecedented deterioration of US-Russia relations with new sanctions on Russia every few
months. You ask them to do that. They can't do it. It's just a sense they get, it's a feeling
they get. And that's because these bombshells drop, they get reported on the front pages under
banners of papers that declare that "democracy dies in darkness," whose brand is something that
everybody trusts, The New York Times , The Washington Post , Woodward and
Bernstein, and everybody repeats the story again and again and again. And then, if and when it
gets debunked, discredited or just sort of disappears, a few days later everybody forgets about
it. And those people who are not just, like, 24/7 media consumers but critical-minded media
consumers, they're left with that sense that Russia actually controls us and that we must do
something to escalate with Russia. So, that's the point of these: by the time the
disinformation is discredited, the damage has already been done. And that same tactic was
employed against Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, to the point where so many people were left with the
sense that he must be an antisemite, although not one allegation was ever proven.
AARON MATÉ: Yeah, and now to the point where, in the Labour Party―we
should touch on this for a second―where you had a Labour Party member retweet an article
recently that mentioned some criticism of Israel and for that she was expelled from her
position in the shadow cabinet.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah, well, you know, as a Jew I was really threatened by that
retweet [laughter]. I don't know about you.
I mean, this is Rebecca Long Bailey. She's one of the few Corbynites left in a high position
in Labour who hasn't been effectively burned at the stake for being a, you know, Jew hater who
wants to throw us all in gas chambers because she retweets an interview with some celebrity I'd
never heard of before, who didn't even say anything that extreme. But it really shows how the
Thought Police have taken control of the Labour Party through Sir Keir Starmer, who is someone
who has deep links to the national security state through the Crown Prosecution Service, which
he used to head, where he was involved in the prosecution of Julian Assange. And he has worked
with The Times of London, which is a, you know, favorite paper of the national security
state and the MI5 in the UK, for planting stories against Jeremy Corbyn. He was intimately
involved in that campaign, and now he's at the head of the Labour Party for a very good reason.
I really would recommend everyone watching this, if you're interested more in who Keir Starmer
really is, read "Five Questions for [New Labour Leader] Sir Keir Starmer" by Matt Kennard at
The Grayzone. It really lays it out and shows you what's happening.
We're just in this kind of hyper-managed atmosphere, where everything feels so much more
controlled than it's ever been. And even though every sane rational person that I know seems to
understand what's happening, they feel like they're not allowed to say it, at least not in any
official capacity.
AARON MATÉ: From the US to Britain, everything is being co-opted. In the US
it's, you know, genuine resistance to Trump, in opposition to Trump, it gets co-opted by the
right. Same thing in Britain. People get manipulated into believing that Jeremy Corbyn, this
lifelong anti-racist is somehow an antisemite. It's all in the service of the same agenda, and
I have to say we're one of the few outlets that are pushing back on it. Everyone else is
getting swept up on it and it's a scary time.
We're gonna wrap. Max, your final comment.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well, yeah, we're pushing back. And I saw today Mint Press
[News], which is another outlet that has pushed back, their Twitter account was just
briefly removed for no reason, without explanation. Ollie Vargas, who's an independent
journalist who's doing some of the most important work in the English language from Bolivia,
reporting on the post-coup landscape and the repressive environment that's been created by the
junta installed with US help under Jeanine Áñez, his account has been taken away on
Twitter. The social media platforms are basically under the control of the national security
state. There's been a merger between the national security state and Silicon Valley, and the
space for these kinds of discussions is rapidly shrinking. So, I think, you know, it's more
important than ever to support alternative media and also to really have a clear understanding
of what's taking place. I'm really worried there just won't be any space for us to have these
conversations in the near future.
AARON MATÉ: Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone, author of The Management
of Savagery , thanks a lot.
Max Abrahms @MaxAbrahms - 16:07 UTC · Jul 3,
2020
RussiaGate stories follow a predictable pattern:
1. Explosive allegation
2. Media goes nuts
3. Evidence disproves or at best weakly supports allegation which is much less damning than
sold
4. Media moves on to next explosive allegation without apology
Wrongly accusing Russia started way before 'Russiagate':
> For five years, the sporting world has been gripped by Russian manipulation of the
anti-doping system. Now new evidence suggests the whistleblower who went into a witness
protection program during the scandal may not have been entirely truthful. <
The Russian president's special envoy for Afghanistan affairs, Zamir Kabulov, on Saturday
accused US intelligence in Afghanistan of "drug trafficking," reported Tass, a Russian news
agency.
Following a New York Times story alleging that a Russian unit was offering bounties to
Taliban-linked militants to kill US-led coalition troops in Afghanistan, Kabulov responded to
the allegations, saying that US intelligence officers, who "accuse us of different things," are
involved in "drug trafficking."
"Those wonderful US intelligence officers, who accuse us of different things, are involved
in drug trafficking. Their planes from Kandahar, from Bagram [airfield near Kabul] are flying
wherever they want to - to Germany, to Romania - without any inspections," he said. "Every
citizen of Kabul will tell you that, everyone is ready to talk about that," said Tass quoting
Kabulov speaking to a state-run tv channel.
The New York Times report said that there were different theories on why Russia would
support Taliban attacks, "including a desire to keep the United States bogged down in war."
The Taliban operation was "led by a unit known as the GRU," said the Times article, "which
has been blamed in numerous international incidents including a 2018
chemical weapons attack in Britain that nearly killed Russian-born double agent Sergei
Skripal."
The New York Times quoted a Kremlin spokesman saying that Russia was unaware of the
accusations.
The Taliban also rejected the allegations.
Russia has more recently been accused by the United States of quietly providing weapons to
the Taliban.
The US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Wednesday last week, in remarks to the press on the
reports of Russian bounties for Taliban fighters who kill Americans, said: "The fact that the
Russians are engaged in Afghanistan in a way that's adverse to the United States is nothing
new."
"Some members of Congress who are out there today suggesting that they are shocked and
appalled by this, they saw the same intelligence that we saw. So it would be interesting to ask
them what they did when they saw whatever intelligence it is that they are referring to,"
Pompeo said.
Following Pompeo's remarks about Russia, a source on Thursday confirmed to TOLOnews that the
man who controls the transaction is named Rahmat Sia and he is the owner of a construction
company.
Rahmatullah Azizi is his given name, but he is known as Rahmat Sia. He lives in Russia.
According to the source, Rahmatullah's brother, his driver, his cousin and a Forex dealer
have been arrested by the Afghan security forces in PD4 of Kabul city.
Schiff demands the Trump administration brief all of Congress about the unverified
allegations, yet he himself did not ask for a briefing following the February briefing of his
own staff.
As chairman of the intelligence committee, Schiff had the authority to immediately
brief the full committee and convene hearings on the matter. Schiff, however, did nothing. He
did not brief his committee on the matter, nor did he brief the gang of 8, which consists of
top congressional leadership in both chambers .
####
It yet again goes to show how the Dems dirty tricks can compete with that of the Repubs.
Will the US media ignore this or just move on to another story?
Ben Norton
@BenjaminNorton
The CIA's shady "Russian bounties" leaks are having their intended impact: sabotaging efforts
to end the war in Afghanistan.
The bipartisan House Armed Services Committee just voted to block Trump from withdrawing
from Afghanistan.
Bipartisan imperialism
//////Next there will be more sanctions on Russia for a fake story.
Trump is not supported by his own party – both sides are loyal only to eg military
industrial complex
Doesn't matter in the least. Things have gone so far past the possibility of the USA and
Russia ever having friendly relations again in our lifetimes that when the USA is chuckling
to itself over how it is fucking things up for Russia, it is only fucking things up for
itself. Russia is moving ahead on the assumption that the west is a write-off, or at least
the North American part of it, and while it may continue to warily court Europe, the best
chance the USA ever had of taking down Russia is already years in the past. It took a long
time to learn the American pattern of smile-and-backstab, but Russia has learned it now and
the decision has been made. If the USA wants to stay in Afghanistan until the judgment trump,
brooding obsessively over its empire of mud huts and walnut trees, fine. It's not hurting
Russia. I do think, though, that the next time the USA tries to stir up a pocket religious
war by claiming the 'rise of ISIS' in some choice target country by injecting its pet
militants, it is going to meet with resistance to the narrative, and would be about as able
to form a coalition of the willing as it would a march of the dead.
... CIA's demonstrated command and execution of the coup d'état against JFK, as
comprehensively summarized by Douglass (and Salandria and Prouty and Valentine and many
others:)
This is a common tactic among domestic CIA propagandists: skate over unsupported
assertions on the way to a separate topic, leaving core CIA doctrine as an unexamined notion
picked while you were pondering something else (in this case, the evident verity that George
Soros is fulla shit.)
I will testify as to my hypothesis Allan Dulles was the organizer of the hit on JFK, and
that CIA operatives took out RFK five years later, if I get deposed as an "expert witness"
after all our history has been memory holed, and truther books have been banned. (Coming to a
country formerly known as a Western democracy)
Those who have the privilege to know have the duty to act
– Albert Einstein
As much as I like Giraldi calling out Zionist sins, he obfuscates the nature and
insidiousness of SARS-CoV-2 and tries to blame JFK's murder on Cuba & Israel.
Comment #5 calls out his error by omission of CIA's role in the November 22 assassination.
As I always say, Whom does the CIA serve??? The Dulles Bros have been serving multinational
corporations (United Fruit in central America, for example, and rich banksters) since the
1920's and Allan may have been a channel to pass financial support to Hitler via Swiss banks
during WWII.
The Zionist and Saudi connections to 9/11 are many and worthy of lengthy investigations I
think Giraldi might have done better sticking to false pretenses that got us into Vietnam and
Iraq
@Vidalus
Ruby, LBJ's association with Jews in TX and with supreme court jewish judge . One has to look
into the demands made by Kennedy on Israel's Ben Gurion . One has to bring in the designation
battle around Jewish agencies around same time – foreign lobby or not .
Mossad used the troubled waters to fish big . Kennedy was thertaenin g banks CIA and
burgeoning military industrial complex . They did not kill CIA couldn't have done it without
Mossad . CIA knew it . James Angleton was working with Mossad
Past contact with Hitler or Nazi was no barrier for either Mossad or CIA to work together
or agisnt each other . Those kind of barriers matter in personal friendships and for scoring
points on TV or in Town Hall debates .
The safety of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan does not appear to be the motive in
intelligence agency leaks to the media about the alleged Russian "bounties," says Joe
Lauria.
Special to Consortium News
T he Los Angeles Timesreported
Thursday night that a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, which Donald Trump
had demanded, has been put off until after the U.S. presidential election in November.
Maintaining imperial interests in Afghanistan seems to be one of the main reasons for the
so-far uncorroborated, possibly cooked-up "scandal" known now as Bountygate.
Other motives appear to be the same twofer that was at the core of Russiagate: first,
unnamed intelligence officials meddling in domestic U.S. politics, this time to undermine
Trump's re-election campaign; and, second, to even further demonize and pressure Russia.
The public has been subjected to daily morsels of supposedly factual stories meant to
further deepen the plot. The first item dropped online on June 26 with The New York
Times' initial
reporting on the say-so of "American intelligence officials."
It seemed yet another attempt to launder disinformation through big media, giving it more
credibility than if it had come directly from the security services. A discerning reader,
however, would want more than the word of a bunch of spooks who make a living practicing
deception.
The "evidence" for the story that Russia paid the Taliban to kill U.S. soldiers came from
interrogation of Afghan detainees. If the interrogations were "enhanced" the evidence is even
more unreliable.
For the record, Consortium News supports no candidate and has been a strong
critic of Trump. But we see intelligence agencies' insertion into domestic politics to be a
greater threat than even eight years of Trump. As spooks like to say, "Administrations come and
go. And we're still here."
Meddling Again in Politics
Trumped briefed in the Oval Office, Sept 2017. (Official White House Photo by Shealah
Craighead)
A main purpose of this planted Times story was made clear in the following paragraph,
and it's been the constant theme since, seized on by Trump critics from the Lincoln
Project to Democratic candidate Joe Biden:
" The intelligence finding was briefed to President Trump, and the White House's National
Security Council discussed the problem at an interagency meeting in late March, the
officials said. Officials developed a menu of potential options -- starting with making a
diplomatic complaint to Moscow and a demand that it stop, along with an escalating series of
sanctions and other possible responses, but the White House has yet to authorize any
step , the officials said." [Emphasis added.]
The inference is that Trump knew about it for months and didn't do anything,
obviously because he's a Kremlin agent.
Trump said he was unaware of the "intelligence." John Ratcliffe, the director of national
intelligence, put out a statement on June 27 saying Trump had not been briefed on it.
But the Times that day quoted an "American intelligence official" (another one or the
same?) saying:
" it was included in the President's Daily Brief, a written document which draws from
spywork to make analytic predictions about longstanding adversaries, unfolding plots and
emerging crises around the world. The briefing document is given to the president to read and
they serve as the basis for oral briefings to him several times a week."
The Times did not say that Trump was orally told about it. I suspect the CIA gave it
to him only in print, and knowing Trump doesn't entirely read his daily written briefings, did
not orally tell him, making him out to be a liar by leaking this information.
But this raised the immediate question: If this were such an urgent matter that Trump had
ignored for more than three months, why hadn't CIA Director Gina Haspel demanded, in all that
time, an immediate Oval Office meeting with Trump to urge him to act? After all, isn't the
CIA's job supposed to be to protect Americans?
" If this was even close to being confirmed, Haspel would have briefed directly given the
sensitivity of the subject," Scott Ritter, a former U.S. counterterrorism officer, told me by
email. Haspel, distancing herself from the controversy, put out a statement condemning the
leaks to the Times , saying they "compromise and disrupt the critical interagency work
to collect, assess, and ascribe culpability."
Clearly the purpose of this leaked story was not to protect the lives of American
soldiers.
Denials All Around
Trump speaks to members of the National Security Council during a meeting at the Pentagon in
2017. (DoD photo by Army Sgt. Amber I. Smith)
The story is being ginned-up with small leaks everyday despite denials from the Taliban,
Moscow and statements from the National Security Council, the
National Security Agency, the Pentagon and the director of national intelligence that
undermine its credibility. National Security Council officials said the information had not
been sufficiently corroborated to be brought to Trump's attention.
"Because the allegations in recent press articles have not been verified or substantiated by
the Intelligence Community, President Trump had not been briefed on the items," said Robert
O'Brien, the national security advisor.
"We are still investigating the alleged interference referenced in media reporting and we
will brief the President and Congressional leaders at the appropriate time," said John
Ratcliffe, director of national intelligence.
Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said in a
statement: "The Department of Defense continues to evaluate intelligence that Russian GRU
operatives were engaged in malign activity against United States and coalition forces in
Afghanistan. To date, DOD has no corroborating evidence to validate the recent allegations
found in open-source reports."
Ray McGovern, the former CIA analyst, said: "I helped prepare The President's Daily
Brief for Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan, and personally conducted the one-on-one
morning briefings in the Oval Office from 1981 to 1985. In those days we did our best to
corroborate reporting -- especially on highly sensitive issues -- and did not try to cover our
derrieres by alerting the president and his top aides to highly dubious reporting, however
sexy."
The Wall Street Journal
reported that the NSA "strongly dissented" from the assessment on the bounties, citing
"people familiar with the matter."
Even the anti-Putin Moscow Times doesn't buy the story.
The initial story has been followed up by new leaks nearly every day. First we
heard from the Times of an electronic transfer from a bank account controlled by the
GRU, Russian military intelligence, to the Taliban. We are not told what this money was for.
Was there a line item for "killing American soldiers?" The Times reports:
" Though the United States has accused Russia
of providing general support to the Taliban before, analysts concluded from other
intelligence that the transfers were most likely part of a bounty program that
detainees described during interrogations." [Emphasis added.]
" Other intelligence" that is not cited "most likely" meant it was part of the bounty
"program" is hardly convincing reporting.
Anyone who knows anything about intelligence operations knows that such payments would be
made by cash on the ground in Afghanistan and not by leaving a discoverable paper trail. The
cash would come from Russian officials in Afghanistan, not wired to a Taliban account. This is
the same portrayal of a bumbling, unprofessional Russian intelligence service that supposedly
left Cyrillic letters and the name of the first Soviet secret police chief in the metadata of
its alleged hacks of the DNC. At the same time we are meant to be deathly afraid of these
amateurs.
The alleged money sent by bank transfer was supposedly handed out in cash on the battlefield
by a "lowly drug dealer" who puzzled his neighbors because he was suddenly driving a fancy car.
Rahmatullah Azizi, the Times says, got the cash in Russia:
" U.S. intelligence reports named Mr. Azizi as a key middleman between the G.R.U. and
militants linked to the Taliban who carried out the attacks. He was among those who
collected the cash in Russia, which intelligence files described as multiple payments
of 'hundreds of thousands of dollars.'" [Emphasis added.]
This contradicts the Times ' earlier story that the money was transferred
electronically. Now the cash was collected in Russia. Azizi associates were arrested and a
half-million dollars was found in his house. The Times, however, does not say what they
were charged with.
" Just how the money was dispersed to militants carrying out attacks for the Taliban, and at
what level the coordination occurred, remains unclear," the Times reports. Indeed. In an
earlier era of journalism that would incite an editor to bark, "Don't put it in the story until
you find out."
Mission Accomplished
The three goals of the leaks are being accomplished:
Trump is being dogged by the story
with no let up. Debunked Russiagate stories about him being a Kremlin tool have been revived.
Russia is further demonized, not just as the destroyer of American democracy, but as the
destroyer of American lives. The troops are staying put in Afghanistan over Trump's objections.
The LA Times story said the decision to keep a little more than 4,000 troops there
was made "late last month," around the time The New York Times story broke.
" The plan, worked out at a meeting between Pentagon and White House officials late last
month, would represent an about-face for President Trump. He has pushed for a complete
withdrawal of the 8,600 troops now in Afghanistan by the election, seeing a pullout as a
much-needed foreign policy achievement as his reelection prospects have deteriorated. Trump
had only recently told advisors that a full and rapid pullout could blunt the controversy
over intelligence reports that Russia has paid militants to kill American service members,
one official said."
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent
forThe Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe,Sunday Timesof London and numerous other newspapers. He began his
professional career as a stringer for The New York Times. He can be reached at [email protected] and followed on Twitter
@unjoe .
vinnieoh , July 4, 2020 at 16:50
And, come Sunday morning all the beltway boobs (Shit The Press, Washington Bleat, Fuck the
Nation) will breathlessly try to engage the sheep in their latest xxxx-gate spectacle.
Anything but talk about themselves and how they're sucking the blood out of all of us.
Two things not mentioned yet: was there no-one aboard Trump's Ship of Fools that saw them
sailing into mined waters? (essential clarification: it was a "cloaked" mine, latent,
waiting.)
Second: for how many decades now 5, 6? the Congress slumbers while their dogs of war roam,
but immediately snap to wakefulness if those dogs are summoned to their cages. The Congress
now, dejectedly admitting (/s) that they have been beaten, can no longer authorize wars, only
block their ending. I've often believed that the reason this is so, is because they have
become sooo convinced that payback is gonna be a real bitch. Who wouldn't? And I fear for my
grandson and his generations. Sorry kid, I just didn't count – I wuz invizibel!
Mark Thomason , July 4, 2020 at 16:42
Missile Gap. This is not the first time that hawkish hysteria was used for purely domestic
politics.
The payback hoped for goes beyond the election, to promote hawkish policies that otherwise
would have far fewer supporters.
dean 1000 , July 4, 2020 at 16:16
The soft coup efforts continue as the dirty turkeys( not a Rock group) strike again
claiming that Taliban POWs said Russian military intelligence paid bounties to Taliban to
shoot US soldiers.
The dirty turkeys have been lying about Trump for 4 years, turned the NSC into a nest of
spies and we are supposed to believe this transparent, boneheaded hatchet job.
Thanks for the link to the LA Times. I didn't know Trump wanted be bring all the Troops
home from Afghanistan this year. Too bad the Generals insist that 4,000 troops stay.
Douglas Baker , July 4, 2020 at 15:55
So the Loony Tunes franchise has gone viral distributed by monopoly media as Orwellian
"1984" newspeak repeated as though instruction for a flock, of what has been called "A Nation
of Sheep", with an "Animal Farm" hand repeating instruction in every way imaginable for the
elite guides of American destiny to carry on, with Bugs Bunny demanding, "What's Up Doc?"
Roe Castelli Orr , July 4, 2020 at 13:58
Those with free thinking minds can discern the MSM/MIC propaganda narrative and still
despise Trump at the same time.
Trump is America Unmasked.
A Diseased, renditioned Portrait of a 21st Century Dorian Gray hanging in the halls of the
Capitol.
The Empire's bidding if for Gold, Oil, Drugs, Puppet Vassals for exploitation of mineral
rights drowning in oceans of blood from colonialism.
All for the Whores of K Street.
Unfortunately Biden will be the same.
Wash, Rinse, Repeat.
Rome isn't Burning it's vaporizing.
Roe Castelli Orr , July 4, 2020 at 13:27
Totally independent functioning brains can discern the propaganda perpetrated by the
MSM/MIC about this recent Russia-gate nonsense and still realize Trump is still an imbecile,
Narcissistic, self aggrandizing human waste.
Trump is the caricature of Dorian Gray hanging in the halls of the capital.
Trump is the true face of a dying, diseased Empire of Gold, Oil, Drugs, Puppet Vassals,and
Mineral theft beholden to It's K Street whores.
Rob , July 4, 2020 at 13:03
I learned from reading Caitlin Johnstone that the debating technique known as the "Gish
Gallop" consists of inundating one's opponent with numerous ancillary "arguments" that the
opponent is forced to refute individually. The individual arguments may all be fallacious,
but put together, they create the impression that the main or underlying argument must be
true. This is exactly what the corporate media did with Russiagate and are doing once again
with Bountygate. It's the steady drip drip of stories, all uncorroborated and sometimes
conflicting with one another, which, taken together, seem to support the Bountygate narrative
without actually doing so.
"My feeling, and I mean this wholeheartedly, is that I really don't care. What bothers me
is we didn't win the game." Brett Favre's reaction to the Saint's bountygate in the playoff
game.
Our poor troops have been stuck in that hellhole for 20 fu***ng years, and like a sports
warrior like Favre, all that they ever wanted I'm sure for all of their sacrifice, was for it
to not be in vain, and somehow feel that they won the war. Let's try to look at this from the
perspective of a serviceman fighting in the Afghan war. That Taliban fighters have been
trying to kill them everyday since 2001 is supposed to be news to them? They live that
reality every single day. The politicians of both parties have made no attempt to protect
them for years and years and years. To pretend that they care about those they deem
expendable now in July of 2020, after all these years is about the saddest thing one could
imagine for them on this 4th of July. I hope that they all can come home now, all of the
troops, not just some of them, all of them. Because the reality of our wars and troops in the
Middle East come from a prioritization of both political parties to serve 1) Israel first 2)
Israel second 3) Israel third
teresa smith , July 4, 2020 at 11:09
Ak I missing something? Doesn't the US have a history of paying anyone they feel will
advance their agenda, in any direction, to any nefarious group or individual? Crying foul by
the US is still more hypocritical blather, designed to distract. CN never disappoints! Thank
you all!!!
Linda Furr , July 4, 2020 at 13:20
Absolutely!! And dopey stuff like Russia paying Taliban bounties on American lives in
Afghanistan is exactly why most people are totally turned off by Washington DC and the
corporate MSM that promotes the DC system (ie a bought-and-paid-for Congress, a CIA that
creates misery all over the world, a Pentagon that eagerly displays its gonads every time it
can). Russia isn't causing our institutions to be questioned; our institutions are.
AnneR , July 4, 2020 at 10:55
Thank you Joe for this piece collating all of the claptrap we are being fed daily
(including by NPR – well, bien sur). And as with the whole farrago, charade of lies,
innuendos that was/is Russiagate, my view is closely allied to yours as stated here: "This is
the same portrayal of a bumbling, unprofessional Russian intelligence service that supposedly
left Cyrillic letters and the name of the first Soviet secret police chief in the metadata of
its alleged hacks of the DNC. At the same time we are meant to be deathly afraid of these
amateurs."
Quite. Absolutely. IF the GRU and its kindred agencies in Russia are this bloody
incompetent, this incapable of not leaving a trail that Hansel and Gretel could easily
follow, then why would we be so worried, so frightened of them? Totally, completely idiotic
– but apparently the US MICIMATT and corporate-capitalist-imperialist ruling elites
(including the Congress and most of the WH) really do believe that we, the hoi polloi, are so
f***ing stupid as to believe that the Russians are totally incompetent (and thus "we" can
"see" them) but simultaneously we should, must be knocking our knees with complete and utter
fear of them and their dastardly plots against us
What it all makes apparent is that our ruling elites at all levels, in and out of
government and its services truly believe we are as thick as two short planks. All of us.
Roe Castelli Orr , July 4, 2020 at 14:14
Unfortunately about 10 to 15% are as awoke as you and I.
The government actuarial studies realize that if this figure was over 40% the Earth's Axis
would reverse throwing these devils into the abyss.
Guy , July 4, 2020 at 10:49
This story is proof that the US media is now CIA written large.
Bob In Portland , July 4, 2020 at 10:47
It sounds like the lowly drug dealer may have been making inroads into the business. This
has been a standard tacts for our drug wars. That is, the US intelligence agencies use the
drug wars to eliminate competition to its own very lucrative drug trade wars. Like the
Japanese did to China, supplying a conquered population with drugs as a means of control.
In this case the lowly drug dealer was used as another propaganda tool aimed at Trump.
AnneR , July 4, 2020 at 14:19
A widening of the view, Bob in Portland – Before the Japanese came the Brits with
Opium, grown (in their knowledge) in Bengal (if I recall right), in the early 1800s (at
least, though possibly earlier, cos we poor working class Brits used to feed our very noisy,
obstreperous hungry babies Laudanum to keep 'em quiet. Laudanum is a derivative of Opium and
opium poppies do not thrive in GB (yer more regular poppies do).
So – we were (?) the first to introduce large quantities of Opium into China which
(inevitably, it would seem) led to war and the Brits gaining Hong Kong (what? did the Brits
say: we'll stop trafficking opium into your country if you hand over Hong Kong? Wouldn't
surprise me in the least).
Now the major supplier/grower/producer is Afghanistan – and it is difficult to
believe that the CIA has no hand in it. A deep hand. How easy then to create a fantabulous
story about the "Russians," "bounties to kill US military," and drug dealers as the
"go-betweens" with the $$$ . Deflection while pointing at those "others."
One could point out, rightly in my opinion, that were no US military in Afghanistan, none
would be killed no matter who, what, why, how .. Lie our way in; Lie our way to stay.
Rob Roy , July 4, 2020 at 10:27
Loathsome though Trump may be, he once said the most intelligent thing I've heard a
president say about Russia in my lifetime, "Why can't we just be friends." The duopoly lost
its collective minds. The horror!
jdd , July 4, 2020 at 06:57
Mr. Lauria hits the nail on the head. To his report, I would add in the vile role of the
impeachment Dems: Nancy ("all roads lead to Putin) Pelosi, Chuck ("Trump is too soft on
Putin) Schumer; and their Bushy allies, who continue to keep this latest hoax alive.
Hm, an electronic money transfer between "bank owned by Russian military intelligence" to
"an account linked to Taliban" changed, in front of our eyes, into (a duffel bag of?) notes
carried with much toil from Russia to Afghanistan. I have seen something like that years
ago.
At the end of a magic show, the performer threw up a handkerchief that changed into an
umbrella that changed into a bunch of carnations while few white doves appeared too. That led
Senator Schumer to conclude that we need new, tough sanctions on Russia.
"The cash would come from Russian officials in Afghanistan, not wired to a Taliban
account. This is the same portrayal of a bumbling, unprofessional Russian intelligence
service that supposedly left Cyrillic letters and the name of the first Soviet secret police
chief in the metadata of its alleged hacks of the DNC."
Superb summary.
I think the principle at work is an old one from advertising and propaganda.
Throw enough crap at the wall, and some it will stick.
My, what glorious work done at the highest levels of American government.
I really do think when top politicians and officials show this level of corruption and
contempt for truth, it can't too long before things really start falling apart.
Already deadly serious economic problems. Already a world competitiveness problem. Already
terrible extremes of inequality. Already serious unhappiness on the streets with brutal cops
and sugar-frosted history.Now the loss of any moral authority. and on all sides of the
government, not just Trump.
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold"
Torontonian , July 4, 2020 at 12:10
Exactly!
And look around –things are already falling apart – here in Canada -locally ,
nationally and of course on the world stage. Wait until the real economic mess hits and
governments cant pay the hush money to people any more, ie to prop up the last semblances of
a "good (sic: structure".
Here in Toronto, no Canada Day celebrations ? but instead an " emergency" dictate for
construction projects to continue from 6am to 10 pm at night 7 days a week– so we all
celebrated to noise we didn't want and public work we don't care about– really new
sidewalks again? more Bell Canada fibre network (paid by taxpayers)
Totally topsy turvy world -priorty for business with total disdain for the public.
Collapse is here–not centre structure yet .
I also can't imagine the G.R.U. dropping all that money on some middleman (Azizi) and
expecting him to carry out a distribution. More likely he would just abscond with it
(remember Iraq and all those pallets of cash money [billions] just evaporating, heck-of-a
job, Paul Bremer). And really, a guy who shows up with bling, so to speak. Nothing like
attracting attention.
Seer , July 4, 2020 at 04:58
Look up John Stockwell. It's an essential component of the CIA to spread disinformation,
and doing so via the media (figure that many ex-spooks are on CNN's payroll). Trump is
totally correct when he calls out "fake news/media" (he's just inconsistent in applying
it).
People struggle to understand the difference between siding with a Trump position vs
siding up with Trump himself. TDS has helped cloud this.
Seer , July 4, 2020 at 04:51
Fair.org completely shreds the media's handling of this:
hXXps://fair.org/home/in-russian-bounty-story-evidence-free-claims-from-nameless-spies-became-fact-overnight/
Annie , July 4, 2020 at 03:51
I simply ignore such obvious propaganda, as I did Russia-gate. Through his entire
presidency trumped up allegations have become the norm. The press is in complicity with it
all, and after a while I feel more alienated from those who hate him, degrade him, make up
lies about him and those that go so far as to undermine the constitution in order to get rid
of him.
ML , July 4, 2020 at 16:14
It's one thing to ignore and abhor the propaganda; so many of us regular CN readers do,
but it's quite another to feel any sympathy or simpatico, with a person as vile and as unfit
as Donald John. No dichotomous thinking is required, yet that's the egregious error too many
Americans make.
Drew Hunkins , July 4, 2020 at 02:21
I don't know about you, but I'm getting real sick and tired of the term
"intelligence."
AnneR , July 4, 2020 at 10:59
Yes, DH. But I think their grotesque presumption is that WE the vox populi have no
intelligence, (and they would seem to believe that of the Russians and the Chinese and the
Iranians gor blimey); therefore they can feed us, repeatedly, any old tripe they cook up (and
serve with chips and vinegar – Brit chips).
"we see intelligence agencies' insertion into domestic politics to be a greater threat
than even eight years of Trump"
To have stylistic harmony with anti-Russian claims, I would say that the leakers from law
enforcement and intelligence have equal loathing to all politicians, and they want them to be
weak, fearful and know better than to say no to whatever they may request.
A "leak" with a series of "corrections" gives a transient trouble to Trump and sticky
trouble to those who made a big noise on false premises that "anyone with half a brain would
recognize, sadly my opponent lacks even that much." By the way, assassins in Afghanistan seem
to command fees that soccer stars could envy. "At least one American soldier" and "multiple
payments of hundreds thousand dollars". Collected by a drug dealer. Alleged. GRU contacts
were neither seen nor described (or perhaps some infamous person was described allowing to
link with "Boris and Natasha" unit of GRU to whom Western analysis ascribes a long list of
failed schemes like secession of Catalonia, coup in Montenegro, extermination of ducks,
children, pizza lovers and beer drinkers in Wiltshire.)
The more details we know, the less probable the story is. More precisely, the easier it is
to point alternative and more plausible scenarios. Like, a drug dealer being paid for drugs
-- that flowed in large quantities out of Afghanistan. It happens all the time that a drug
dealer gets money for drugs. Since dealing in drugs carries death penalty in many countries
there (I am not sure about Afghanistan), any story told to interrogators is better than the
true story.
Still, it is quite puzzling how a leak about money transported by couriers got garbled
into an electronic transfer, "contact" into a "bank", dealer in Afghanistan into "an account
linked to Taliban". Was the lucidity of the receivers of the leak clouded by something like
ethanol?
dfnslblty , July 3, 2020 at 17:42
Leaks:
Death by a thousand cuts – potus ain't in charge, even intel. ain't in charge.
Must be the fascist/armament component of bigGov.
The statue, dedicated in 1984, is the latest monument to be destroyed in what President
Trump dubbed the "left-wing cultural revolution" by "angry mobs."
According to the
Baltimore Sun , the Columbus statue has been the site of a wreath-laying ceremony right
before the annual Columbus Day parade, which, in 2019 was replaced with the Italian Heritage
Festival.
Republican state delegates and Italian-American activists held a press conference at the
statue last month to ask Gov. Larry Hogan and Baltimore Mayor Bernard C. "Jack" Young to
preserve and protect the memorials , following activists' comments about pulling down the
monuments themselves and the introduction of a City Council bill this week to rename one of
them in honor of victims of police violence.
The downed statue is one of three monuments to Columbus in Baltimore. -
Baltimore Sun
BLM thugs have already started going after patriots. They ambushed our governor at the
small town of Ackley Iowa. They were stalking her as she visited companies providing
essential services during the pandemic. Her driver refused to stop, likely saving her life.
One BLM thug was hit but not seriously injured. They are not waiting to run out of statues.
We ordinary Americans must be heavily armed at all times now. Midwest states are full of
illegals, who serve the left as an army. Open civil war is upon us whether we would have it
or not.
warsev , 3 minutes ago
What these malicious rioters don't realize is that they are handing the November election
to DJT and Republicans for senate and house. Average Americans look on the footage that
accompanies this article with revulsion; for the ideas and the people behind them. Trump will
walk away with 2020. Just keep it up, loony lefties.
vic and blood , 4 minutes ago
We have been in a race and culture war with multiple factions for some time. The presumed
winner is not overtly participating.
Most white people are oblivious, though that is changing. Too bad we are demographically
doomed.
SolidGold , 1 minute ago
Divide and conquer. Who creates that genius?
NumberNone , 12 minutes ago
Was in downtown Baltimore less than 2 years ago, it felt like you were one person away
from someone that wanted to rob you. The downtown had all the usual suspects of faux high end
shopping but the vibe was one of John Wayne Gacy in his clown suit...it had all the look and
feel that was supposed to make you happy but it was rotten to the core.
Whoa Dammit , 13 minutes ago
We can't keep coddling these stupid brats. It's time to start making their parents pay for
the mess and destruction that their ill raised offspring cause.
GoldRulesPaperDrools , 17 minutes ago
Protesters == pavement apes
House of Cards , 17 minutes ago
Terrorists you mean
Watt Supremacissss , 16 minutes ago
Crybullies.
GoldRulesPaperDrools , 15 minutes ago
Redundant but accurate ... +100_000
Silver Savior , 17 minutes ago
Columbus was a dickhead anyway.
NumberNone , 9 minutes ago
So we tear apart the country for a guy that held a gun to a pregnant woman's stomach...if
you're gonna pass judgement and replace other people's icons you might want to make better
choices.
Blackdawg7 , 43 minutes ago
I've never been a fan of Christopher Columbus but witnessing these know-nothing
sanctimonious twits destroy public property while virtue signalling makes my blood boil.
Workdove , 44 minutes ago
Not worth the 10 years in jail...
vic and blood , 50 minutes ago
History's losers are terrorizing, and soon to be tyrannizing us because Caucasians are too
civilized and docile.
Every race and tribe is programmed by God to attempt to dominate.
As an adherent of the non-aggression principle, I don't care for the binary choice, but
accept it.
Either dominate or be dominated. Only cucks believe in co-existence. I assure you our
rivals do not believe in peaceful co-existence.
unionbroker , 1 hour ago
Christopher Columbus sails out into the unknown where no man has gone before. What the
**** has BLM done. Put the statues back up and throw BLM in the water
Looks like Liz Cheney words for Russians. Her action suggest growing alliance between Bush
repoblicans and neolibral interventionaistsof the Democratic Party. The alliance directed against
Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... As Boland explains, the amendment passed by the committee yesterday sets so many conditions on withdrawal that it makes it all but impossible to satisfy them: ..."
"... The longer that the U.S. stays at war in Afghanistan, the more incentives other states will have to make that continued presence more costly for the U.S. When the knee-jerk reaction in Washington to news of these bounties is to throw up obstacles to withdrawal, that gives other states another incentive to do more of this. ..."
"... Prolonging our involvement in the war amounts to playing into Moscow's hands. For all of their posturing about security and strength, hard-liners routinely support destructive and irrational policies that redound to the advantage of other states. This is still happening with the war in Afghanistan, and if these hard-liners get their way it will continue happening for many years to come. ..."
The immediate response to a story that U.S. forces were being targeted is to keep fighting a
losing conflict.
Barbara Boland
reported yesterday on the House Armed Services Committee's vote to impede withdrawal of
U.S. from Afghanistan:
The House Armed Services Committee voted Wednesday night to put roadblocks on President
Donald Trump's vow to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan, apparently in response to
bombshell report published by The New York Times Friday that alleges Russia paid dollar
bounties to the Taliban in Afghanistan to kill U.S troops.
It speaks volumes about Congress' abdication of its responsibilities that one of the few
times that most members want to challenge the president over a war is when they think he might
bring it to an end. Many of the members that want to block withdrawals from other countries
have no problem when the president wants to use U.S. forces illegally and to keep them in other
countries without authorization for years at a time. The role of hard-liner Liz Cheney in
pushing the measure passed yesterday is a good example of what I mean. The hawkish outrage in
Congress is only triggered when the president entertains the possibility of taking troops out
of harm's way. When he takes reckless and illegal action that puts them at risk, as he did when
he ordered the illegal assassination of Soleimani, the same members that are crying foul today
applauded the action. As Boland explains, the amendment passed by the committee yesterday
sets so many conditions on withdrawal that it makes it all but impossible to satisfy
them:
Crow's amendment adds several layers of policy goals to the U.S. mission in Afghanistan,
which has already stretched on for 19 years and cost over a trillion dollars. As made clear
in the Afghanistan Papers, most of these policy goals were never the original intention of
the mission in Afghanistan, and were haphazardly added after the defeat of al Qaeda. With no
clear vision for what achieving these fuzzy goals would look like, the mission stretches on
indefinitely, an unarticulated victory unachievable.
The immediate Congressional response to a story that U.S. forces were being targeted is to
make it much more difficult to pull them out of a war that cannot be won. Congressional hawks
bemoan "micromanaging" presidential decisions and mock the idea of having "535
commanders-in-chief," but when it comes to prolonging pointless wars they are only too happy to
meddle and tie the president's hands. When it comes to defending Congress' proper role in
matters of war, these members are typically on the other side of the argument. They are content
to let the president get us into as many wars as he might want, but they are horrified at the
thought that any of those wars might one day be concluded. Yesterday's vote confirmed that
there is an endless war caucus in the House, and it is bipartisan.
The original reporting of the bounty story is questionable for the reasons that Boland has
pointed out before, but for the sake of argument let's assume that Russia has been offering
bounties on U.S. troops in Afghanistan. When the U.S. keeps its troops at war in a country for
almost twenty years, it is setting them up as targets for other governments. Just as the U.S.
has armed and supported forces hostile to Russia and its clients in Syria, it should not come
as a shock when they do to the same elsewhere. If Russia has been doing this, refusing to
withdraw U.S. forces ensures that they will continue to have someone that they can target.
The longer that the U.S. stays at war in Afghanistan, the more incentives other states
will have to make that continued presence more costly for the U.S. When the knee-jerk reaction
in Washington to news of these bounties is to throw up obstacles to withdrawal, that gives
other states another incentive to do more of this.
Because the current state of debate about Russia is so toxic and irrational, our political
leaders seem incapable of responding carefully to Russian actions. It doesn't seem to occur to
the war hawks that Russia might prefer that the U.S. remains preoccupied and tied down in
Afghanistan indefinitely.
Prolonging our involvement in the war amounts to playing into Moscow's hands. For all of
their posturing about security and strength, hard-liners routinely support destructive and
irrational policies that redound to the advantage of other states. This is still happening with
the war in Afghanistan, and if these hard-liners get their way it will continue happening for
many years to come.
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in
the New York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review , Politico
Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a
columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides
in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter .
One needs to mention the democratic deficit in the US. All the members voting yes are
representatives, they represent the people in their constituencies, and presumably vote for
what the majority in those constituencies would want, or past promises.
Any poll shows that Americans would rather have the troops brought back home, thank you very
much. But this is not what their representatives are voting for. Talk about democracy!
And what's the logic, if you make an accusation against someone you don't like it must be
true. Okay well then let's drone strike Putin. If you are going to be Exceptional and
consistent, Putin did everything Soleimani did so how can Liz Cotton argue for a different
punishment?
1. Killed U.S. troops in a war zone, 2. planning attacks on U.S. troops.
The entire Russian military plans for attacks all the time just like ours does but the
Neocons have declared that we are the only ones allowed to do that. Verdict, death penalty for
Putin.
Interesting, well reasoned article as usual from Mr. Larison. However, I have to say that I
don't see why Russia would want the US in Afghanistan indefinitely. In primis, they have a
strategic partnership with China (even though we've got to see how Russia will behave now when
there is the India-China rift), and China has been championing the idea of rebuilding the Silk
Road (brilliant idea if you ask me) so in this sense it's more reasonable to assume that they
might be aiming to get stability in the region rather than keep it in a state of unrest (as to
be strategic partners you need to have some kind of common strategy, or at least not a
completely different strategy). In 2018 they (Russia) actually were trying to organise a
mediation process which would have the Afghan Gvt. and the Talibans discuss before the US would
retire the troops, and it was very significative as they managed to get all the parties sitting
around a table for the very first time (even the US participated as an observer).
Secondly, Russia also has pretty decent relations with Iran (at least according to Iranian
press, which seems to be realistic as Russia is compliant to the JCPOA, is not aggressive
towards them, and they're cooperating in the Astana process for a political solution for Syria,
for example), and it wouldn't be so if Russia would pursue a policy which would aim to keep the
US in the Middle East indefinitely, as Iran's WHOLE point is that they want the US out of the
region, so if Russia would be trying to keep the US in the Middle East indefinitely, that would
seriously upset Iran.
Thirdly, Russia is one of the founders of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which now
includes most of the states in Central Asia, China, India and Pakistan. The association never
made overt statements about their stance on the US's presence in the region; yet they've been
hinting that they don't approve of it, which is reasonable, as it is very likely that those
countries would all have different plans for the region, which might include some consideration
for human and economic development rather than constant and never-ending militarisation (of
course Pakistan would be problematic here, as the funds for the Afghan warlords get channeled
through Pakistan, which receives a lot of US money, so I don't know how they're managing this
issue).
Last but not least, I cannot logically believe that the Talibans, who've been coherent in
their message since the late 70's ("we will fight to the death until the invaders are defeated
and out of our national soil") would now need to be "convinced" by the Russians to defeat and
chase out the invader. This is just NOT believable at all. Afghanistan is called the Graveyard
of Empires for a reason, I would argue.
In any case I am pleased to see that at TAC you have been starting debunking the
Russia-narrative, as it is very problematic - most media just systematically misrepresents
Russia in order to justify aggressive military action (Europe, specifically Northern Europe, is
doing this literally CONSTANTLY, I'm so over it, really). The misrepresentation of Russia as an
aggressive wannabe-empire is a cornerstone of the pro-war narrative, so it is imperative to get
some actual realism into that.
As if the Afghan freedom fighters need additional incentive to eliminate the invaders? In
case Amerikans don't know, Afghans, except those on the US payroll, intensely despise Amerika
and its 'godless' ways. Amerikans forces have been sadistic, bombing Afghan weddings, funerals,
etc.
Even if the Russians are providing bounties to the Afghans, to take out the invaders, don't
the Amerikans remember the 80s when Washington (rightfully) supported the mujahedin with funds,
arms, Stinger missiles, etc.? Again, the US is on shaky ground because of the neocons.
Afghanistan is known through the ages to be the graveyard of empires. They have done it on
their own shedding blood, sweat, and tears. Also, the Afghan resistance have been principled
about Amerikans getting out before making deals.
We can't keep coddling these stupid brats. It's time to start making their parents pay for
the mess and destruction that their ill raised offspring cause.
"... These failures have not been merely "policy mistakes" but have had profound consequences for our country, both in terms of blood unnecessarily wasted and trillions of dollars irretrievably lost. The very last thing we should do is defend a failed status quo and subvert new thinking. McMaster does both in his essay. ..."
"... We had won all that was militarily winnable on the ground in Afghanistan by the summer of 2002 and we should have withdrawn. Instead, we have refused to accept reality for eighteen additional years and we have lost thousands of American service members and trillions of American tax dollars to finance permanent failure. ..."
"... our interests are far better served by being an exemplar to the world rather than trying to force it to behave a certain way. ..."
"... The time has come to admit our foreign policy theories of the past two decades have utterly failed in their objective. We have not been made safer because of them and the price continually imposed on our service members is unnecessary and unacceptably high. ..."
In February 1991 I fought as a green 2 nd Lieutenant under then-Captain H.R.
McMaster, who would go on to win combat fame in 2005 Iraq and as Trump's National Security
Advisor. I watched McMaster provide exceptional leadership of our unit prior to war and watched
him perform brilliantly under fire during combat. It gives me no pleasure, therefore, to note
that his most recent work in Foreign Affairs has to be one of the most flawed analyses
I've ever seen.
McMaster's essay, " The
Retrenchment Syndrome ," is an attempted take-down of a growing number of experts who argue
American foreign policy has become addicted to the employment of military power. I, and other
likeminded advocates, argue this military-first foreign policy does not increase America's
security, but perversely undercuts it.
We advocate a foreign policy that elevates diplomacy, promotes the maintenance of a powerful
military that can defend America globally, and seeks to expand U.S. economic opportunity
abroad. This perspective takes the world as it is, soberly assesses America's policy successes
and failures of the past decades, and recommends sane policies going forward that have the best
chance to achieve outcomes beneficial to our country.
Adopting this new foreign policy mentality, however, requires an honest recognition that our
existing approach -- especially since 9/11 -- has at times been catastrophically bad for
America. The status quo has to be jettisoned for us to turn failure into success.
These failures have not been merely "policy mistakes" but have had profound consequences for
our country, both in terms of blood unnecessarily wasted and trillions of dollars irretrievably
lost. The very last thing we should do is defend a failed status quo and subvert new thinking.
McMaster does both in his essay.
McMaster grievously mischaracterizes the positions of those who advocate for a sane,
rational foreign policy. He tries to pin a pejorative moniker on restraint-oriented viewpoints
via the term "retrenchment syndrome."
Advocates for a restrained foreign policy, he says, "subscribe to the romantic view that
restraint abroad is almost always an unmitigated good." McMaster claims Obama's 2011
intervention in Libya failed not because it destabilized the country but because Washington
didn't "shape Libya's political environment in the wake of Qaddafi's demise." And he claims
Trump's desire to withdraw from Afghanistan "will allow the Taliban, al Qaeda, and various
other jihadi terrorists to claim victory."
In other words, the only policy option is to keep doing what has manifestly failed
for the past two decades. Just do it harder, faster, and deeper.
But the reality of the situation is rather different.
We had won all that was militarily winnable on the ground in Afghanistan by the summer of
2002 and we should have withdrawn. Instead, we have refused to accept reality for eighteen
additional years and we have lost thousands of American service members and trillions of
American tax dollars to finance permanent failure.
We should never have invaded Iraq in 2003. But once we realized the justification for the
war had been wrong, we should have rapidly withdrawn our combat troops and diplomatically
helped facilitate the establishment of an Iraqi-led state. Instead, we refused to acknowledge
our mistake, fought a pointless eight-year insurgency, and then instead of allowing Iraq to
solve its own problems when ISIS arose in 2014, unnecessarily went back to help Baghdad fight
its battles.
Likewise, the U.S. continues to fight or support never-ending combat actions in Syria,
Libya, Somalia, Niger, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and other lesser-known locations. There is no risk
to American national security in any of these locations that engaging in routine and perpetual
combat operations will solve.
Lastly, large portions of the American public -- and even greater percentages of service
members who have served in forever-wars -- are
against the continuation of these wars and do not believe they keep us safer. What would
make the country more secure, however, is adopting a realistic foreign policy that recognizes
the world as it truly is, acknowledges that the reason we maintain a world-class military is to
deter our enemies without having to fight, and recognizing that our interests are far better
served by being an exemplar to the world rather than trying to force it to behave a certain
way.
The time has come to admit our foreign policy theories of the past two decades have utterly
failed in their objective. We have not been made safer because of them and the price
continually imposed on our service members is unnecessary and unacceptably high. It is time to
abandon the status quo and adopt a new policy that is based on a realistic view of the world,
an honest recognition of our genuinely powerful military, and realize that there are better
ways to assure our security and prosperity.
Daniel L. Davis is a Senior Fellow for Defense Priorities and a former Lt. Col. in the
U.S. Army who retired in 2015 after 21 years, including four combat deployments. Follow him
@DanielLDavis1.
Rumors became a material force when neoliberal Dems want to use them against Trump
Presstitutes who published it have track record of pushing Iraq WDM lies before.
Looks like heroin trade money are pushed by NYT presstitutes as Russian money. Nice...
Notable quotes:
"... The sole foundation of the reports in the Times , since reinforced by similar articles in the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press, and accounts on cable and network television, are the unsupported, uncorroborated statements of unnamed intelligence officials. These officials give no proof of their claims about the operation of the supposed network of GRU agents -- how the money came from Russia to Afghanistan, how the money was distributed to Taliban fighters, what actions the Taliban fighters carried out, what impact these actions had on any American military personnel. ..."
"... Yet six days into this press campaign, there has been no acknowledgement in the "mainstream" corporate media that there is anything dubious or unsubstantiated about this narrative. Instead, the main focus has been to demand that the Trump administration explain when the president learned of the alleged Russian attack and what he proposes to do about it. ..."
"... The Times reporters spearheading this campaign are not journalists in any real sense of the term. They are conduits, passing on material supplied to them by high-level operatives in the CIA and other intelligence agencies, repackaging it for public consumption and using their status as "reporters" to provide more credibility than would be given to a press release from Langley, Virginia. In other words, the CIA has provided the plot line, and the newspaper creates the narrative framework to sell it to the American people. ..."
"... The newspaper played a leading role in helping the Bush administration fabricate its case for war against Iraq in 2002-2003. It was not just the notorious Judith Miller, with her tall tales of aluminum tubes being used to build centrifuges as a step to an Iraqi atomic bomb. ..."
"... The New York Times acts as a political mouthpiece of the Democratic Party, which is determined to block any mass radicalization of workers and youth. In the event that Biden is elected in November and takes office in January 2021, an incoming Democratic administration will carry out policies no less reactionary than those of Trump ..."
"... The campaign against Trump's alleged "dereliction of duty" -- a phrase used by Biden three times during his Tuesday press conference -- is nothing more than a continuation of the campaign by the Democrats to attack Trump from the right, as too "soft" on Russia and too unwilling to intervene in the Middle East. ..."
Not since William Randolph Hearst cabled his correspondent in Havana in 1898 with the message, "You furnish the pictures and I'll
furnish the war," has a newspaper been so thoroughly identified with an effort to provoke an American war as the Not since William
Randolph Hearst cabled his correspondent in Havana in 1898 with the message, "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war,"
has a newspaper been so thoroughly identified with an effort to provoke an American war as the New York Times this week.
The difference -- and there is a colossal one -- is that Hearst was fanning the flames for the Spanish-American War, a
comparatively minor conflict, the first venture by American imperialism to seize territory overseas, in Cuba, Puerto Rico and the
Philippines. The Times today is seeking to whip up a war fever directed against Russia, one that threatens to ignite a third
world war fought with nuclear weapons.
There is not the slightest factual
basis for the series of article and commentaries published by the Times , beginning last Saturday, claiming that the Russian
military intelligence service, the GRU, paid bounties to Taliban guerrillas to induce them to attack and kill American soldiers in
Afghanistan. Not a single soldier out of the 31 Americans who have died in Afghanistan in 2019-2020 has been identified as a victim
of the alleged scheme. No witnesses have been brought forward, no evidence produced.
The sole foundation of the reports in the Times , since reinforced by similar articles
in the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press, and accounts on cable and network television,
are the unsupported, uncorroborated statements of unnamed intelligence officials. These officials give no proof of their claims about
the operation of the supposed network of GRU agents -- how the money came from Russia to Afghanistan, how the money was distributed
to Taliban fighters, what actions the Taliban fighters carried out, what impact these actions had on any American military personnel.
Yet six days into this press campaign, there has been no acknowledgement in the "mainstream" corporate media that there is
anything dubious or unsubstantiated about this narrative. Instead, the main focus has been to demand that the Trump
administration explain when the president learned of the alleged Russian attack and what he proposes to do about it.
The Times reporters spearheading this campaign are not journalists in any real sense of the term.
They are conduits, passing on material supplied to them by high-level operatives in the CIA and other intelligence agencies, repackaging
it for public consumption and using their status as "reporters" to provide more credibility than would be given to a press release
from Langley, Virginia. In other words, the CIA has provided the plot line, and the newspaper creates the narrative framework to
sell it to the American people.
The Times and individual reporters like David Sanger and Eric Schmitt have a track record. The newspaper played a leading
role in helping the Bush administration fabricate its case for war against Iraq in 2002-2003. It was not just the notorious Judith
Miller, with her tall tales of aluminum tubes being used to build centrifuges as a step to an Iraqi atomic bomb.
There was an entire
chorus of falsification, in which Schmitt (January 21, 2001, "Iraq Rebuilt Bombed Arms Plants, Officials Say") and Sanger (November
13, 2002, "U.S. Scoffs at Iraq Claim of No Weapons of Mass Destruction," and December 6, 2002, "US Tells Iraq It Must Reveal Weapons
Sites") among many articles, played major roles.
In this week's "Russian bounties" campaign, Schmitt and Sanger are at it again. A front-page article published Thursday under
their joint byline carries the headline, "Trump's New Russia Problem: Unread Intelligence and Missing Strategy." This article is
aimed at advancing the claim that Trump was negligent in responding to allegations against Russia, either being too lazy to read
the President's Daily Brief -- a summary of world events and spy reports produced by the CIA -- or choosing to ignore the report
because of his supposed subservience to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The political line of the article is set early on, when the authors claim that "it doesn't require a high-level clearance for
the government's most classified information to see that the list of Russian aggressions in recent weeks rivals some of the worst
days of the Cold War." The list is ridiculously thin, including "cyberattacks on Americans working from home" (no evidence presented)
and "continued concern about new playbooks for Russian actors seeking to influence the November election" (this is a description
of the state of mind at the CIA, not of any actual steps taken by Russia). The purpose is to place the current allegations about
Russian bounties in the context of the long-running effort to portray Russian President Vladimir Putin as the evil genius and puppet
master of world politics.
Schmitt, in an article co-authored with Michael Crowley, refers to "intelligence reports that Russia paid bounties to Taliban-affiliated
fighters to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan," as though this was an established fact. The article cites various unnamed "former
officials" of the Trump and Obama administrations claiming that such an allegation would certainly have been brought to Trump's attention,
and that his failure to take action in response must be seen as negligence.
The article suggests that there is "supporting evidence" for the CIA claims of a Russian bounty plot, citing, among other things,
"detainee interrogations, the recovery of about $500,000 from a Taliban-related target and intercepts of electronic communications
showing financial transfers between the Russian military intelligence unit and Afghan intermediaries." In point of fact, every item
on this list represents an assertion by unnamed intelligence sources, not evidence: no actual detainees, cash hoards or electronic
intercepts have been produced.
Another article by Schmitt, along with three Afghan-based reporters, focuses on the alleged role of an Afghan businessman, Rahmatullah
Azizi, a former drug smuggler and US government contractor, in whose home investigators found a cash hoard of half a million in US
dollars. Again, "US intelligence reports" are cited, claiming Azizi was "a key middleman between the G.R.U. and militants linked
to the Taliban." Again, there is no actual evidence cited, and Azizi himself cannot be found. As for the alleged cash hoard, this
suggests more the proceeds of narcotics trafficking than anything else, an enterprise in which Azizi was supposedly engaged.
The article asserts that the Russian government organized the bounty scheme as "payback" for decades of humiliation in Afghanistan
at the expense of the United States, although how killing a handful of US soldiers would accomplish such a goal is a mystery. Moreover,
the Times also admits, citing a congressman who participated in a White House briefing on the allegations, that the intelligence
briefing did not "detail any connection to specific U.S. or coalition deaths in Afghanistan" and that "gaps remained in the intelligence
community's understanding of the overall program, including its precise motive "
In other words, the Russian "bounties" program has no identifiable victims and no credible motive. This makes the unanimity of
the media chorus that much more damning a self-indictment. Why is there not a single article or commentary in the corporate media
challenging the claims being peddled by the CIA? It is not that these claims are particularly convincing in and of themselves. Far
from it. It is the source of the claims that is decisive: if the US intelligence apparatus says it is so, the American media
obediently salutes.
The real question to be answered about the latest anti-Russian provocation is this: what political considerations are the driving
force of this episode of media fabrication?
It is no coincidence that the Afghanistan "bounties" story has surfaced just at the point where the Trump administration is visibly
reeling in the face of the twin crises of the coronavirus pandemic and the popular upsurge against police violence. The American
ruling class has been deeply shaken by the outraged protests by large interracial crowds, particularly of young people, that have
swept virtually every American city and town. And the financial aristocracy is well aware of the deep-seated popular opposition to
its drive to force workers back to work under conditions where every large factory, warehouse and office is a potential epicenter
for the ongoing resurgence of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The response to this crisis by the political and media representatives of the ruling elite is twofold: seeking to split the working
class along racial lines and seeking to divert domestic social tensions into a campaign against foreign antagonists, particularly
China and Russia.
The New York Times acts as a political mouthpiece of the Democratic Party, which is determined to block any mass radicalization
of workers and youth. In the event that Biden is elected in November and takes office in January 2021, an incoming Democratic administration
will carry out policies no less reactionary than those of Trump.
The campaign against Trump's alleged "dereliction of duty" -- a phrase used by Biden three times during his Tuesday press
conference -- is nothing more than a continuation of the campaign by the Democrats to attack Trump from the right, as too "soft"
on Russia and too unwilling to intervene in the Middle East. This began with the anti-Russia campaign that triggered the two-year-long
Mueller investigation, continued with the Ukraine phone call that led to impeachment and now emerges in the form of increasingly
vehement demands that the US government "retaliate" for an entirely fabricated Russian effort to kill American soldiers.
Larry argument: Russian military intelligence is one of the top intelligence services in the world. They can't be that sloppy.
Notable quotes:
"... If it is true that Russia's military intelligence unit is putting out hits on U.S. military personnel, then they are terrible at their job. The violence they are allegedly inflicting on our soldiers is so inconsequential that the U.S. media rarely does any detailed reporting when a soldier falls in action in sand pits of Taliban-land. And then there are the actual peace talks with the Taliban that, despite dire warnings that this was a fools errand, appears to have paid off. U.S. forces are not being besieged nor savaged at their outposts in Afghanistan. ..."
"... You are a 19 year old black man and want to see your 20th birthday, join the military and ask to be deployed to Afghanistan. You will be safer. ..."
"... The movement of money through Russian banks to Afghan accounts tied to the Taliban should not shock anyone. It is called proceeds from heroin. After more than 20 years of spilling the blood of U.S. warriors in Afghanistan, we have made no dent in the production, distribution and sale of heroin, which is funding warlords and corrupt politicians alike in Afghanistan. This is not Russian bounty money. This is U.S. funded mayhem. Every America who buys heroin or some version of the drug on the streets is helping put money in the pockets of fanatics like the Taliban. ..."
"... The so-called intelligence officers, the faux journalists and the craven politicians are putting our nation at risk by spreading a lie and smearing Donald Trump. This cannot stand. ..."
"... Is it possible that the "Russian bounty" story was ginned up to prevent the withdrawal from Afghanistan and Germany? ..."
"... Looks like Liz Cheney and the Democrats are working together to put a kibbosh on withdrawal. ..."
"... When peace occurs, promotions stop. Without a battlefield officers must find other ways to move up the ladder. I think the colonel covers this quite accurately in his Artists and Bureaucrats paper. ..."
"... Given that electronic transfers of USD are traceable, how likely is it that GRU would do this vs physically carrying a payment into Afghanistan? To carry $1M you just need a single stack of $100 bills 43 inches long. By land you have Iran and Uzbekistan a former Soviet Republic. If they used a passenger jet they could fly in from almost anywhere. ..."
"... For some historical perspective from someone who really knew a lot about pre-2003 Afghanistan, see Michael Scheuer's third "Pillar of Truth" about Afghanistan: "Afghans Cannot Be Bought" from his 2004 "Imperial Hubris": ..."
"... It's another leak to sabotage Trump, except now the saboteurs are getting less creative and more lazy. ..."
Anyone who embraces the stupid and absurd claim that Russia's military intelligence outfit, the
GRU, is paying (has been paying) the Taliban to kill U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan, is
either guilty of ignorance or congenitally retarded. It is that simple. There is not gray area
here. The claim is a lie.
Let us start with this fact--the Taliban do not need a financial incentive to kill U.S.
military personnel. They have willingly taken up that cause for more than 20 years.
Then there is this fact--the number of U.S. military personnel who died in the last six
months in Afghanistan are dwarfed by the number of young black men killed in Chicago over the
Memorial Day Holiday. If the Russians goal is to kill Americans they would be better off
spending their money on the drug gangs that infest the American cities governed by Democrats.
They would get more bang for their bucks. Only eight U.S. military personnel have died in
Afghanistan in 2020 and only four of those were killed in "hostile" engagements. The other four
succumbed to accidents. Twenty six U.S. military personnel died in Afghanistan in 2019. Twenty
of those were from hostile actions. ( Icasualties.org provides the
details).
If it is true that Russia's military intelligence unit is putting out hits on U.S. military
personnel, then they are terrible at their job. The violence they are allegedly inflicting on
our soldiers is so inconsequential that the U.S. media rarely does any detailed reporting when
a soldier falls in action in sand pits of Taliban-land. And then there are the actual peace
talks with the Taliban that, despite dire warnings that this was a fools errand, appears to
have paid off. U.S. forces are not being besieged nor savaged at their outposts in
Afghanistan.
The Democrats supposed concern for the lives of U.S. military personnel fighting in foreign
shit-holes stands in stark contrast to their silence about the mass slaughter of young black
men in the major U.S. cities that have been ruled by Democrat politicians for more than a
generation. Compare the murder body count in these cities (comprised largely of young, black
males) with the U.S. soldiers allegedly killed in Afghanistan because of a Russian bounty--2124
U.S. citizens murdered in the United States in 2019 vice 20 U.S. soldiers killed in combat in
Afghanistan:
You are a 19 year old black man and want to see your 20th birthday, join the military and
ask to be deployed to Afghanistan. You will be safer.
The movement of money through Russian banks to Afghan accounts tied to the Taliban should
not shock anyone. It is called proceeds from heroin. After more than 20 years of spilling the
blood of U.S. warriors in Afghanistan, we have made no dent in the production, distribution and
sale of heroin, which is funding warlords and corrupt politicians alike in Afghanistan. This is
not Russian bounty money. This is U.S. funded mayhem. Every America who buys heroin or some
version of the drug on the streets is helping put money in the pockets of fanatics like the
Taliban.
Fortunately, the money is so good that the Taliban are pulling their punches in going after
U.S. troops. The Taliban make more from selling dope to the world than the Russian could ever
offer. As long as the U.S. leaves the poppy fields alone, there is little incentive to attack
us.
The behavior of the Democrats and some Republicans in accepting the damnable lie that the
U.S. has solid, reliable intelligence about a Russian scheme to fund the Taliban to kill
Americans is dangerous. The incessant cry about the non-existent Russian wolf is fraught with
peril. At a minimum, it puts the Russians in the position of believing that these so-called
political leaders are serious about picking a fight with Moscow and killing Russians. Russia is
not going to sit back and be a punching bag for fools obsessed with ridding Washington, DC of
Donald Trump.
The so-called intelligence officers, the faux journalists and the craven politicians are
putting our nation at risk by spreading a lie and smearing Donald Trump. This cannot stand.
"The so-called intelligence officers, the faux journalists and the craven politicians are
putting our nation at risk by spreading a lie and smearing Donald Trump."
When peace occurs, promotions stop. Without a battlefield officers must find other ways to
move up the ladder. I think the colonel covers this quite accurately in his Artists and
Bureaucrats paper.
A question to my betters (no sarcasm intended). The NYT is trying to shore up its story by
stating
"Russia's complicity in the bounty plot came into sharper focus on Tuesday as the The New
York Times reported that American officials intercepted electronic data showing large
financial transfers from a bank account controlled by Russia's military intelligence agency
to a Taliban-linked account."
Given that electronic transfers of USD are traceable, how likely is it that GRU would do
this vs physically carrying a payment into Afghanistan? To carry $1M you just need a single
stack of $100 bills 43 inches long. By land you have Iran and Uzbekistan a former Soviet
Republic. If they used a passenger jet they could fly in from almost anywhere.
To do a wire transfer GRU would have to be (falsely) confident that their source account
was very well disguised, something like a successful bakery in Pakistan. I can't believe they
would use an account from a bank in Russia, that would be too obvious.
I don't believe the story, just asking about the plausibility of using a wire
transfer.
For some historical perspective from someone who really knew a lot about pre-2003
Afghanistan, see Michael Scheuer's third "Pillar of Truth" about Afghanistan: "Afghans Cannot
Be Bought" from his 2004 "Imperial Hubris":
I note that nobody in the comments section of the NYT article ever asks the obvious
question, the one that Larry Johnson zeroed in on very quickly.
This one: if Afghanistan is now awash with cash as a result of "Russian bounties" on dead
GIs then where and when were those GIs killed?
After all, of necessity one is the other side of the coin to the other.
The more money there is in Afghanistan then, logically, the more successful the Taliban
must have been in collecting those bounties. Even though they haven't been very successful at
all.
That actually vividly shows that so called Democrats are completly in the pocket of MIC
Notable quotes:
"... The Crow amendment would block funding if the U.S. draws down below 8,000 troops and again below 4,000 troops "unless the administration certifies that doing so would not compromise the U.S. counterterrorism mission in Afghanistan, not increase risk for U.S. personnel there, be done in consultation with allies, and is in the best interest of the United States," reports The Hill. "It would also require an analysis on the effects of a drawdown on the threat from the Taliban, the status of human and civil rights, an inclusive Afghan peace process, the capacity of Afghan forces and the effect of malign actors on Afghan sovereignty." ..."
"... Rep. Jason Crow's (D-Colo.) NDAA amendment will require several certifications, including an assessment of whether any "state actors have provided any incentives to the Taliban, their affiliates, or other foreign terrorist organizations for attacks against United States, coalition, or Afghan security forces or civilians in Afghanistan in the last two years, including the details of any attacks believed to have been connected with such incentives." ..."
"... Crow's amendment adds several layers of policy goals to the U.S. mission in Afghanistan, which has already stretched on for 19 years and cost over a trillion dollars. As made clear in th e Afghanistan Papers, most of these policy goals were never the original intention of the mission in Afghanistan , and were haphazardly added after the defeat of al Qaeda. With no clear vision for what achieving these fuzzy goals would look like, the mission stretches on indefinitely, an unarticulated victory unachievable. ..."
"... "the U.S. counterterrorism mission in Afghanistan"...The US just wants to permanently occupy Afghanistan. ..."
The House Armed Services Committee voted Wednesday night to put roadblocks on President
Donald Trump's vow to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan, apparently in response to
bombshell report
published by The New York Times Friday that alleges Russia paid dollar bounties to the
Taliban in Afghanistan to kill U.S troops.
The Crow amendment would block funding if the U.S. draws down below 8,000 troops and again
below 4,000 troops "unless the administration certifies that doing so would not compromise the
U.S. counterterrorism mission in Afghanistan, not increase risk for U.S. personnel there, be
done in consultation with allies, and is in the best interest of the United States," reports
The Hill. "It would also require an analysis on the effects of a drawdown on the threat from
the Taliban, the status of human and civil rights, an inclusive Afghan peace process, the
capacity of Afghan forces and the effect of malign actors on Afghan sovereignty."
Rep. Jason Crow's (D-Colo.) NDAA amendment will require several certifications, including an
assessment of whether any "state actors have provided any incentives to the Taliban, their
affiliates, or other foreign terrorist organizations for attacks against United States,
coalition, or Afghan security forces or civilians in Afghanistan in the last two years,
including the details of any attacks believed to have been connected with such incentives."
The amendment "lays out, in a very responsible level of specificity, what is going to be
required if we are going to in fact make decisions about troop levels based on conditions on
the ground and based on what's required for our own security, not based on political
timelines," said Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.-R.), the daughter of former Vice President Dick
Cheney.
"And that is crucially important, and I think it is our number one priority," added Cheney,
who is now the number three Republican in the House.
The U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan is down to 8,600 troops. Trump is said to be eager to
deliver on his campaign promise and further draw down the U.S. presence after the 19-year war
in Afghanistan.
"A great nation does not force the next generation to fight their wars, and that's what
we've done in Afghanistan," said Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fl.) "I think the best day to have not had
the war in Afghanistan was when we started it, and the next best day is tomorrow. I don't think
there's ever a bad day to end the war in Afghanistan. Our generation is weary of this and tired
of this."
Crow's amendment adds several layers of policy goals to the U.S. mission in Afghanistan,
which has already stretched on for 19 years and cost over a trillion dollars. As made clear in
th
e Afghanistan Papers, most of these policy goals were never the original intention of the
mission in Afghanistan , and were haphazardly added after the defeat of al Qaeda. With no
clear vision for what achieving these fuzzy goals would look like, the mission stretches on
indefinitely, an unarticulated victory unachievable.
"the U.S. counterterrorism mission in Afghanistan"...The US just wants to permanently
occupy Afghanistan. End of story. For now, for instance, the Uyghurs are a nice foil to
undermine China. But in a possible future, in which lets' say China gets destabilized and CCP
falls and revert to war lordism, I can see the US invading Xinjiang to rein in the Islamic
terrorism and then to try to create a separate state. But Xinjiang is not Kosovo, Han and
their allies represent a plurality of the population, just under 50%...
Amazing how anonymous sources prevail over people willing to speak in public when they say
what you want to believe and that is the power of the deep state.
Apologies for abusing the blog board. But I cannot think that there is a bigger game at
play, in which staying in Afghanistan is just a small piece of the Go game being played.
In respect with Russia, after the fall of the soviet communism, there wasn't a fundamental
ideological reason left to confront Russia. But now, because Russia managed to evade
submission into the rapacious hands of the US Oligarchy, everything is being used as a reason
to tie Russia down, like Gulliver was tied down by Lilliputians.
The problem the US has now, is that it cannot create a common front against Russia and in
fact, it has started punishing its so called "allies" (no more than subjects in reality). And
because of this, Germany has said a clear and crisp "Nein" against the US interference with
NS2, and against the US request at UN to maintain the arms embargo against Iran.
It is funny and interesting to see how the Israel plan of annexing of part of West Bank
will unfold. To be consistent, the EU will either have to stop sanctioning Russia for Crimea,
or start sanctioning Israel... The EU cannot have it both ways (the US can though).
House Using Shaky Russian Bounty Story To Keep U.S. Troops in Afghanistan
Jason Crow, Liz Cheney and any other member of congress that support continuing the US
governments wholly avoidable and tragic folly in Afghanistan - which has cost the lives of
2,353 US service men/women killed in action and 20,149 wounded in action (also innumerable
Afghan deaths/wounded) - need to be tested for the presence of psychotropic drugs in their
systems.
"And that is crucially important, and I think it is our number one priority," added
Cheney, who is now the number three Republican in the House.
Liz Cheney's statement is the height of delusion.
Our nation is bankrupt, unemployment is rampant, 1st/2nd qtr 2020 GDP is down 17% due to a
specious medical quarantine with no medical basis in fact enacted via bureaucratic fiat and
masses of unhinged protestors/rioters running amok in the streets seeking to erase this
nations history (warts and all) by tearing down monuments/statues and redefining/eliminating
words/phrases from our national lexicon.
If continued US warmongering in Afghanistan is such a great idea Jason Crow should put his
soldier suit back on and take Liz Cheney, her draft dodging daddy and any member of congress
supporting this insanity over to visit so they can put their worthless words into action
instead of sacrificing the life of one more US service member to further their megalomaniacal
aspirations.
There is not one US national security interest at stake in Afghanistan.
There are however plumb sinecures and defense contracts to be had.
Trump could do a "Surge" again and they wouldn't say a word about it, except maybe
complain it wasn't big enough, even if it cost another couple thousand lives and a trillion
dollars. That would be just fine and dandy. It's like that old game "Red light, Green Light
go". He's always got a green light to go to war and always a red light to end one.
"... Some of that context is that Mike Pompeo said , "I was the CIA director – We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses." So we know for certain that U.S. intelligence agencies lie to you and me. We saw it with WMD, and we might be seeing it again now. ..."
"... We could talk about the fact that the U.S. has been funding the Taliban for years! Yes, we fund them, sometimes arm them, and then fight them. This is barely a secret . So for all intents and purposes, the U.S. does the same thing our corporate media is now accusing Russia of doing (with no proof). ..."
"... Now, I'm not implying Trump is some kind of hippy peacenik. (He would look atrocious with no bra and flowers in his hair.) No, the military under Trump has dropped more bombs than under Obama , and that's impressive since Obama dropped more bombs than ever before. ..."
"... However, in certain areas of the world, Trump has threatened to create peace. Sure, he's doing it for his own ego and because he thinks his base wants it, but whatever the reason, he has put forward plans or policies that go against the military industrial complex and the establishment war-hawks (which is 95 percent of the establishment). ..."
"... And each time this has happened, he is quickly thwarted, usually with hilarious propaganda. (Well, hilarious to you and me. Apparently believable to people at The New York Times and former CIA intern Anderson Cooper.) ..."
This is not a column defending Donald Trump. Across my career, I have said more positive words about the scolex family of intestinal
tapeworms than I have said about Donald Trump. (Scolex have been shown to read more.)
No, this is a column about context. When The New York Times reports anonymous sources from
the intelligence community say Russia paid Taliban fighters to kill American soldiers, context
is very important.
Some of that context is that Mike Pompeo said , "I was the CIA director
– We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses." So we know for certain
that U.S. intelligence agencies lie to you and me. We saw it with WMD, and we might be seeing
it again now.
But that's not the context I'm referring to.
We could talk about the context of the fact that the Taliban does not need to be paid to
kill American soldiers because their entire goal for the past twenty years has been to kill
American soldiers. Paying them a bounty would be like offering the guy sleeping with your wife
twenty bucks to sleep with your wife.
But that's not the context I'm referring to.
We could talk about the fact that the U.S. has been funding the Taliban for
years! Yes, we fund them, sometimes arm them, and then fight them. This is
barely a secret . So for all intents and purposes, the U.S. does the same thing our
corporate media is now accusing Russia of doing (with no proof).
But that's not the context I'm referring to.
No, the context I'm referring to is how our military industrial complex (with the help of
our ruling elite and our corporate media) have stopped Trump from pushing us toward the brink
of peace. Yes, the brink of peace.
Now, I'm not implying Trump is some kind of hippy peacenik. (He would look atrocious with no
bra and flowers in his hair.) No, the military under Trump has dropped
more bombs than under Obama , and that's impressive since Obama dropped more bombs than
ever before.
However, in certain areas of the world, Trump has threatened to create peace. Sure, he's
doing it for his own ego and because he thinks his base wants it, but whatever the reason, he
has put forward plans or policies that go against the military industrial complex and the
establishment war-hawks (which is 95 percent of the establishment).
And each time this has happened, he is quickly thwarted, usually with hilarious propaganda.
(Well, hilarious to you and me. Apparently believable to people at The New York Times and
former CIA intern Anderson Cooper.)
I know four things for sure in life. Paper beats rock. Rock beats scissors. Scissors beat
paper. And propaganda beats peace. All one has to do is look at a calendar.
Trump has essentially threatened to create peace or pull U.S. troops out of a war zone in
three countries – North Korea, Afghanistan, and Syria. Let's start with Syria.
April 4,
2018 : President Trump orders the Pentagon to plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria.
This cannot be allowed because it goes against the U.S. imperial plan. So what happens
within days of Trump's order?
April 7, 2018 : Reports surface of a major chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria.
What are the odds that within days of Trump telling the Pentagon to withdraw, Bashar
al-Assad decides to use the one weapon that will guarantee American forces continue attacking
him? Assad may not be a chess player, but I also don't think he ate that many paint chips as a
kid. And sure enough, over the past two years we've now heard from four
whistleblowers at the Organization for The Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) saying
the so-called chemical attack didn't happen. (Notice that the number "four" is even bigger than
the numbers "one," "two," and "three.")
But establishment propaganda beats peace any day and twice on Sunday. The false story
succeeded in keeping America entrenched in Syria.
The DPRK
Let's move on to North Korea. As you surely know, Donald Trump "threatened" to create peace
with the hermetic country. Simply saying he would attempt such a thing sent weapons contractor
stocks tumbling -- one of the many reasons peace had to be stopped.
Feb
27, 2019 : Donald Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong Un meet in Vietnam.
The summit fails, and reports begin emerging that Mike Pompeo and John Bolton succeeded in
napalming any progress.
March 15, 2019 : Pompeo and Bolton deny derailing North Korea nuclear talks.
From The Nation ,
"There were reports from South Korea that the presence at the talks of John Bolton, Trump's
aggressively hawkish national-security adviser, helped torpedo the talks."
But just destroying the peace talks wasn't enough. The American people needed some good,
solid propaganda to reassert the idea that Kim Jung Un was a dastardly bloodthirsty
dictator.
March 30,
2019: The New York Times reports North Korea executed and purged their top nuclear
negotiators.
Yes, apparently Kim Jung Un must've fed his top diplomats to his top alligators. Then, two
months later we learn
June 4, 2019: The fate of the North Korean negotiator "executed" after the failed summit
"grows murkier" with new reports that he's still alive.
One would have to say that his being alive does indeed make the report that he's dead
"murkier." Within the next day or two it becomes
quite clear the diplomat is very much in the land of the living. But the propaganda put
forward by The New York Times and many other outlets has already done its job.
Far more people saw the reports that the man had been murdered than saw the later
retraction. And to this day, the Times has not removed the initial
article saying he was executed. Exactly how wrong does propaganda have to be, to warrant an
online deletion? Dead versus alive is a pretty binary designation.
And now we get to the outrage du jour, and it's a bombshell!
Bounties!
May 26,
2020: Pentagon commanders begin drawing up options for an early Afghanistan troop
withdrawal, following Trump's request.
June 16, 2020 : "President Donald Trump confirmed in public for the first time his
administration's plans to cut the U.S. military troop presence in Germany from its current
level of roughly 35,000 to a reduced force of 25,000." – ForeignPolicy.com
June 26,
2020: The New York Times reports Russia paid the Taliban to attack U.S. troops. (According
to anonymous sources from an intelligence community that proudly admits they lie to us all the
time, sometimes just to amuse themselves.)
So when this story first came out, I thought, "You know, Trump has been stopped from
withdrawing troops in the past by ridiculous propaganda that seems to land like a giant turd
right after he announces his intentions. Maybe I'll check what happened in the days preceding
this jaw-dropping story."
So just days after Trump goes against the military industrial complex and against the ruling
establishment by announcing he'll be withdrawing about a third of our troops from Germany, and
just weeks after announcing an early withdrawal from Afghanistan, a seemingly mind-blowing
story drops about Russia paying the Taliban to kill American troops.
This serves to remind everyone what a threat Russia is (so we better put more troops in
Germany!) and serves to keep us in Afghanistan (because screw those Russian-funded
Taliban!).
Look, I'm not saying Trump is a hero or a great guy or even a man who wants peace. I'm not
even saying he's a man. He very well may be a giant blood-sucking leech in a human skin suit.
(A poorly tailored human skin suit.)
All I'm saying is the timing doesn't add up. Either these landmark stories that destroy
every chance of peace are false (in fact we've already proven two out of three of them are
false), or peace has exceedingly, ridiculously, laughably bad timing.
Feature photo | Abdullah Abdullah, right, President Ashraf Ghani's fellow leader under a
recently signed power-sharing agreement, holds a meeting with U.S. peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad
aimed at resuscitating a U.S.-Taliban peace deal signed in February, at the presidential
palace, in Kabul, Afghanistan, May 20, 2020. Credit | Sapidar Palace via AP
Lee Camp is an American stand-up comedian, writer, actor and activist. Camp is the host
of the weekly comedy news TV show "Redacted Tonight With Lee Camp" on RT America. He is a
former comedy writer for the Onion and the Huffington Post and has been a touring stand-up
comic for 20 years.
This article was published with special permission from the author. It originally
appeared at Consortium News .
Stories published in our Daily Digests section are chosen based on the interest of our
readers. They are republished from a number of sources, and are not produced by MintPress News.
The views expressed in these articles are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect
MintPress News editorial policy.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect
MintPress News editorial policy.
The BLM-Antifa Marxist revolution under the cover of ending "systemic racism" is controlled
by the ruling elite through foundations, progressive think tanks, wealthy liberals - and
corporate CEOs you'd think know better.
Success depends on the help of opportunistic Democrat politicians who believe raising a
clenched fist and parroting BLM will get them elected or re-elected, thus perpetuating a system
of crony capitalism and endless war behind a kinder and gentler Democrat facade that is now
falling away.
If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a
method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of superrich men
promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead it becomes the logical, even the
perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism, or more accurately, socialism, is not
a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite.
The ruling elite, the financial class that has profited so mightily from riots and violence,
will not allow Marxists and black hoodie nihilists to spawn a violent revolution.
Chocura750 , 4 minutes ago
I doubt very much that there is any significant ideological thinking in 99% of the BLM
protestors. Imagine for a minute that George Floyd wasn't murdered, do you think that the BLM
organizers could get 100 people to protest capitalism and rally for socialism.
ProsperD9 , 9 minutes ago
Looks like BLM is about to get canceled. They committed the biggest cardinal sin that can
ever be committed on this earth. They can shoot all white babies, they can take over a
nursing home and strangle all the old white people, they can paint the white house
black...but one thing they CANNOT do... .drum roll please ...criticize IsraHell. Looks like
they've done the deed and about to be canceled. Read about it
BLACK LIVES MATTER 'CANCELED' AFTER CRITICIZING ISRAHELL.
HenryJonesJr , 20 minutes ago
More doom **** .... This kind of hyper-ventilating nonsense might sell well in highly
urbanized, totally dependent regions of America, meaning cities. But the majority of
Americans - white, black and brown - despise the idiotic Left and all their violence and
insanity.
"... This is a thread about Marc Collins-Rector and the powerful child rape ring which extends from the BBS era to the cryptocurrency era with ties throughout entertainment and silicon valley, from Disney executives to crypto circles and social media. #opDeathEaters ..."
"... Both Epstein and his spotter were nothing more than consumables that thought they were were players. I'm not sure what the tabloid interest in this pair of clowns is all about. ..."
"... The Maxwell trial will be a carefully choreographed nothing burger ! The delay in bringing her to justice, was so as to plan and negotiate the details. To the satisfaction of all concerned. ..."
"... Letting the likes of prince Andrew and Clinton's and Trump off the hook regarding any incriminating evedence. So who is running the show (answer) Israel and their lobby groups. ..."
"... Ghislaine Maxwell and Les Wexner are the boss and Epstein was the CEO at their bidding. Wexner GAVE Epstein the Manhatten apartment. That is a five story large building and it was already fully fitted out with recording gear from the handover day. They don't come cheap. This was one of the biggest, deliberate global entrapment rackets the world has seen. Ghislaine was the handler and Wexner the financier and front man. ..."
"... Note how the operatives avoid my inquiry as to who owned the safe house and/or how Maxwell came to own it and who aided her in that endeavor? ..."
"... More on the Nutter Butter law firm that helped Maxwell purchase the New Hampshire safe house. It has strong ties to Harvard. Epstein was in deep with the Harvard folks and the Harvard folks, all Ivy League in fact, are in deep with the intelligence services. It's important in the clandestine services to keep changing your name. Chinese Princelings, fyi, prize a Harvard education. Gee, imagine that. ..."
Another example of what hackers *might* able to do... (PSA: I have *no* idea whether *any*
of this information is correct - but wouldn't it be great if it was?)
This is a thread about
Marc Collins-Rector and the powerful child rape ring which extends from the BBS era to the
cryptocurrency era with ties throughout entertainment and silicon valley, from Disney
executives to crypto circles and social media. #opDeathEaters
Featuring: Bryan Singer, Gary Goddard, Jeffrey Sachs, Mitchell Blutt, David Neuman, David
Geffen, Sandy Gallin, Terry Semel, Michael Huffington, Garth Ancier, Gary Gersh, John
Silva, Marc Nathanson, Steve Bannon, Jeffrey Epstein, Al Seckel and more.
Both Epstein and his spotter were nothing more than consumables that thought they were
were players. I'm not sure what the tabloid interest in this pair of clowns is all about.
The question now is: How do they stop Ghislaine from testifying? Having her "commit
suicide" in her cell with all the cell block cameras off starts to look a little, I don't
know, "blatant", wouldn't one think?
Well, blatant is not a concept that the oligarch class actually feel any problem with.
The Maxwell trial will be a carefully choreographed nothing burger !
The delay in bringing her to justice, was so as to plan and negotiate the details. To the
satisfaction of all concerned.
Letting the likes of prince Andrew and Clinton's and Trump off the hook regarding any
incriminating evedence.
So who is running the show (answer) Israel and their lobby groups.
Q. What's on the table ? Power, money and territory! As always.
This is harvest time for Israel I'm afraid !
Both Epstein and his spotter were nothing more than consumables that thought they were were
players. I'm not sure what the tabloid interest in this pair of clowns is all about.
Ghislaine Maxwell and Les Wexner are the boss and Epstein was the CEO at their bidding.
Wexner GAVE Epstein the Manhatten apartment. That is a five story large building and it was
already fully fitted out with recording gear from the handover day. They don't come cheap.
This was one of the biggest, deliberate global entrapment rackets the world has seen.
Ghislaine was the handler and Wexner the financier and front man.
But I am just an observer and if you want the gritty stuff then tune in to Whitney Webb
and listen to her take on this. She has been revealing an immense amount of evidence and
links since Epstein was first arrested 3? years ago. I am about to do that myself.
I don't give a flat rock what the MSM thinks or does in this case.
The Maxwell trial for the show and the annexation in the background? With no cash allowed
to flow to the axis of resistance (no banks, no planes, no Gulf expats enabled to bring in
cash without the virus risk?).
The BBC article had an interesting snippet about Andrew, at the very end of the article:
"Asked about the prince on Thursday, acting Attorney Strauss said: "I am not going to comment
on anyone's status in this investigation but I will say that we would welcome Prince Andrew
coming in to talk with us, we would like to have the benefit of his statement."
A source close to Prince Andrew's lawyers told BBC News: "The Duke's team is bewildered by
the DoJ's [Department of Justice's] comments earlier today as we have twice reached out to
them in the last month and have received no reply.""
Note how the operatives avoid my inquiry as to who owned the safe house and/or how
Maxwell came to own it and who aided her in that endeavor? Now why would they avoid that
most important question and change the subject and surround the inquiry with distracting
nonsense? I'll let the few honest ones amongst you answer that question. It's an easy answer,
fyi. Hey Gruff, I see you.
Authorities said Thursday that Maxwell was caught at a 156-acre property in that town,
where land records list just one lot of that size, on East Washington Road.
"The defendant appears to have been hiding on a 156-acre property acquired in an
all-cash purchase in December 2019 (through a carefully anonymized LLC) in Bradford, New
Hampshire, an area to which she has no other known connections," said a court filing by
Manhattan federal prosecutors. An LLC is a limited liability corporation.
Other records show the buyer was Granite Reality LLC, whose listed manager is a Boston
lawyer named Jeffrey Roberts.
Roberts did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The web site of his firm,
Nutter McClennen & Fish, says that Roberts "chairs Nutter's Private Client Department
and serves as a member of the firm's Executive Committee."
"His broad-based practice consists of estate planning for high net worth individuals,"
among other areas, according to the web site. Nutter, whose spokeswoman did not immediately
respond to a request for comment, is located at the same Boston address as the mailing
address of the LLC that bought the property.
More on the Nutter Butter law firm that helped Maxwell purchase the New Hampshire
safe house. It has strong ties to Harvard. Epstein was in deep with the Harvard folks and the
Harvard folks, all Ivy League in fact, are in deep with the intelligence services. It's
important in the clandestine services to keep changing your name. Chinese Princelings, fyi,
prize a Harvard education. Gee, imagine that.
Nutter has deep roots in the Boston community. In 1879, a young Louis D. Brandeis founded
the firm with fellow Harvard alumnus Samuel D. Warren.
Although Brandeis would leave
private practice for the judiciary -- he was appointed to the United States Supreme Court
after 35 years at the firm -- Nutter has maintained its prestigious reputation through
multiple name changes.
It is not just senility. Looks like Ukrainegate is not enough for her and she wants to throw kitchen sink at Trump. Charging for "alleged"
action is directly from Stalin's NKVD practice
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday called for US sanctions against Russia's intelligence
service over bounties that it reportedly offered Taliban militants to kill American soldiers in
Afghanistan.
B ased on anonymous intelligence sources, The New York
Times ,
Washington Post , and
Wall Street Journal released bombshell reports alleging that Russia is paying the
Taliban bounties for every U.S. soldier they can kill. The story caused an uproar in the United
States, dominating the news cycle and leading presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Joe
Biden to
accuse Trump of "dereliction of duty" and "continuing his embarrassing campaign of
deference and debasing himself before Vladimir Putin." "This is beyond the pale," the former
vice-president concluded .
However, there are a number of reasons to be suspicious of the new reports. Firstly, they
appear all to be based entirely on the same intelligence officials who insisted on anonymity.
The official could not provide any concrete evidence, nor establish that any Americans had
actually died as a result, offering only vague assertions and admitting that the information
came from "interrogated" (i.e. tortured) Afghan militants. All three reports stressed the
uncertainty of the claims, with the only sources who went on record -- the White House, the
Kremlin, and the Taliban -- all vociferously denying it all.
The national security state also has a history of using anonymous officials to plant stories
that lead to war. In 2003, the country was awash with stories that Saddam Hussein possessed
weapons of mass destruction, in 2011 anonymous officials warned of an impending genocide in
Libya, while in 2018 officials accused Bashar al-Assad of attacking Douma with chemical
weapons, setting the stage for a bombing campaign. All turned out to be untrue.
"After all we've been through, we're supposed to give anonymous 'intelligence officials' in
The New York Times the benefit of the doubt on something like this? I don't think so,"
Scott Horton, Editorial Director of Antiwar.com and author of " Fool's Errand: Time to End the War in Afghanistan ," told
MintPressNews . "All three stories were written in language conceding they did
not know if the story was true," he said, "They are reporting the 'fact' that there was a
rumor."
Horton continued: "There were claims in 2017 that Russia was arming and paying the Taliban,
but then the generals admitted to Congress they had no evidence of either. In a humiliating
debacle, also in 2017, CNN claimed a big scoop about Putin's support for the Taliban
when furnished with some photos of Taliban fighters with old Russian weapons. The military
veteran journalists at Task and Purpose
quickly debunked every claim in their piece."
Others were equally skeptical of the new scandal. "The bottom line for me is that after
countless (Russiagate related) anonymous intelligence leaks, many of which were later proven
false or never substantiated with real evidence, I can't take this story seriously. The
intelligence 'community' itself can't agree on the credibility of this information, which is
similar to the situation with a foundational Russiagate document, the January, 2017
intelligence 'assessment,'" said Joanne Leon , host of the Around the Empire Podcast , a show which covers U.S. military
actions abroad.
The timing of the leak also raised eyebrows. Peace negotiations between the U.S. and the
Taliban are ongoing, with President Trump committing to pulling all American troops out of the
country. A number of key anti-weapons of mass destruction treaties between the U.S. and Russia
are
currently expiring , and a scandal such as this one would scupper any chance at peace,
escalating a potential arms race that would endanger the world but enrich weapons
manufacturers. Special Presidential Envoy in the Department of the Treasury, Marshall
Billingslea, recently
announced that the United States is willing to spend Russia and China "into oblivion" in a
new arms race, mimicking the strategy it used in the 1980s against the Soviet Union. As a
result, even during the pandemic, business is
booming for American weapons contractors.
"The national security state has done everything they can to keep the U.S. involved in that
war," remarked Horton, "If Trump had listened to his former Secretary of Defense James Mattis
and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, we'd be on year three of an escalation with plans
to begin talks with the Taliban next year. Instead Trump talked to them for the last
year-and-a-half and has already signed a deal to have us out by the end of next May."
"The same factions and profiteers who always oppose withdrawal of troops are enthusiastic
about the 'Bountygate' story at a time when President Trump is trying to advance negotiations
with the Taliban and when he desperately needs to deliver on 2016 campaign promises and improve
his sinking electoral prospects," said Leon.
If Russia is paying the Taliban to kill Americans they are not doing a very good job of it.
From a high of 496 in 2010, U.S. losses in Afghanistan have slowed
to a trickle, with only 22 total fatalities in 2019, casting further doubt on the scale of
their supposed plan.
Ironically, the United States is accusing the Kremlin of precisely its own policy towards
Russia in Syria. In 2016, former Acting Director of the C.I.A. Michael Morell appeared on the
Charlie Rose show and
said his job was to "make the Russians pay a price" for its involvement in the Middle East.
When asked if he meant killing Russians by that, he replied, "Yes. Covertly. You don't tell the
world about it. You don't stand up at the Pentagon and say, 'We did this.' But you make sure
they know it in Moscow."
Like
RussiaGate , the new scandal has had the effect of pushing liberal opinion on foreign
policy to become far more hawkish, with Biden now campaigning on being "tougher" on China and
Russia than Trump would be. Considering that the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists recently set
their famous Doomsday Clock -- an estimation of
how close they believe the world is to nuclear armageddon -- to just 100 seconds to midnight,
the latest it has ever been, the Democrats could be playing with fire. The organization
specifically singled out U.S.-Russia conflict as threatening the continued existence of the
planet. While time will tell if Russia did indeed offer bounties to kill American troops, the
efficacy of the media leak is not in question.
Feature photo | U.S. forces and Afghan commandos are seen in the town of Asad Khil near the
site of a U.S. bombing east of Kabul, Afghanistan. Rahmat Gul | AP
"... One can read this most recent flurry of Russia, Russia, Russia paid the Taliban to kill GIs as an attempt to pre-empt the findings into Russiagate's origins. ..."
"... But Moscow recognized from the start that Washington was embarked on a fool's errand in Vietnam. There would be no percentage in getting directly involved. And so, the Soviets sat back and watched smugly as the Vietnamese Communists drove U.S. forces out on their "own resources." As was the case with the Viet Cong, the Taliban needs no bounty inducements from abroad. ..."
"... Former CIA Director William Casey said: "We'll know when our disinformation program is complete, when everything the American public believes is false." ..."
"... If Durham finds it fraudulent (not a difficult task), the heads of senior intelligence and law enforcement officials may roll. That would also mean a still deeper dent in the credibility of Establishment media that are only too eager to drink the Kool Aid and to leave plenty to drink for the rest of us. ..."
"... I am not a regular Maddow-watcher, but to me she seemed unhinged -- actually, well over the top. ..."
One can read this most recent flurry of Russia, Russia, Russia paid the Taliban to kill GIs
as an attempt to pre-empt the findings into Russiagate's origins.
O n Friday The New York Times featured a report based on anonymous intelligence
officials that the Russians were paying bounties to have U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan with
President Donald Trump refusing to do anything about it. The flurry of Establishment media
reporting that ensued provides further proof, if such were needed, that the erstwhile "paper of
record" has earned a new moniker -- Gray Lady of easy virtue.
Over the weekend, the Times ' dubious allegations grabbed headlines across all media
that are likely to remain indelible in the minds of credulous Americans -- which seems to have
been the main objective. To keep the pot boiling this morning, The New York Times' David
Leonhardt's daily web piece
, "The Morning" calls prominent attention to a banal
article by a Heather Cox Richardson, described as a historian at Boston College, adding
specific charges to the general indictment of Trump by showing "how the Trump administration
has continued to treat Russia favorably." The following is from Richardson's newsletter on
Friday:
"On April 1 a Russian plane brought ventilators and other medical supplies to the
United States a propaganda coup for Russia;
"On April 25 Trump raised eyebrows by issuing a joint statement with Russian President
Vladimir Putin commemorating the 75th anniversary of the historic meeting between American
and Soviet troops on the bridge of the Elbe River in Germany that signaled the final defeat
of the Nazis;
"On May 3, Trump called Putin and talked for an hour and a half, a discussion Trump
called 'very positive';
"On May 21, the U.S. sent a humanitarian aid package worth $5.6 million to Moscow to
help fight coronavirus there. The shipment included 50 ventilators, with another 150 promised
for the next week;
"On June 15, news broke that Trump has ordered the removal of 9,500 troops from
Germany, where they support NATO against Russian aggression. "
Historian Richardson added:
"All of these friendly overtures to Russia were alarming enough when all we knew was that
Russia attacked the 2016 U.S. election and is doing so again in 2020. But it is far worse
that those overtures took place when the administration knew that Russia had actively
targeted American soldiers. this bad news apparently prompted worried intelligence officials
to give up their hope that the administration would respond to the crisis, and instead to
leak the story to two major newspapers."
Hear the siren? Children, get under your desks!
The Tall Tale About Russia Paying for Dead U.S. Troops
Times print edition readers had to wait until this morning to learn of Trump's
statement last night that he was not briefed on the cockamamie tale about bounties for killing,
since it was, well, cockamamie.
Late last night the president tweeted: "Intel just reported to me that they did not find
this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me or the VP. "
For those of us distrustful of the Times -- with good reason -- on such neuralgic
issues, the bounty story had already fallen of its own weight. As Scott Ritter pointed out
yesterday:
"Perhaps the biggest clue concerning the fragility of the New York Times ' report
is contained in the one sentence it provides about sourcing -- "The intelligence
assessment is said to be based at least in part on interrogations of captured Afghan
militants and criminals." That sentence contains almost everything one needs to know
about the intelligence in question, including the fact that the source of the information is
most likely the Afghan government as reported through CIA channels. "
And who can forget how "successful" interrogators can be in getting desired answers.
Russia & Taliban React
The Kremlin called the Times reporting "nonsense an unsophisticated plant," and from
Russia's perspective the allegations make little sense; Moscow will see them for what they are
-- attempts to show that Trump is too "accommodating" to Russia.
A Taliban spokesman called the story "baseless," adding with apparent pride that "we" have
done "target killings" for years "on our own resources."
Russia is no friend of the Taliban. At the same time, it has been clear for several years
that the U.S. would have to pull its troops out of Afghanistan. Think back five decades and
recall how circumspect the Soviets were in Vietnam. Giving rhetorical support to a fraternal
Communist nation was de rigueur and some surface-to-air missiles gave some substance to
that support.
But Moscow recognized from the start that Washington was embarked on a fool's errand in
Vietnam. There would be no percentage in getting directly involved. And so, the Soviets sat
back and watched smugly as the Vietnamese Communists drove U.S. forces out on their "own
resources." As was the case with the Viet Cong, the Taliban needs no bounty inducements from
abroad.
Besides, the Russians knew painfully well -- from their own bitter experience in
Afghanistan, what the outcome of the most recent fool's errand would be for the U.S. What point
would they see in doing what The New York Times and other Establishment media are
breathlessly accusing them of?
CIA Disinformation; Casey at Bat
Former CIA Director William Casey said: "We'll know when our disinformation program is
complete, when everything the American public believes is false."
Casey made that remark at the first cabinet meeting in the White House under President
Ronald Reagan in early 1981, according to Barbara Honegger, who was assistant to the chief
domestic policy adviser. Honegger was there, took notes, and told then Senior White House
correspondent Sarah McClendon, who in turn made it public.
If Casey's spirit is somehow observing the success of the disinformation program called
Russiagate, one can imagine how proud he must be. But sustained propaganda success can be a
serious challenge. The Russiagate canard has lasted three and a half years. This last gasp
effort, spearheaded by the Times , to breathe more life into it is likely to last little
more than a weekend -- the redoubled efforts of Casey-dictum followers notwithstanding.
Russiagate itself has been unraveling, although one would hardly know it from the
Establishment media. No collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Even the sacrosanct
tenet that the Russians hacked the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks has been disproven
, with the head of the DNC-hired cyber security firm CrowdStrike
admitting that there is
no evidence that the DNC emails were hacked -- by Russia or
anyone else .
U.S. Attorney John Durham. (Wikipedia)
How long will it take the Times to catch up with the CrowdStrike story, available
since May 7?
The media is left with one sacred cow: the misnomered "Intelligence Community" Assessment of
Jan. 6, 2017, claiming that President Putin himself ordered the hacking of the DNC. That
"assessment" done by "hand-picked analysts" from only CIA, FBI and NSA (not all 17 intelligence
agencies of the "intelligence community") reportedly is being given close scrutiny by U. S.
Attorney John Durham, appointed by the attorney general to investigate Russiagate's
origins.
If Durham finds it fraudulent (not a difficult task), the heads of senior intelligence and
law enforcement officials may roll. That would also mean a still deeper dent in the credibility
of Establishment media that are only too eager to drink the Kool Aid and to leave plenty to
drink for the rest of us.
Do not expect the media to cease and desist, simply because Trump had a good squelch for
them last night -- namely, the "intelligence" on the "bounties" was not deemed good enough to
present to the president.
(As a preparer and briefer of The President's Daily Brief to Presidents Reagan and HW
Bush, I can attest to the fact that -- based on what has been revealed so far -- the Russian
bounty story falls far short of the PDB threshold.)
Rejecting Intelligence Assessments
Nevertheless, the corporate media is likely to play up the Trump administration's rejection
of what the media is calling the "intelligence assessment" about Russia offering -- as Rachel
Maddow indecorously put it on Friday -- "bounty for the scalps of American soldiers in
Afghanistan."
I am not a regular Maddow-watcher, but to me she seemed
unhinged -- actually, well over the top.
The media asks, "Why does Trump continue to disrespect the assessments of the intelligence
community?" There he goes again -- not believing our "intelligence community; siding, rather,
with Putin."
In other words, we can expect no let up from the media and the national security miscreant
leakers who have served as their life's blood. As for the anchors and pundits, their level of
sophistication was reflected yesterday in the sage surmise of Face the Nation's Chuck Todd, who
Aaron Mate reminds us, is a "grown adult and professional media person." Todd asked guest John
Bolton: "Do you think that the president is afraid to make Putin mad because maybe Putin did
help him win the election, and he doesn't want to make him mad for 2020?"
"This is as bad as it gets," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday, adding the aphorism
she memorized several months ago: "All roads lead to Putin." The unconscionably deceitful
performance of Establishment media is as bad as it gets, though that, of course, was not
what Pelosi meant. She apparently lifted a line right out of the Times about how Trump
is too "accommodating" toward Russia.
One can read this most recent flurry of Russia, Russia, Russia as a reflection of the need
to pre-empt the findings likely to issue from Durham and Attorney General William Barr in the
coming months -- on the theory that the best defense is a pre-emptive offense. Meanwhile, we
can expect the corporate media to continue to disgrace itself.
Vile
Caitlin Johnstone, typically,
pulls no punches regarding the Russian bounty travesty:
"All parties involved in spreading this malignant psyop are absolutely vile, but a special
disdain should be reserved for the media class who have been entrusted by the public with the
essential task of creating an informed populace and holding power to account. How much of an
unprincipled whore do you have to be to call yourself a journalist and uncritically parrot
the completely unsubstantiated assertions of spooks while protecting their anonymity? How
much work did these empire fluffers put into killing off every last shred of their dignity?
It boggles the mind.
It really is funny how the most influential news outlets in the Western world will
uncritically parrot whatever they're told to say by the most powerful and depraved
intelligence agencies on the planet, and then turn around and tell you without a hint of
self-awareness that Russia and China are bad because they have state media.
Sometimes all you can do is laugh."
Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27-years as a CIA analyst he led the Soviet
Foreign Policy Branch and prepared The President's Daily Brief for Presidents Nixon,
Ford, and Reagan. In retirement, he co-created Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
(VIPS).
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
Aaron , June 30, 2020 at 12:33
If anything, all roads lead to Israel. You have to consider the sources, the writers,
journalists, editors, owners, and rich people from which these stories come. This latest
ridiculous story will certainly help Trump, so the sources of these Russia stories are
actually fans of Trump, they love his tax cuts, he helps their revenue streams, and he's the
greatest friend and Zionist to Israel so far and also Wall Street. I think most Americans can
understand that Putin doesn't possess all of the supernatural all-encompassing powers and
mind-controlling omnipotence that Pelosi and her ilk attribute to him. That's why at his
rallies, when Trump points to where the journalists are and sneers at them calling them
bloodsuckers and parasites and all that, the people love it, because of stuff like this. It's
like saying "look at those assholes, those liberal journalists over at CNN say that you voted
for me because of Vladimir Putin?!" It just pisses off people to keep hearing that mantra
over and over. So it's a gift to Trump, it helps him so much. And seeing that super expensive
helicopter flying around the barren rocky slopes of the middle east, seems like it's out of
some Rambo movie. And like Rambo, the tens of thousands of American servicemen that were
sacrificed over there, and still commit suicides at a horrific rate, have always been treated
by the architects of these wars that only helped the state of Israel, as the expendables.
Whether it's a black life, a soldier fighting in Iraq, a foreclosed on homeowner by Mnuchin's
work, or a brainwashed New York Times subscriber, we don't seem to matter, we seem to feel
the truth that to these people were are indeed expendable. The question to answer I think is,
not who is a Russian asset, but who is an Israeli asset?
Andrew Thomas , June 30, 2020 at 12:04
Great reporting as usual, Ray. But special kudos for the NYT moniker 'Gray lady of easy
virtue.' I almost laughed out loud. A rare occurrence these days.
Michael P Goldenberg , June 30, 2020 at 10:45
Thanks for another cogent assessment of our mainstream media's utter depravity and
reckless irresponsibility. They truly have become nothing more than presstitutes and enemies
of the people.
Bob Van Noy , June 30, 2020 at 10:42
"It's all over but the shouting" goes the idiom and I think that is true of Russiagate,
especially, thank all goodness, here at Robert Parry's Journalistic site!
I have a theory that propaganda has a lifetime but when it reaches a truly absurd level,
it's all over. Clearly, we've reached that level Thanks to all at CN
evelync , June 30, 2020 at 10:33
You call Rachel Madcow "unhinged", Ray ..well, yes, I'm shocked at myself that there was a
time that I tuned in to her show .
Sorry Ms Madcow you've turned yourself into a character from Dr Strangelove
The key threats – climate change, pandemics, nuclear war – and why we continue
to fail to address these real things while filling the airwaves instead with the tiresome
russia,russia,russia mantra – per Accam's razer suggests that it serves very short term
interests of money and power whoever whatever the MICIMATT answers to.
"Former CIA Director William Casey said: "We'll know when our disinformation program is
complete, when everything the American public believes is false." "
Who exactly was the "we" Casey was answering to each day?
I know it wasn't me or the planet or humanity or anyone I know.
Bill Rice , June 30, 2020 at 10:20
If only articles like this were read by the masses. Maybe people would get a clue. Blind
patriotism is not patriotic at all. Skepticism is healthy.
torture this , June 30, 2020 at 09:54
It's a shame that VIPS reporting is top secret. It's the only information coming from
people familiar with the ins and outs of spy agencies that can be trusted.
GeorgeG , June 30, 2020 at 09:45
Ray,
You missed the juicy stuff. See: tass.com/russia/1172369 Russia Foreign Ministry: NYT article
on Russia in Afghanistan fake from US intelligence. Here is the kicker:
The Russian Foreign Ministry pointed to US intelligence agencies' involvement in Afghan
drug trafficking.
"Should we speak about facts – moreover, well-known [facts], it has not long been a
secret in Afghanistan that members of the US intelligence community are involved in drug
trafficking, cash payments to militants for letting transport convoys pass through, kickbacks
from contracts implementing various projects paid by American taxpayers. The list of their
actions can be continued if you want," the ministry said.
The Russian Foreign Ministry suggested that those actions might stem from the fact that
the US intelligence agencies "do not like that our and their diplomats have teamed up to
facilitate the start of peace talks between Kabul and the Taliban (outlawed in Russia –
TASS)."
"We can understand their feelings as they do not want to be deprived of the above
mentioned sources of the off-the-books income," the ministry stressed.
Thomas Fortin , June 30, 2020 at 12:08
Affirmative Ray, two of my old comrades who were SF both did security on CIA drug flights
back in the day, and later on both while under VA care decided to die off God I miss them,
great guys and honest souls.
DH Fabian , June 30, 2020 at 09:41
One point remains a mystery. Why would anyone think that when the US invades a country,
someone would need to pay the people of that country a bounty to fight back?
Mark Clarke , June 30, 2020 at 09:27
If Biden wins the presidency and the Democrats take back the Senate, Russiagate will
strengthen and live on for many years.
Al , June 30, 2020 at 12:11
All to deflect from Clinton's private server while SOS, 30,000 deleted emails, and the
sale of US interests via the Clinton Foundation.
Zedster , June 30, 2020 at 12:56
That, or we learn Chinese.
Skip Scott , June 30, 2020 at 09:08
Another interesting aside is that Tulsi Gabbard's "Stop funding Terrorists" bill went
nowhere in Congress. So it's Ok for us and our Arab allies to fund them, but not the
Russians? Maybe we should go back to calling them the Mujahideen?
Thomas Scherrer , June 30, 2020 at 12:10
Preach, my child.
And aloha to the last decent woman in those halls.
Do you not think that the timing of all this (months after the report was allegedly
presented to Trump) is an attempt to stop Trump from signing an agreement with the Taliban
that will allow him to withdraw American troops from that country?
Skip Scott , June 30, 2020 at 08:58
Great article Ray, but I have to question whether Durham will fulfill his role and get to
the bottom of the origins of RussiaGate. If he actually does name names and prosecute, how
will the MSM cover it? What will Ms. Madcow have to say? Ever since the fizzling failure of
the Epstein investigation, I have had my doubts about Barr and his minion Durham. I hope I'm
wrong. Time will tell.
Thomas Fortin , June 30, 2020 at 12:24
I think on here I can talk about this issue you brought up Scott, on other places when I
tried to have a rational discussion on the matter, I got shouted down, well they tried
anyway.
I highly suggest to any readers of this here on Consortium to get Gore Vidal's old book,
Imperial America, and also watch his old documentary, THE UNITED STATES OF AMNESIA.
Here is the point of it,
"Officially we have two parties which are in fact wings of a common party of property with
two right wings. Corporate wealth finances each. Since the property party controls every
aspect of media they have had decades to create a false reality for a citizenry largely
uneducated by public schools that teach conformity with an occasional advanced degree in
consumerism."
-GORE VIDAL, The United States of Amnesia
Also,
"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party and it has two right wings:
Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in
their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more
corrupt -- until recently and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments
when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is
no difference between the two parties."
? Gore Vidal
Others have pointed out the same like this,
"Nobody should have any illusions. The United States has essentially a one-party system and
the ruling party is the business party."
? Noam Chomsky
"In the United States [ ] the two main business-dominated parties, with the support of the
corporate community, have refused to reform laws that make it virtually impossible to create
new political parties (that might appeal to non-business interests) and let them be
effective. Although there is marked and frequently observed dissatisfaction with the
Republicans and Democrats, electoral politics is one area where notions of competitions and
free choice have little meaning. In some respects the caliber of debate and choice in
neoliberal elections tends to be closer to that of the one-party communist state than that of
a genuine democracy."
? Robert W. McChesney, Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies is a foolish
idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can
throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in
policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other
party which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately
the same basic policies."
? Carroll Quigley [1910 – 1977 was an American historian and theorist of the evolution
of civilizations. He is remembered for his teaching work as a professor at Georgetown
University, for his academic publications.]
Teddy Roosevelt, whose statue is under attack in NYC, had this to say,
"The bosses of the Democratic party and the bosses of the Republican party alike have a
closer grip than ever before on the party machines in the States and in the Nation. This
crooked control of both the old parties by the beneficiaries of political and business
privilege renders it hopeless to expect any far-reaching and fundamental service from
either."
-THEODORE ROOSEVELT, The Outlook, July 27, 1912
I suggest also that you look up on line this article, Heads They Win, Tails We Lose: Our Fake
Two-Party System
by Prof. Stephen H. Unger at Columbia, here is his concluding thought,
"The drift toward loss of liberty, unending wars, environmental degradation, growing economic
inequality can't be stopped easily, but it will never be halted as long as we allow corporate
interests to rule our country by means of a pseudo-democracy based on the two-party
swindle."
With this all in mind, and if your my age, you might recall about how over the past more then
50 years, no matter which party gets in power, nothing of any significance changes, the wars
continue, the transfer of wealth to the few, and the erosion of basic civil liberties
continues pretty well unabated.
Trump is surrounded by neo-cons and I expect nothing will happen to change anything. I would
get into how most called liberals are hardly that, but in reality neo-cons, but I've said
enough for now, when you consider the statements I shared, then the Matrix begins to come
unraveled.
Grady , June 30, 2020 at 08:01
Not to mention the potential peace initiative with Afghanistan and Taliban that is
looming. Peace is not profitable, so who has the dual interests in maintaining protracted war
in a strategic location while ensuring the poppy crop stays the most productive in the world?
It seems said poppy production under the pre war Taliban government was minimal as they
eliminated most of it. Attacking the Taliban and thwarting its rule allowed for greater
production, to the extent it is the global leader in helping to fulfill the opiate demand.
Gary Webb established long ago that the intelligence community, specifically the CIA, has
somewhat of a tradition in such covert operations and logic would dictate they're vested
interest lies in maintaining a high yield crop while feeding the profit center that is the
MIC war machine. While certainly a bit digressive, the dots are there to connect.
Paul , June 30, 2020 at 07:54
My friend, I love your columns. Thank you, you have been one of the few sane voices on
Russiagate from the beginning.
Sadly most Americans and most people in the world will not receive these simple truths you
are telling. (not their fault)
We will continue our fight against the system.
Peace, Paul from South Africa
Voice from Europe , June 30, 2020 at 07:38
Don't think this will be the last Russiagate gasp whoever becomes the next president.
The 'liberal democrats' believe their own delusions and as long as they control the MSM, they
won't stop. Lol.
Thomas Fortin , June 30, 2020 at 12:29
You should read my reply to Scott, most of these Democrats are not liberals, but neo-cons
who just liberal virtue signal while in reality supporting the neo-con agenda. I hate it how
the so called alternative or independent media abuse terms and words, which obscures
realities. Anyway, take a look at my reply and the quotes I shared.
"Definition of liberal, one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox,
traditional, or established forms or ways, progressive, broad-minded, . willing to respect or
accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas, denoting a political
and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free
enterprise."
? Derived from Webster's and the Oxford Dictionaries
"Liberal' comes from the Latin liberalis, which means pertaining to a free man. In
politics, to be liberal is to want to extend democracy through change and reform. One can see
why that word had to be erased from our political lexicon."
? Gore Vidal, "The Great Unmentionable: Monotheism and its Discontents," The Lowell Lecture,
Harvard University, April 20, 1992.
Once again I would like to compliment Mr McGovern on his magnificently Biblical
appearance. That full set would do credit to any Old Testament prophet.
I see him as the USA's own Jeremiah.
Tom Welsh , June 30, 2020 at 06:12
Seeing that picture of Johnson's sad, wicked bloodhound features really, really makes me
wish I had had a chance to be outside his tent pissing in. I'd have been careful to drink as
many gallons of beer as possible beforehand.
Although it would have been better, from a humanitarian pont of view, just to set fire to
the tent.
Tom Welsh , June 30, 2020 at 06:10
"Historian Richardson "
Clearly a serious exaggeration.
Tom Welsh , June 30, 2020 at 06:09
Ah, the Chinook! The 60-year-old helicopter that epitomises everything Afghan patriots
love about the USA. It's big, fat, slow, clumsy, unmanoeuvrable, and may carry enough US
troops to make shooting it down a damaging political blow against Washington.
Vivek , June 30, 2020 at 05:43
Ray,
What do you make of Barbara Honeggar's second career as a alternative story peddler?
see hXXps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB21BVFOIjw
CNfan , June 30, 2020 at 03:43
A brilliant piece, with a deft touch depicting the timeless human follies running our
foreign policy circus. Real-world experience, perspective, and courage like Ray's were the
dream of the drafters of our 1st Amendment. And ending with Caitlin's hammer was effective.
As to who benefits? I suspect the neocons – our resident war-addicts and Israeli
assets. Paraphrasing Nancy, "All roads lead to Netanyahu."
So,Russia what will do in next Upcoming Years during these covid-19.
Realist , June 30, 2020 at 02:54
Ray, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has embraced these allegations against
Russia as the gospel truth and has threatened to seek revenge against Putin once he occupies
the White House.
He said Americans who serve in the military put their life on the line. "But they should
never, never, never ever face a threat like this with their commander in chief turning a
blind eye to a foreign power putting a bounty on their heads."
"I'm quite frankly outraged by the report," Biden said. He promised that if he is elected,
"Putin will be confronted and we'll impose serious costs on Russia."
This is the kind of warmongering talk that derailed the expected landslide victory for the
Queen of Warmongers in 2016. This time round though, Trump has seemingly already swung and
badly missed three times in his responses to the Covid outbreak, the public antics attributed
to BLM, and the Fed's creation of six trillion dollars in funny money as a gift to the most
privileged tycoons on the planet. In baseball, which will not have a season in spite of the
farcical theatrics between ownership and players, that's called a "whiff" and gets you sent
back to the bench.
According to all the pollsters, Donnie's base of white working class "deplorables" are
already abandoning his campaign–bigly, prompting the none-too-keen Biden to assume that
over-the-top Russia bashing is back in season, especially since trash-talking Nobel Laureate
Obama is now delivering most of the mute sock puppet Biden's lines. It was almost comical to
watch Joe do nothing but grin in the framed picture to the left of his old boss during their
most recent joint interview with the press. This dangerous re-set of the Cold War is NOT what
the people want, nor is it good for them or any living things.
DH Fabian , June 30, 2020 at 10:18
Biden already lost 2020 -- in spite of the widely-disliked Trump. This is why Democrats
began working to breath life back into Russia-gate by late last year, setting the stage to
blame Russia for their 2020 defeat. We spent the past 25 years detailing the demise of the
Democratic Party (replaced by the "New Democrat Party"), and it turned out that the party
loyalists didn't hear a word of it.
John A , June 30, 2020 at 02:15
As a viewer from afar, in Europe, I find it mindboggling how the American public seem to
believe all this nonsense about Russia. Have the people there really been that dumbed down by
chewing gum for the eyes television and disgusting chemical and growth h0rmone laced food?
Sad, sad, sad.
Tom Welsh , June 30, 2020 at 06:17
John, I think there is something to what you say about dumbing down. I recall Albert Jay
Nock lamenting, in about 1910, how dreadfully US education had already been dumbed down
– and things have been going steadily downhill ever since.
But I don't think we can quite release the citizenry from responsibility on account of
their ignorance. (Isn't it a legal maxim that ignorance is not an excuse?)
There is surely deep down in most people a sly lust for dominance, a desire to control and
forbid and compel; and also a quiet satisfaction at hearing of inferior foreigners being
harmed or killed by one's own "world class" armed forces.
TS , June 30, 2020 at 11:14
> As a viewer from afar, in Europe, I find it mindboggling how the American public seem
to believe all this nonsense about Russia.
May I remind you that most of the mass media in Europe parrot all this nonsense, and a
large segment of the public swallows it?
Charles Familant , June 30, 2020 at 00:50
Mr. McGovern has not made his case. To his question as to why Taliban militants need any
additional incentive to target U.S. troops in Afghanistan, it is not far-fetched to believe
these militants would welcome additional funds to continue their belligerency. Waging war is
not cheap and is especially onerous for relatively small organizations as compared to major
powers. What reason would Putin have to pay such bounty? The increase in U.S. troop
casualties would provide Trump an additional rationale to bring the troops home, as he had
promised during his campaign speeches in 2015 and 2016. This action would be a boon to his
re-election prospects. Putin is well aware that if Biden wins in November, there is little
likelihood of the hostility in Afghanistan or anywhere else being brought to an end. But,
more to the point, the likelihood of U.S. sanctions against Russia being curtailed under a
Biden presidency is remote. To what he deemed rhetorical, Mr. McGovern asks how successful
were U.S. interrogators of such captured Taliban in the past, I remind him that there were
opposing views regarding which techniques were most effective. Might not these interrogators
have, in the present case, employed more effective means? Finally, it should not even be a
question as to why any news agency does not reveal its sources. But in this case, the New
York Times specifically mentions that the National Security Council discussed the
intelligence finding in late March. Further, if it is true that Trump, Pence et al ignored
the said briefs of which the administration was well aware, this should be no surprise to any
of us. Case in point: how long did it take Trump to respond to the present pandemic? One
telling observation: Mr. McGovern says that Heather Cox Richardson is "described as a
historian at Boston College.' She is not just "described as a historian" Mr. McGovern, she IS
a historian at Boston College; in fact, she is a professor at that college and has authored
six scholarly works that have been published as books, the most recent of which in March of
this year by the Oxford University Press. Mr. McGovern states that the points Richardson made
her most most recent newsletter as "banal." I see nothing banal in that newsletter, but
rather a list of relevant factual occurrences. Finally (this time it really is final), Mr.
McGovern employs the use of sarcasm to discount what Richardson and others have contended
regarding this most recent expose. And seems to give more credibility to the comments made by
Trump and his cohorts, as though this administration is remarkable for its integrity.
Sam F , June 30, 2020 at 11:05
Plausible interest does not make unsupported accusations a reality. What bounties did the
US offer?
Have you forgotten that the US set up Al Qaeda in Afghanistan with weapons to attack the USSR
there?
Zhu , June 30, 2020 at 00:34
Come December this year, which losing party will blame which scapegoat? Russia? China? The
Man in the Moon? It must be a hard decision!
Zhu , June 30, 2020 at 00:31
Unfortunately, bad ideas and conspiracy fictions rarely disappear completely. But that
Afghans need to be paid to kill invaders is the dumbest conspiracy fiction yet.
Thomas Fortin , June 29, 2020 at 21:31
Excellent report Ray, as usual.
Interesting note here, I watched The Hill's Rising program, and listened to young
conservative Saagar say, although he does not believe that Russia-gate is credible, he made
the statement that Russia is supplying the Taliban weapons and wants us to get out of
Afghanistan, and that is considered a fact by all journalists!
Saagar is a bit conflicted, he does not, but does believe the gods of intelligence, like so
many did with the Gulf of Tonkin so long ago, I remember that all too well.
As I look out upon the ignorant masses and useful idiots who strain at those Confederate and
other monuments, while continuing to elect the same old people back into office who continue
the status quo, its a bit discouraging. We were told so long ago about our current situation,
that,
"It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a
populace, that they are incapable of exercising the sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy
attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments
of their own debasement and ruin." [James Monroe, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1817]
As a historian of some sort and educational film maker, I do my best to educate people,
though its a bit overwhelming at times how ignorant and fascist brain-washed most are.
Monroe, like the other founders knew the secret of maintaining a free and prosperous
republic, from the same piece, "Let us, then, look to the great cause, and endeavor to
preserve it in full force. Let us by all wise and constitutional measures promote
intelligence among the people as the best means of preserving our liberties."
George Carlin got it right about why education "sucks", it was by design, so our work is cut
out for us.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what
never was and never will be."
~Thomas Jefferson
GMCasey , June 29, 2020 at 21:25
Why would Putin even bother? America and its endless wars is doing itself in. Afghanistan
is said to be," the graveyard of empires." It was for Alexander the Great -- –it was
for Russia and I suppose that it will be for America too -- -
DW Bartoo , June 29, 2020 at 20:50
Ray, I certainly hope that Durham and Barr will not wait too long a time to make public
the truth about Russiagate.
Indeed, certain heads should, figuratively, roll, and as well, the whole story about who
was behind the setting up of Flynn needs to, somehow, make it through the media flack.
Judge Sullivan's antics having been rather thoroughly shot down, though the media is
desperately trying to either spin or ignore the reality that it was not merely Flynn that
Sullivan was hoping to harm, but also the power of the executive branch relative to the
judicial branch.
The role of Obama and of Biden who, apparently, suggested the use of the Logan Act as the
means to go after Flynn, who we now know was intentionally entrapped by the intrepid FBI,
need to be made clear as well.
Just as with the initial claims that torture was the work of "a few bad apples", when
anyone with any insight into such "policy" actions had to have known that it WAS official
policy (crafted by Addington, Bybee, and Yoo, as it turned out, directed to do so by the Bush
White House), so too, must it be realized that it was not some rogue agents and loose
cannons, but actual instructions "from above", explicit or implicit, that "encouraged" the
behavior of those who spoke of "Insurance" policies designed to hamper, hinder, and harm the
incoming administration.
Clearly, I am no fan of Trump, and while I honestly regard the Rule of Law as essentially
a fairytale for the gullible (as the behavior of the "justice" system from the " qualified
immunity" of the police, to the "absolute immunity" of prosecutors, judges, and the political
class must make clear,to even the most giddy of childish believers in U$ purity, innocence,
and exceptionalism, that the "law" serves to protect wealth and power and NOT the public), I
should really like to consider that even in a pretend democracy, some things are simply not
to be tolerated.
Things, like torture, like fully politicized law enforcement or "intelligence" agencies,
like secret court proceedings, where judges may be lied to with total impunity and actual
evidence is not required. As well as things like a media thoroughly willing to requrgitate
blatant propaganda as "fact" (while having, again, no apparent need of genuine evidenc), or
other things like total surveillance, and the destruction of habeas corpus.
One should like to imagine that such things might concern the majority.
Yet, a society that buys into forever wars, lesser-evil voting, and created Hitler like
boogeymen, that countenances being lied into wars and consistently lied to about virtually
everything, is hardly likely to discern the truth of things until the "Dream" collapses into
personal pain, despair, and Depression.
Unless there is an awakening quite beyond that already tearing down statues, but yet still
, apparently, unwilling to grasp the totality of the corruption throughout the entire edifice
of "authority", of the total failure of a system that has no real legitimacy, except that
given it by voters choosing between two sides of the same tyranny, it may be readily
imagined, should Biden be "victorious", that Russiagate, Chinagate, Irangate, Venezuelagate,
and countless other "Gates" will become Official History.
In which case, this is not a last gasp, of Russiagate, but a new and full head of steam
for more of the same.
How easy it has been for the lies to prevail, to become "truth" and to simply disappear
the voices of those who ask for evidence, who dare question, who doubt.
How easy to co-opt and destroy efforts to educate or bring about critically necessary
change.
There are but a few months for real evidence to be revealed.
If Durham and Barr decide not to "criminalize policy differences", as Obama, the
"constitutional scholar", did regarding torture, then what might we imagine will be the
future of those who have an understanding of even those lies long being used, and with recent
additions, for example, to torture Julian Assange?
All of the deceit has common purpose, it is to maintain absolute control.
If Russiagate is not completely exposed, for all that it is and was intended to be, then
quaint little discussions about elite misbehavior will be banished from general awareness,
and those who persist in questioning will be rather severely dealt with.
Antonia , June 30, 2020 at 11:43
ABSOLUTELY. Well said. NOW where to make the changes absolutely necessary?
Zalamander , June 29, 2020 at 18:47
Thanks Ray. There are multiple reasons for the continued existance of Russiagate as the
Democratic party has no real answers for the economic depression affecting millions of
Americans. Neoliberal Joe Biden is also an exceptionally weak presidential candidate, who
does not even support universal healthcare for all Americans like every other advanced
industrialized country has. That said, the Dems are indeed desperate to deflect attention
away from the Durham investigation, as it is bound to expose the total fraud of Crossfire
Hurricane.
Sam F , June 29, 2020 at 18:16
Thanks, Ray, a very good summary, with reminders often needed by many in dealing with
complex issues.
This is an attempt to move Trump in the direction of more harsher politics toward Russia. So not Bolton's but Obama ears are
protruding above this dirty provocation.
Notable quotes:
"... According to the anonymous sources that spoke with the paper's reporters, the White House and President Trump were briefed on a range of potential responses to Moscow's provocations, including sanctions, but the White House had authorized no further action. ..."
"... Bolton is one of the only sources named in the New York Times article. Currently on a book tour, Bolton has said that he witnessed foreign policy malfeasance by Trump that dwarfs the Ukraine scandal that was the subject of the House impeachment hearings. But Bolton's credibility has been called into question since he declined to appear before the House committee. ..."
"... "Who can forget how 'successful' interrogators can be in getting desired answers?" writes Ray McGovern, who served as a CIA analyst for 27 years. Under the CIA's "enhanced interrogation techniques," Khalid Sheik Mohammed famously made at least 31 confessions, many of which were completely false. ..."
"... This story is "WMD [all over] again," said McGovern, who in the 1980s chaired National Intelligence Estimates and prepared the President's Daily Brief. He believes the stories seek to preempt DOJ findings on the origins of the Russiagate probe. ..."
"... The bungled media response and resulting negative press could also lead Trump to contemplate harsher steps towards Russia in order to prove that he is "tough," which may have motivated the leakers. It's certainly a policy goal with which Bolton, one of the only named sources in the New York Times piece, wholeheartedly approves. ..."
"... Not only did CIA et al.'s leak get even with Trump for years of insults and ignoring their reports (Trump is politically wounded by this story), but it also achieved their primary objective of keeping Putin out of the G7 and muzzling Trump's threats to withdraw from NATO because Russia is our friend (well his, anyway). ..."
"... Point 4: the whole point of the Talibans is to fight to the death whichever country tries to control and invade Afghanistan. They didn't need the Russians to tell them to fight the US Army, did they? ..."
"... Point 5: Russia tried to organise a mediation process between the Afghan government and the Talibans already in 2018 - so why would they be at the same time trying to fuel the conflict? A stable Afghanistan is more convenient to them, given the geographical position of the country. ..."
"... As much as I love to see everyone pile on trump, this is another example of a really awful policy having bad outcomes. If Bush, Obama, trump, or anyone at the pentagon gave a crap about the troops, they wouldn't have kept them in Afghanistan and lied about the fact they were losing the whole time. ..."
"... the idea is stupid. Russia doesn't need to do anything to motivate Afghans to want to boot the invaders out of their country, and would want to attract negative attention in doing so. ..."
"... Contrast with the CIA motivations for this absurd narrative. Chuck Schumer famously commented that the intelligence agencies had ways of getting back at you, and it looks like you took the bait, hook, line and sinker. ..."
"... And a fourth CIA goal: it undermines Trump's relationship with the military. ..."
"... Having failed in its Russia "collusion" and "Russia stole the election" campaigns to oust Trump, this is just the latest effort by the Deep State and mass media to use unhinged Russophobia to try to boost Biden and damage Trump. ..."
"... The contemporary left hate Russia , because Russia is carving out it own sphere of influence and keeping the Americans out, because it saved Assad from the western backed sunni head choppers (that the left cheered on, as they killed native Orthodox, and Catholic Christians). The Contempary left hate Russia because it cracks down on LGBT propaganda, banned porn hub, and return property to the Church , which the leftist Bolsheviks stole, the Contempaty left hate Russia because it cracked down on it western backed oligarchs who plundered Russia in the 90's. ..."
Bombshell report
published by The New York Times Friday alleges that Russia paid dollar bounties to the Taliban in Afghanistan to kill U.S
troops. Obscured by an extremely bungled White House press response, there are at least three serious flaws with the reporting.
The article alleges that GRU, a top-secret unit of Russian military intelligence, offered the bounty in payment for every U.S.
soldier killed in Afghanistan, and that at least one member of the U.S. military was alleged to have been killed in exchange for
the bounties. According to the paper, U.S. intelligence concluded months ago that the Russian unit involved in the bounties was also
linked to poisonings, assassination attempts and other covert operations in Europe. The Times reports that United States intelligence
officers and Special Operations forces in Afghanistan came to this conclusion about Russian bounties some time in 2019.
According to the anonymous sources that spoke with the paper's reporters, the White House and President Trump were briefed
on a range of potential responses to Moscow's provocations, including sanctions, but the White House had authorized no further action.
Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said in a statement Saturday night that neither Trump nor Vice President Pence
"were ever briefed on any intelligence alleged by the New York Times in its reporting yesterday."
On Sunday night, Trump tweeted that not only was he not told about the alleged intelligence, but that it was not credible."Intel
just reported to me that they did not find this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me or @VP" Pence, Trump wrote Sunday
night on Twitter.
Ousted National Security Advisor John Bolton said on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday that Trump was probably claiming ignorance
in order to justify his administration's lack of response.
"He can disown everything if nobody ever told him about it," said Bolton.
Bolton is one of the only sources named in the New York Times article. Currently on a book tour, Bolton has said that
he witnessed foreign policy malfeasance by Trump that dwarfs the Ukraine scandal that was the subject of the House impeachment hearings.
But Bolton's credibility has been called into question since he declined to appear before the House committee.
The explanations for what exactly happened, and who was briefed, continued to shift Monday.
White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany followed Trump's blanket denial with a statement that the intelligence concerning
Russian bounty information was "unconfirmed." She didn't say the intelligence wasn't credible, like Trump had said the day before,
only that there was "no consensus" and that the "veracity of the underlying allegations continue to be evaluated," which happens
to almost completely match the Sunday night statement from the White House's National Security Council.
Instead of saying that the sources for the Russian bounty story were not credible and the story was false, or likely false, McEnany
then said that Trump had "not been briefed on the matter."
"He was not personally briefed on the matter," she said. "That is all I can share with you today."
It's difficult to see how the White House thought McEnany's statement would help, and a bungled press response like this is communications
malpractice, according to sources who spoke to The American Conservative.
Let's take a deeper dive into some of the problems with the reporting here:
1. Anonymous U.S. and Taliban sources?
The Times article repeatedly cites unnamed "American intelligence officials." The Washington Post and The
Wall Street Journal articles "confirming" the original Times story merely restate the allegations of the anonymous
officials, along with caveats like "if true" or "if confirmed."
Furthermore, the unnamed intelligence sources who spoke with the Times say that their assessment is based "on interrogations
of captured Afghan militants and criminals."
That's a red flag, said John Kiriakou, a former analyst and case officer for the CIA who led the team that captured senior
al-Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah in Pakistan in 2002. "When you capture a prisoner, and you're interrogating him, the prisoner is going to tell you what he thinks you want to hear,"
he said in an interview with The American Conservative . "There's no evidence here, there's no proof."
Kiriakou believes that the sources behind the report hold important clues on how the government viewed its credibility.
"We don't know who the source is for this. We don't know if they've been vetted, polygraphed; were they a walk-in; were they
a captured prisoner?"
If the sources were suspect, as they appear to be here, then Trump would not have been briefed on this at all.
With this story, it's important to start at the "intelligence collection," said Kiriakou. "This information appeared in the
[CIA World Intelligence Review] Wire, which goes to hundreds of people inside the government, mostly at the State Department and
the Pentagon. The most sensitive information isn't put in the Wire; it goes only in the PDB."
"If this was from a single source intelligence, it wouldn't have been briefed to Trump. It's not vetted, and it's not important
enough. If you caught a Russian who said this, for example, that would make it important enough. But some Taliban detainees saying
it to an interrogator, that does not rise to the threshold."
2. What purpose would bounties serve?
Everyone and their mother knows Trump wants to pull the troops out of Afghanistan, said Kiriakou.
"He ran on it and he has said it hundreds of times," he said. "So why would the Russians bother putting a bounty on U.S. troops
if we're about to leave Afghanistan shortly anyway?"
That's leaving aside Russia's own experience with the futility of Afghanistan campaigns, learned during its grueling 9-year
war there in the 1980s.
The Taliban denies it accepted bounties from Russian intelligence.
"These kinds of deals with the Russian intelligence agency are baseless -- our target killings and assassinations were ongoing
in years before, and we did it on our own resources," Zabihullah Mujahid, a spokesman for the Taliban, told The New York Times
. "That changed after our deal with the Americans, and their lives are secure and we don't attack them."
The Russian Embassy in the United States called the reporting
"fake news."
While the Russians are ruthless, "it's hard to fathom what their motivations could be" here, said Paul Pillar, an academic
and 28-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency, in an interview with The American Conservative. "What would they
be retaliating for? Some use of force in Syria recently? I don't know. I can't string together a particular sequence that makes
sense at this time. I'm not saying that to cast doubt on reports the Russians were doing this sort of thing."
3. Why is this story being leaked now?
According to U.S. officials quoted by the AP,
top officials in the White House "were aware of classified intelligence indicating Russia was secretly offering bounties to the Taliban
for the deaths of Americans" in early 2019. So why is this story just coming out now?
This story is "WMD [all over] again," said McGovern, who in the 1980s chaired National Intelligence Estimates and prepared the
President's Daily Brief. He believes the stories seek to preempt DOJ findings on the origins of the Russiagate probe.
The NYT story serves to bolster the narrative that Trump sides with Russia, and against our intelligence community estimates and
our own soldiers lives.
The stories "are likely to remain indelible in the minds of credulous Americans -- which seems to have been the main objective,"
writes McGovern. "There [Trump] goes again -- not believing our 'intelligence community; siding, rather, with Putin.'"
"I don't believe this story and I think it was leaked to embarrass the President," said Kiriakou. "Trump is on the ropes in the
polls; Biden is ahead in all the battleground states."
If these anonymous sources had spoken up during the impeachment hearings, their statements could have changed history.
But the timing here, "kicking a man when he is down, is extremely like the Washington establishment. A leaked story like this
now, embarrasses and weakens Trump," he said. "It was obvious that Trump would blow the media response, which he did."
The bungled media response and resulting negative press could also lead Trump to contemplate harsher steps towards Russia
in order to prove that he is "tough," which may have motivated the leakers. It's certainly a policy goal with which Bolton, one of
the only named sources in the New York Times piece, wholeheartedly approves.
Barbara Boland is TAC's foreign policy and national security reporter. Previously, she worked as an editor for the Washington
Examiner and for CNS News. She is the author of Patton Uncovered , a book about General George Patton in World War II, and her work
has appeared on Fox News, The Hill , UK Spectator , and elsewhere. Boland is a graduate from Immaculata University in Pennsylvania.
Follow her on Twitter @BBatDC .
Caitlin Johnstone was the first journalist to question this NYT expose' several days ago in her blog. After looking into
it, I had to agree with her that the story was junk reporting by a news source eager to stick it to Trump for his daily insults.
NYT must love the irony of a "fake news" story catching fire and burning Trump politically. After all, paying people to kill
their own enemies? That is a "tip," not a bounty. It is more of an intel footnote than the game-changer in international relations
as asserted by Speaker Pelosi on TV as she grabbed her pearls beneath her stylish COVID mask.
I was surprised that Ms. Boland could not think of any motivation for leaking the story right now given recent grousing
on the Hill about Trump's inviting Putin to G7 over the objections of Merkel and several other NATO heads of state. I even
posted a congratulatory message in Defense One yesterday to the US Intel community for mission accomplished.
Not only did CIA
et al.'s leak get even with Trump for years of insults and ignoring their reports (Trump is politically wounded by this story),
but it also achieved their primary objective of keeping Putin out of the G7 and muzzling Trump's threats to withdraw
from NATO because Russia is our friend (well his, anyway).
That "bounty" story never passed the smell test, even to my admittedly untrained nose. My real problem is that it's a story
in the first place, given that Trump campaigned on a platform that included bringing the boys home from sand hills like Afghanistan;
yet here we are, four years later, and we're still there.
Point 4: the whole point of the Talibans is to fight to the death whichever country tries to control and invade Afghanistan.
They didn't need the Russians to tell them to fight the US Army, did they?
Point 5: Russia tried to organise a mediation process between the Afghan government and the Talibans already in 2018 - so
why would they be at the same time trying to fuel the conflict? A stable Afghanistan is more convenient to them, given the
geographical position of the country.
This whole story is completely ridiculous. Totally bogus.
As much as I love to see everyone pile on trump, this is another example of a really awful policy having bad outcomes. If
Bush, Obama, trump, or anyone at the pentagon gave a crap about the troops, they wouldn't have kept them in Afghanistan and
lied about the fact they were losing the whole time.
Of course people are trying to kill US military in Afghanistan. If I lived in Afghanistan, I'd probably hate them too. And
let's not forget that just a few weeks ago the 82nd airborne was ready to kill American civilians in DC. The military is our
enemy too!
Moreover, the idea is stupid. Russia doesn't need to do anything to motivate Afghans to want to boot the invaders out of
their country, and would want to attract negative attention in doing so.
The purported bounty program doesn't help Russia, but the anonymous narrative does conveniently serve several CIA purposes:
1. It makes it harder to leave Afghanistan.
2. It keeps the cold war with Russia going along.
3. It damages Trump (whose relationship with the CIA is testy at best).
Then there's the question of how this supposed intelligence was gathered. The CIA tortures people, and there's no reason
to believe that this was any different.
1. Russia wants a stable Afghanistan. Not a base for jihadis.
2. The idea that Russia has to encourage Afghans to kill Invaders is a hoot. They don't ever do that on their own.
3. Not only do Afghans traditionally need no motivation to kill infidel foreign Invaders, but Russia would have to be incredibly
stupid to bring more American enmity on itself.
Contrast with the CIA motivations for this absurd narrative. Chuck Schumer famously commented that the intelligence agencies
had ways of getting back at you, and it looks like you took the bait, hook, line and sinker.
Either that, or you're just cynical. You'll espouse anything, however absurd and full of lies, as long as it damages Trump.
I don't have a clue if this bounty story is correct, but I can imagine plenty of reasons why the Russians would do it. It's
easy enough to believe it or believe it was cooked up by CIA as you suggest.
There will be one of these BS blockbusters every few weeks until the election. There are legions of buried-in democrat political
appointees that will continue to feed the DNC press. It will be non-stop. The DNC press is shredding the 1st amendment.
Not shredding the First Amendment, just shining light on the pitfalls of a right to freedom of speech. There are others
ramifications to free speech we consider social goods.
These aren't buried-in democrats. These people could care less which political party the President is a member of. They
only care that the President does what they say. Political parties are just to bamboozle the rubes. They are the real power.
The best defence that the WSJ and Fox News could muster was that the story wasn't confirmed as the NSA didn't have the same
confidence in the assessment as the CIA. "Is there anything else to which you would wish to draw my attention?" "To the curious
incident of the denial from the White House", "There was no denial from the White House". "That was the curious incident".
I note that Fox News had buried the story "below the scroll" on their home page - if they had though the story was fake,
the headlines would be screaming at MSM.
Pravda was a far more honest and objective news source than The New York Times is. I say that as someone who
read both for long periods of time. The Times is on par with the National Enquirer for credibility, with the
latter at least being less propagandistic and agenda-driven.
Having failed in its Russia "collusion" and "Russia stole the election" campaigns to oust Trump, this is just the latest
effort by the Deep State and mass media to use unhinged Russophobia to try to boost Biden and damage Trump.
The extent to which the contemporary Left is driven by a level of Russophobia unseen even by the most stalwart anti-Communists
on the Right during the Cold War is truly something to behold. I think at bottom it comes down to not liking Putin or Russia
because they refuse to get on board with the Left's social agenda.
The contemporary left hate Russia , because Russia is carving out it own sphere of influence and keeping the Americans out,
because it saved Assad from the western backed sunni head choppers (that the left cheered on, as they killed native Orthodox,
and Catholic Christians). The Contempary left hate Russia because it cracks down on LGBT propaganda, banned porn hub, and return
property to the Church , which the leftist Bolsheviks stole, the Contempaty left hate Russia because it cracked down on it
western backed oligarchs who plundered Russia in the 90's.
The Contempary left wants Russia to be Woke, Broke, Godless, and Gay.
The democrats are now the cheerleaders of the warfare -welfare state,, the marriage between the neolibs-neocons under the
Democrat party to ensure that President Trump is defeated by the invade the world, invite the world crowd.
"The Trumpies are right in that this was obviously a leak by the intel community designed to hurt Trump. But what do you
expect...he has spent 4 years insulting and belittling them. They are going to get their pound of flesh."
Intel community was behind an attempted coup of Trump. He has good reason not to trust them and insulting is only natural.
Hopefully John Durham will indict several of them
Interesting take. I certainly take anything anyone publishes based on anonymous sources with a big grain of salt,
especially when it comes from the NYT...
Pentagon says 'no corroborating evidence' to support NYT's report
The Wall Street Journal
reported on Tuesday that the National Security Agency "strongly dissented from other
intelligence agencies' assessment that Russia paid bounties for the killing of US soldiers in
Afghanistan."
The Journal cites "people familiar with the matter" and does not give much detail,
but the story is noteworthy, as the NSA has dissented from other agencies in the past over
allegations against Russia. A January 2017 intelligence
assessment that concluded Russia interfered in the 2016 election on President Trump's
behalf was given "high confidence" by the CIA and FBI while the NSA gave "moderate
confidence."
Another account of the NSA not giving much weight to this intelligence was given to CBS
News reporter Catherine Herridge on Monday. An unnamed intelligence official
told Herridge that the NSA deemed a report on the Russian bounties "uncorroborated." The
official said the report "does not match well-established and verifiable Taliban and Haqqani
practices" and lacks "sufficient reporting to corroborate any links."
The CIA is used as an example in the Journal's report of an agency the NSA
allegedly disagreed with over the intelligence. So far, the CIA has declined to comment on
the issue besides a
vague statement from CIA Director Gina Haspel. "When developing intelligence assessments,
initial tactical reports often require additional collection and validation Leaks compromise
and disrupt the critical interagency work to collect, assess, and ascribe culpability,"
Haspel said.
The Journal's disclosure reinforces the Trump administration's claim that the
intelligence was not strong enough, and there was no consensus among intelligence officials
on the information.
The Pentagon said on Monday it has not seen "corroborating evidence" to support The
New York Times report that alleged Russian GRU agents offered bounties to Taliban-linked
militants to kill US troops.
Secretary of Defense Mark Esper reiterated the Pentagon's
claims in a statement on Tuesday. "Although the Department of Defense has no
corroborating evidence at this time to validate recent allegations regarding malign activity
by Russian personnel against US forces in Afghanistan, I want to assure all of our service
members that the Department takes very seriously any and all potential threats against US
military personnel," Esper said.
Even though the intelligence remains unconfirmed, members of Congress from both sides of
the aisle are brainstorming
ways to punish Moscow over the allegations . Suggestions include imposing new sanctions
on Russia and even designating Moscow as a state sponsor of terrorism. Senator Ben Sasse
(R-NE) said he wants to see a plan that will put "Taliban and GRU agents in body bags."
The political establishment in the US dare not explicitly mention drug use as a pathology
of black communities specifically - as a group it is taboo to criticize them -- they are
persecuted victims, full stop. Saying otherwise is to kiss their votes away not to mention
bring down their wrath.
David Habakkuk
Some of the intricacies you mention go a bit over my head, but the delay in release of
your ISC report corresponds with the notion of this latest story of GRU bribery of Afghan
militants being essentially if nothing other than an election year campaign tactic. Seems if
released it will come on the heels of this provocative fantasy of the NYT and WAPO. Fancy
that.
CNN outdid itself by interviewing Clapper this morning. Host re-capped story and said 'if
true' about a dozen times.
Trump followed his 'I was not briefed tweet' with a stronger, 'the intel guys told him
this was not credible'. Trump can be a buffoon but in his version of events ...
1. Intel comm is flooded with stuff to verify, 'Russian hit contracts', 'Putin kidnapped
Lindbergh baby', 'Loch Ness monster a GRU agent', .... that doesn't immediately get to his
desk.
2. Anon source leaks one of these early claims for their own purpose (seeing Clapper reminds
us that this does happen),
3. It takes him a day to sort it out.
True or not, this looks plausible but sets off alarm bells to the CNN Clown Car.
Clapper says brilliant things like Trump could be finessing the truth by getting a written
but not a verbal brief. Host shakes head at wise observation and follows up with more 'if
true' questions for the proven liar ...
CNN defends the most reactionary elements of our security state and snarls at anyone who
challenges them. With watchdogs like these what can go wrong?
'The Russian intelligence unit behind the attempted murder in Salisbury of the former
double agent Sergei Skripal secretly offered to pay Taliban-linked fighters to kill British
and American soldiers in Afghanistan, according to US reports.
'The revelation piles pressure on the UK to take robust action against the Kremlin amid
continuing anger over the government's delay in publishing a key report on Russian attempts
to destabilise the UK.'
The 'Sky' piece actually makes clear that these are claims originating in the United
States, one of whose key purposes is to put pressure on the British government:
'It is understood the intelligence was only shared with British officials recently but
Boris Johnson has now been briefed. Downing Street will be under pressure to respond to the
news and take action against Moscow.'
Another relevant development, although how this fits into the picture is at the moment
very far from clear to me, is that the announcement yesterday that the former MI6 person Sir
Mark Sedwill, who has been 'National Security Adviser' since 2017 and Cabinet Secretary since
2018, is to stand down in September.
The 'intelligence unit' supposedly to have been responsible alike for attempting to
assassinate Sergei and Yulia Skripal and placing a 'bounty' on the head of American, and
British, servicemen belongs to the GRU – their supposed target's former employer
– which comes under General Valery Gerasimov, Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the
Russian Federation.
If you believe that unit of this organisation sent two hitmen, equipped with a hypertoxic
nerve agent, to kill one of his organisation's former employees, and bungled it so badly that
he, together with his daughter, survived, I have a very attractive bridge on the Thames, not
far from where I live, which I am very happy to sell you.
If you believe that any employees of this organisation would be involved in 'freelance'
assassinations, either of its former employees or of British and American servicemen, without
Gerasimov's authorisation, I will include the MI6 HQ at Millbank, to make a 'package
deal.'
Interested, TTG?
Rather clearly, the link between the new BS, and the patent BS about Salisbury –
in the cover-up over which Sedwill has played a crucial role – very strongly suggests
that we are dealing with yet another of the collusive 'information operations' practised by
incompetent and corrupt elements in the 'deep state' in the U.S., U.K. and Western
Europe.
This clearly linked to a 'bulldogs under the carpet' struggle which goes to the top of the
Conservative Party, and also beyond it. The 'Sky' version starts with Tobias Ellwood, the
Tory MP who chairs the Commons Defence Select Committee, using the new claims to agitate for
publication of what the 'Guardian' termed 'a key report on Russian attempts to destabilise
the UK.'
This report, by the Intelligence and Security Committee, is clearly being deployed to put
pressure on Johnson, as repeated references to it in both the 'Guardian' and 'Sky' versions
indicate.
So, having started with it, the latter concludes:
'News of this Russian plan, and the direct targeting of British troops, will again raise
the question of when the long overdue report into Russian interference by parliament's
Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) will be published.
'The report, which examined claims of Russian interference in Britain, was sent to Downing
Street on 17 October last year for sign-off.
'That process usually takes no more than 10 days, but the report is still yet to be
published and the ISC hasn't been reconvened after December's general election.'
As the 'Guardian' report indicates, however, a crucial element in all this is clearly
Christopher Steele:
'In his confidential submission to the committee, the former spy Christopher Steele has
reportedly suggested that the Kremlin has a "likely hold" over Trump, a claim that has been
fiercely disputed but which would sour the government's relations with the White House once
published. "These worrying reports should be the catalyst for the prime minister to finally
release the ISC report No. 10 have been stalling for more than six months," said shadow
foreign secretary Lisa Nandy. "Under this government, Britain is retreating from the world
stage and the fear among our allies is that Boris Johnson is afraid to stand up to Vladimir
Putin's Russia."
'Lib Dem spokesman Alistair Carmichael echoed the call for the ISC report to be
published:
'"These reports throw up serious questions about Trump's soft-touch when it comes to
Russia. The Foreign Secretary must also make clear whether the UK had any knowledge of these
reports and what conversations he has had with his US counterpart about sanctions towards
Russia given these shocking revelations."'
The crux of the matter, however, may well have to do with the cases brought against Steele
and his company Orbis by the 'Alfa Group' oligarchs – Petr Aven, Mikhail Fridman, and
German Khan – and the Cyprus-based internet entrepreneur Aleksej Gubarev.
The very broad construction of 'fair report privilege' which means that in your country,
so long the rubbish you print has been given some kind of endorsement by corrupt government
officials, there is no redress for those lied about, is not available in the U.K.
On the other hand, maintaining a kind of 'omerta' is much easier over here than on your
side.
On 29 April, a 'chink' opened in this, when Chuck Ross, of the 'Daily Caller', posted on
'Scribd' the transcript of the cross-examination of Steele by Hugh Tomlinson, QC, on behalf
of the Alfa oligarchs, on 17-18 March.
Unfortunately, Ross seems to have fallen, hook, line and sinker, for a classic 'limited
hangout' ploy. He was happy to use Tomlinson's exploitation of the IG Report to discredit
Steele, which was in parts extremely telling, without noticing that that some of Steele's
responses were not simply to be dismissed.
If you read the transcript carefully, it seems clear that the successive changes in
Steele's account, in the four witness statements he submitted between 17 February and 16
March, were designed both to suggest that Horowitz and the FBI were colluding to make him the
'patsy', to reveal some of what they were trying to conceal, and to threaten to let out
more.
As it happens, we are still waiting for the judgement by Mr Justice Warby in that case.
However, it was reported on 25 June that the Gubarev case is to open on 20 July, and this
will be public.
At the moment, for what it is worth, my SWAG is that we are seeing a collusive
'stitch-up', one of whose functions is to find ways of avoiding finding in favour of Steele
– very difficult, given the preposterous nature of the dossier – while letting
him off sufficiently lightly to ensure that he colludes in keeping crucial skeletons within
cupboards. It may also be important that the verdicts do not appear to vindicate Trump too
comprehensively.
The 'NYT' report is, I think, likely to be involved with this process.
Also involved here is the hope clearly visible among so many that Biden will be elected,
and any danger either of the 'skeletons' accumulated during three decades of fatuous and
corrupt policymaking, or of more sensible policies, will be over.
My suspicion is that if Trump's people had more 'killer instinct', they would be looking
to get hold of all the material which has been produced in the London cases asap, and see
what use can be made of it to 'unmask' a subversive conspiracy which there is every reason to
believe goes right to the top of the Democratic establishment.
At the moment, however, both they, and their co-conspirators and 'useful idiots' of whom
we appear to have some here on SST, appear to be really quite likely to get away it: partly
because of their own utter lack of any sense of integrity or honour, but also because of the
lack of 'killer instinct' on the part of their opponents.
RE: the spectre of drug trading in US foreign engagements. The inability to even mention
the role of drugs in failed US black communities, as well in all the recent high profile
"police shooting" deaths of blacks is curious.
Why the silent treatment on this critically pivotal issue? How much "black rage" comes
from the ravages of drugs in these very same communities -- but no one dares talk about it
.Let alone do anything about it.
Stopping covid pales to the challenge of stopping the real killer; abusive drugs
destroying US lives and communities -black and white. Brown, yellow, olive.
Absolutely agreed, top to bottom. The only scenario where this makes sense, is if the
Russians were engaging in some sort of emotional revenge scheme - which is ludicrous.
To buy this story ignoring Russian character, it's not how they think, and it's not how
they see us. And you have to overlook the sober competence that marks their foreign
policy.
Look at how they made up with Turkey, after Erdogan ordered the shoot down of the SU.
Russia did make the Turks pay, but they weren't fools, they didn't sacrifice the
relationship. They understood there were things to be be gained by leveraging Turkey away
from NATO. And in what world do the Afghans need an incentive to attack US forces. Warfare is
the national sport.
U.S. diplomat Chas Freeman: "China is fully integrated into the global economy Trying to
contain China, we're more likely to end up containing ourselves. We need to realize that
the monopolies on wealth and power that we once had are no longer there."
This comment is not about Russia but about the mindset in our political, economic and
foreign policy establishment that has enabled the strengthening of our adversaries.
One thing we can be certain - the neocon and neoliberal policy mavens have weakened the US
and it's national interest over the past 50 years. The question is how have enemies of US
national interest captured all levers of power and sustained it for decades? The exploration
of this question would be about real reflection and introspection about our body politic.
Actually, the alliance of a certain traditional 'Anglo' kind of 'Russophobe', like Tobias
Ellwood, whom I mentioned in my previous comment, and the 'insulted and injured' from the
former Russian and Soviet empires, does now involve a very substantial number of influential
Jews, on both sides of the Atlantic.
Given the obvious continuities between what is happening now and the way that Neville
Chamberlain and Colonel Beck between them successfully pushed pushed Hitler and Stalin
together – see on this in particular the work of the Israeli historian Gabriel
Gorodetsky – there are ironies.
It is, of course, given the long history of Russian anti-Semitism, understandable in its
way.
However, as our host, channelling Captain Jack Aubrey, notes on another thread, politics
is very often a matter of choosing 'the lesser of two weevils.'
It is also commonly a matter of avoiding situations where one's choice has unexpected, and
unwanted, effects on the preferences of others: as when Stalin in August 1939 decided that
making terms with Hitler was the 'lesser weevil.'
(For a recent concise restatement and defence by Gorodetsky of his view of the period, see
an 'H-Diplo' discussion of Stephen Kotkin's 'Stalin. Waiting for Hitler, 1929-41' at
As to the views of figures like Victoria Nuland, David Kramer, and Jonathan Winer on the
'choice of weevils' at the moment, there are aspects which, I must admit, I find
puzzling.
An entry, headlined 'Putin and Religion', from a site called 'ReligionFacts', provides
some accurate information about the Putin 'sistema':
'Buddhism, Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are defined by law as
Russia's traditional religions and a part of Russia's historical heritage. These religions
have enjoyed limited state support in the Putin era.'
Also in that entry, you will find a quotation from Putin, in 2014 – that is, in the
wake of the crisis created by events on the 'Maidan' the previous year – writing of
how: 'It was in Crimea, in the ancient city of Chersonesus or Korsun, as ancient Russian
chroniclers called it, that Grand Prince Vladimir was baptised before bringing Christianity
to Rus.'
That was in 988, at any absolutely central point in the formation of Russian 'national
identity.'
At no point in the subsequent thousand years had any ruler of 'Rus' described Judaism as
one of Russia's 'traditional religions' and 'a part of Russia's historical heritage.'
As I actually think a good few Jews who came to Israel from the Soviet Union realise, it
would have been inconceivable when they were young.
However, the likes of Nuland, Kramer and Winer have preferred to intrigue with
'Banderistas' – the heirs of the architects of the Lvov pogrom, if you've heard of that
– in an attempt to wrest the whole of Ukraine, including Crimea, and Sevastopol, away
from Russia.
And they have preferred to attempt to topple Putin in cahoots with Berezovsky and
Khodorkovsky, who, as well as being Jewish and part-Jewish, were among the more disreputable
representatives of the 'semibankirshchina' which looted Russia under Yeltsin, and who in
general Russian 'deplorables', who were thrown into poverty at the time, do not much
like.
(Indeed, I rather suspect a good few of their fellow-countrymen came to think figures like
Berezovsky and Khodorkovsky would have looked to advantage dangling from lamp-posts.)
Ironically perhaps, some of the best Western commentators on this history – among
other things, on neo-Nazis in Ukraine – are Jewish: obvious names include Stephen F.
Cohen, Vladimir Golstein, Eric Kraus, and Yasha Levine.
But I do sometimes wonder whether there is a kind of 'Cassandra's curse' – that, in
a way that was certainly not true in the past, Jewish refugees from the former Russian Empire
in the U.S. U.K., and Western Europe, and their descendants, cease to be heard when they are
challenging silly conventional wisdoms, but have a 'fast track' to the top, if they
habitually talk rubbish.
One of the most incisive, and amusing, 'Cassandras', ironically, is Eric Kraus, who was
for many years a fund manager based in Moscow, but now seems to be sailing the seas, (a
combination of 'Wandering Jew' and 'Flying Dutchman', perhaps?) as the result of what appears
to have been a spectacularly acrimonious divorce from his Russian wife.
His principal unheeded prophecy is that the kind of policies which Western élites
have followed since 1989 would inevitably have the effect of making Putin and other Russians
see China as, by far, 'the lesser weevil': which, given the dramatic increase in that
country's economic strength, was hardly going to be in the best interests of either Europeans
or Americans.
One of Eric's 'party pieces' is an email exchange he once had with Michael McFaul. As he
recalled in a market commentary in 2012, after the beginning of that figure's –
disastrous – stint as Ambassador in Moscow:
'Very amusingly, T&B still has an e-mail sent ten years ago by Mr. McFaul, then a
Stanford professor, that "Russia was so afraid of China that they would be compelled to seek
a military alliance with America under whatever terms the US chose to impose". Failure has
obviously gone to his head, and he has moved on to great things – as a singularly
incompetent and provocative ambassador, he is now contributing to the growing rift between
Moscow and Washington. Beijing should be grateful .'
As a few quick Google searches will inform you, in addition to being in charge of the GRU,
General Gerasimov is an absolutely pivotal figure in the steadily increasing military
co-operation – not alliance, as yet at least – between Russia and China.
The reports we have been discussing restate two old charges, which are related to another
piece of BS – the notion of a 'Gerasimov Doctrine.'
So, in addition to supposedly have intervened in favour of Trump by hacking the emails of
the DNC, it is suggested that his people have pioneered chemical terrorism with their
supposed attack on the Skripals. In addition to this, it is now suggested that he places a
'bounty' on the head of American, and British, servicemen.
Frankly, if when he sits down with General Li Zuocheng, the chief of the Joint Staff
Department of the Central Military Commission of the People's Republic of China, Gerasimov
feels a sense of relief, and perhaps indeed being among friends, it would hardly be
surprising.
And if Western military planners begin to think that, actually, there may be problems if
the kind of discussions now under way greatly increase the ability of both Russian and more
particularly Chinese naval forces to inflict devastating damage on American, or British,
forces, they may, in the dim and distant future, begin to realise that disseminating this
kind of BS has costs.
An irony of course is that the problem for Chamberlain really was that the choice of
'weevils' was unappetising, to put it rather mildly. There were many, and hardly surprising
or discreditable, reasons why willingness to allow the Red Army to implement its war plans by
advancing into Europe became a 'sticking point.'
What they were too obtuse to realise was that the effect of this was to offer Stalin a
'weevil' which he concluded, quite rightly, involved an unacceptably large risk that the
Soviet Union would have to face the full might of the most powerful military machine in human
history, effectively, on its own.
And this was happening at what – thanks of course in substantial measure to his own
actions – was a point of 'maximum vulnerability.'
Moreover, hardly surprisingly, Chamberlain and his colleagues greatly exacerbated Soviet
fears that this was what 'Perfidious Albion' had been trying to achieve all along. As is
evident if you read Putin's recent article, republished in 'The National Interest', these
perceptions are still very much alive today.
As an old-style 'Perfidious Albionian', while I think that Chamberlain and his associates
very emphatically failed to choose the 'lesser weevil', I actually do not find it so
difficult to have some sympathy for the reasons they made the choices they did.
And I also think that the use of denunciations of 'appeasement', by people who show no
sign whatsoever of attempting to grasp what the arguments of the 'Thirties were about, have
become both stupid and unhelpful: a sure way of avoiding thought.
The greatest irony, however, is that we see American, and British, foreign policy being
run by people who habitually denounce 'appeasement', but whose mentality and assumptions
actually directly parallel those of Chamberlain and his associates.
It is, moreover, in substantial measure as a result of this that such figures have become
involved in a conspiracy to subvert the Constitution of the American Republic – with
'Anglos' like Ellwood, Steele, Dearlove, and indeed Fiona Hill collaborating with the figures
like Nuland, Kramer and Winer.
And, quite clearly, they do not have the excuses Chamberlain had.
The notion that Putin is some kind of reincarnation of Stalin is the product of lies,
originally told by Berezovsky and his like, and accepted without question by their 'useful
idiots' in London and Washington.
Who are also, of course, 'useful idiots' of Beijing.
Many here seem to think Russia is a nation totally separate from the now-defunct Soviet
Union, that Russia is incapable or unwilling to engage in the seamier aspects of
realpolitik like all other nations. Funny, Putin does not ascribe to this view. A short
time ago, someone posted a link to a lecture by the KGB defector, Yuri Bezmenov
Bezmenov was trying to please the new owners. Russia does not have resources to
engage like USA in Full Spectrum Dominance games. Like Obama correctly said, Russia now is a
regional power.
Also, why bother to do petty dirty tricks in Afghanistan, if an internal fight between two
factions of the neoliberal elite, is a really bitter and dirty fight. You cannot do better
than neoliberal Dems in weakening and dividing the country. Why spend money, if you can just
wait.
The enormity of problems within Russia itself also excludes any possibilities of trying to
emulate the imperial behavior of the USA and CIA dirty tricks. Russia does not have the
printing press for the world reserve currency, which the USA still has.
And Putin is the first who understands this precarious situation, mentioning this
limitation several times in his speeches. As well as the danger of being pushed into
senseless arms race with the USA again by the alliance of the USA neocons and Russian MIC,
which probably would lead to similar to the USSR results -- the further dissolution of Russia
into smaller statelets. Which is a dream of both the USA and the EU, for which they do not
spare money.
Russia is a very fragile country -- yet another neoliberal country with a huge level of
inequality and a set of very severe problems related to the economy and "identity politics"
(or more correctly "identity wedge"), which both EU and the USA is actively trying to play.
Sometimes very successfully.
Ukraine coup d'etat was almost a knockdown for Putin, at least a powerful kick in
the chin; it happened so quick and was essentially prepared by Yanukovich himself with his
pro-EU and pro-nationalist stance. Being a sleazy crook, he dug the grave for his government
mostly by himself.
Now the same game can be repeated in Belorussia as Lukachenko by-and-large outlived his
usefulness, and like most autocratic figures created vacuum around himself -- he has neither
viable successor, not the orderly, well defined process of succession; but economic problems
mounts and mounts. This gives EU+USA a chance to repeat Ukrainian scenario, as like in
Ukraine, years of independence greatly strengthened far-right nationalist forces (which BTW
were present during WWII ; probably in less severe form than in Ukraine and Baltic countries
but still were as difficult to suppress after the war). Who, like all xUUSR nationalists are
adamantly, pathologically anti-Russian. That's where Russia need to spend any spare money,
not Afghanistan.
Currently, the personality of Putin is kind of most effective guarantee of political
stability in Russia, but like any cult of personality, this cannot last forever, and it might
deprive Russia of finding qualified successor.
But even Putin was already burned twice with his overtures to Colonel Qaddafi(who after
Medvedev's blunder in the UN was completely unable to defend himself against unleashed by the
West color revolution), and Yanukovich, who in addition to stupidly pandering to nationalists
and trying to be the best friend of Biden proved to be a despicable coward, making a color
revolution a nobrainer.
After those lessons, Putin probably will not swallow a bait in a form of invitation to be
a "decider" in Afghanistan.
So your insinuations that Russian would do such stupid, dirty and risky tricks are not
only naive, they are completely detached from the reality.
The proper way to look at it is as a kind of PR or even false flag operation which was
suggested by David Habakkuk:
...we are dealing with yet another of the collusive 'information operations' practised by
incompetent and corrupt elements in the 'deep state' in the U.S., U.K. and Western Europe.
likbez: Well I suggested it may have been a false flag, but I'm more inclined to think it
may have been Pakistan's ISI.
And what is your evidence for claiming that the EU and USA want to break up Russia into
'smaller statelets'? That smells a bit fishy. It would make the world a more dangerous place.
I don't see or hear of sane people here or in Europe wishing for that. Maybe a few whackos?
Let's hope they never get their hands on the levers of power.
We hear more about unconfirmed reports from the mainstream media than we do about the
facts of the attempted coup against President Trump. A coup which run by the Obama White
House with full participation of the mainstream media. In fact since Trump took office this
coup has been continued with full force by these same anonymous unconfirmed leaks which get
reported as fact but weeks later are confirmed lies. I personally can't believe anything from
the mainstream media and the resist faction, in fact they all need to go to jail for what
they have done. I bring this up in the context of this thread because everything that's
reported or leaked must be first thought of as apart of this coup, this has been the pattern
for the last 3 and half years. If it doesn't fit this pattern of the on going coup then we
can start to consider if it's true or not.
TTG has actually provided the nugget of information that can be used to dismiss this
allegation without, apparently, realising it.
It is here, when he quoted from the NYT article:
"The crucial information that led the spies and commandos to focus on the bounties included
the recovery of a large amount of American cash from a raid on a Taliban outpost that
prompted suspicions."
So that vast swathe of cash represents the bounties that have been paid for the killing of
American and British soldiers by the Taliban.
Okay.
Think about it.
Think about it.
Think about it.
If the payment has already been made then the deed has already been done because,
obviously, that's how a "bounty" works.
So all we need ask is a simple question: has there been a dramatic uptick in fatalities
amongst American and British troops?
Yes? Or no?
Because *both* of these statements can not be true:
1) Fatality rates amongst the troops have not increased.
2) The massive amounts of cash now being found in Afghanistan are the result of a bounty paid
by the Russians for dead GIs.
You can have one, or you can have the other.
But you can't have both.
I hardly think paying a performance bonus for successful attacks on Coalition targets in
Afghanistan is going to break the GRU's budget. There are better arguments against this
story's veracity.
Regarding a possible Minsk Euromaidan and repeat of the Orange Revolution in Belarus, I
would like to hear the opinion of Andrei Martyanov on this. I strongly suspect he would laugh
his socks off at the prospect of any such action being permitted by Moscow.
Furthermore, any such attempt would likely be massively counterproductive, as it would
give Russia the perfect excuse for an Anschluss operation which would make Crimea's
annexation look like chicken feed. In the wake of 2014 the details for such a contingency
must surely have been worked out in great detail. Hey presto - an unannounced Zapad 2020
exercise and you'd have the sum of all NATO fears; Russian forces deployed right up to the
Suwałki gap.
TTG, you are obviously unable to share with us any info you may have on the USG's
assessment of the hypothetical possibility described above, but do you have a view on the
chances of a successful color revolution being achievable in Belarus?
Isn't that what I said about Webb and his allegations?
"But if Gary Webb is that guy claiming the CIA is responsible for flooding Los Angeles
with crack cocaine, I agree with you. That's total bullshit."
Hersh laid out Noriega's narco-trafficking and money laundering in 1986. North's White
House emails subsequent to Hersh's work showed his and Poindexter's use of Noriega to support
the Contras in spite of Noirga's illicit activities. This was an "active policy of laissez
faire towards allies engaged in drug trafficking" as I also said earlier. Your insistence of
characterizing the relationship as being either "the USG as a major player in drug
trafficking" or a state of perfect grace is simplistically binary and flat wrong. We were an
enabler and made the choice of "the lesser of two weevils" as Colonel Lang used the
phrase.
You're getting wrapped around the axle over the term "bounty." The Russians are merely
providing financial support to an indigenous force with the expectation that they will
continue lethal attacks against US and coalition forces. This is not an unusual foreign
policy, covert intelligence or military tactic. There were 22 US troops killed in 2019, the
highest number since 2014. Nine have died this year. Most of those have been from Taliban
attacks.
The use of the term "bounty" by the NYT was likely used to inflame and increase the
outrage.
TTG "The Russians are merely providing financial support to an indigenous force with the
expectation that they will continue lethal attacks against US and coalition forces."
I'm sorry, that argument leaves me cold. Very, very cold.
If the Russian policy is to see lethal attacks against US forces then they would be
supplying *arms* to the Taliban, not *money*.
After all, if you give the Taliban a wad of cash then they can do whatever they want with
it. But if you give them a gun, well, let's be honest: a gun is rather limited in its
application.
On the other hand if the Taliban is being given "financial support" then it is merely your
supposition that this is intended to buy a lot of dead bodies.
Why, exactly, is that the only (or even likely) reason for the Russians to supply
financial support to the Taliban?
There are many reasons the Russians may want to do that, first and foremost to buy
influence amongst a group that in all probably will become the next government of
Afghanistan.
Both you and the NYT appear intent upon reaching a very shaky conclusion constructed atop
a mountain of unwarranted assumptions. And all of it - all of it - pivoting upon an single
very subjective word: "expectation"
"The source tells CNN that intelligence of this nature with risk to US troops should be
assumed to be true until you know otherwise."
He/she is saying that truth is based on the severity of the accusation. This sounds more
like something a politician would say rather than a professional Intel officer.
Not just NYT and WaPo - Associated Press is also happy to sacrifice its credibility to
promote the Russia/Taliban story:
"In early 2020, members of the elite Naval Special Warfare Development Group, known to the
public as SEAL Team Six, raided a Taliban outpost and recovered roughly $500,000. The
recovered funds further solidified the suspicions of the American intelligence community that
the Russians had offered money to Taliban militants and linked associations."
So ... eh ... the Taliban doesn't use money, except when it gets bounties in dollars from
Russia to kill Americans??? AP doesn't explain how that recovered cash "solidified the
suspicions". https://apnews.com/02975c59e71e65327e2f582cd1a91f43
"... Bolton is of course not right in his pathetic spin job on the use of lies to promote military agendas, which just looks like a feeble attempt to justify the psychopathic measures he himself took to deceive the world into consenting to the unforgivably evil invasion of Iraq. What he is right about is that conflicts between nations take place in an "anarchic environment internationally where different rules apply." ..."
"... We haven't been shown any hard evidence for Russians paying bounties in Afghanistan, and we almost certainly never will be. This doesn't matter as far as the imperial propagandists are concerned; they know they don't need actual facts to get this story believed, they just need narrative control. All the propagandists need to do is say over and over again that Russia paid bounties to kill the troops in Afghanistan in an increasingly assertive and authoritative tone, and after a while people will start assuming it's true, just because the propagandists have been doing this. ..."
"... This is all because "international law" only exists in practical terms to the extent that governments around the world agree to pretend it exists. As long as the U.S.-centralized empire is able to control the prevailing narrative about what Russia is doing, that empire will be able to continue to use the pretext of "international law" as a bludgeon against its enemies. That's all we're really seeing here. ..."
On
a December 2010 episode of Fox News'
Freedom
Watch
, John Bolton and the show's host Andrew Napolitano were
debating
about recent
WikiLeaks
publications
,
and naturally the subject of government secrecy came up.
"Now I want to make the case for secrecy in government when it comes to the conduct of national security affairs, and
possibly for deception where that's appropriate," said
Bolton,
the former Trump national security adviser
.
"You know Winston Churchill said during World War Two that in wartime
truth is so important it should be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies."
"Do you really believe that?" asked an incredulous Napolitano.
"Absolutely," Bolton replied.
"You would lie in order to preserve the truth?" asked Napolitano.
"If I had to say something I knew was false to protect American national security, I would do it," Bolton answered.
"Why do people in the government think that the laws of society or the rules don't apply to them?" Napolitano asked.
"Because they are not dealing in the civil society we live in under the Constitution," Bolton replied. "They are
dealing in the anarchic environment internationally where different rules apply."
"But you took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and the Constitution mandates certain openness and certain
fairness," Napolitano protested. "You're willing to do away with that in order to attain a temporary military goal?"
"I think as Justice Jackson said in a famous decision, the Constitution is not a suicide pact," Bolton said. "And I
think defending the United States from foreign threats does require actions that in a normal business environment in
the United States we would find unprofessional. I don't make any apology for it."
I am going to type a sequence of words that I have never typed before, and don't expect to ever type again:
John Bolton is right.
Bolton is of course
not
right
in his pathetic spin job on the use of lies to promote military agendas, which just looks like a feeble attempt to
justify
the
psychopathic measures he himself took
to deceive the world into consenting to the unforgivably evil invasion of
Iraq. What he is right about is that conflicts between nations take place in an "anarchic environment internationally
where different rules apply."
Individual nations have governments with laws that are enforced by those governments. Since we do not have a single
unified government for our planet (at least not yet), the interactions between those governments is largely anarchic,
and not in a good way.
"International law," in reality, only meaningfully exists to the extent that the international community is
collectively willing to enforce it. In practice what this means is that only nations that have no influence over the
dominant narratives in the international community are subject to "international law."
This is why you will see
leaders
in African nations sentenced to prison
by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes, but the USA can
get away with
actually
sanctioning ICC personnel
if they so much as talk about investigating American war crimes and suffer no
consequences for it whatsoever. It is also why
Noam
Chomsky famously said
that if the Nuremberg laws had continued to be applied with fairness and consistency, then
every post-war U.S. president would have been hanged.
And this is also why so much effort gets poured into controlling the dominant international narrative about nations
like Russia which have resisted being absorbed into the U.S. power alliance. If you have the influence and leverage
to control what narratives the international community accepts as true about the behavior of a given targeted nation,
then you can do things like manufacture international collaboration with aggressive economic sanctions of the sort
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is
currently
calling for
in response to the
completely
unsubstantiated narrative
that Russia paid Taliban fighters bounties to kill occupying forces in Afghanistan.
In its ongoing
slow-motion
third world war
against nations which refuse to be absorbed into the blob of the U.S. power alliance, this tight
empire-like cluster of allies stands everything to gain by doing whatever it takes to undermine and sabotage Russia
in an attempt to shove it off the world stage and eliminate
the
role it plays
in opposing that war. Advancing as many narratives as possible about Russia doing nefarious things
on the world stage manufactures consent for international collaboration toward that end in the form of economic
warfare, proxy conflicts, NATO expansionism and other measures, as well as facilitating a new arms race by
killing
the last of the U.S.-Russia nuclear treaties
and
ensuring
a continued imperial military presence
in Afghanistan.
We haven't been shown any hard evidence for Russians paying bounties in Afghanistan, and we almost certainly never
will be. This doesn't matter as far as the imperial propagandists are concerned; they know they don't need actual
facts to get this story believed, they just need narrative control. All the propagandists need to do is say over and
over again that Russia paid bounties to kill the troops in Afghanistan in an increasingly assertive and authoritative
tone, and after a while people will start assuming it's true, just because the propagandists have been doing this.
They'll add new pieces of data to the narrative, none of which will constitute hard proof of their claims, but after
enough "bombshell" stories reported in an assertive and ominous tone of voice, people will start assuming it's a
proven fact that Russia paid those bounties. Narrative managers will be able to simply wave their hands at a
disparate, unverified cloud of information and proclaim that it is a mountain of evidence and that anyone doubting
all this proof must be a kook. (This by the way is a textbook
Gish
gallop fallacy
, where a bunch of individually weak arguments are presented to give the illusion of a single
strong case.)
This is all because "international law" only exists in practical terms to the extent that governments around the
world agree to pretend it exists. As long as the U.S.-centralized empire is able to control the prevailing narrative
about what Russia is doing, that empire will be able to continue to use the pretext of "international law" as a
bludgeon against its enemies. That's all we're really seeing here.
A ll Western mass media outlets are now shrieking about the story The New York Timesfirst reported , citing zero evidence and
naming zero sources, claiming intelligence says Russia paid out bounties to Taliban-linked
fighters in Afghanistan for attacking the occupying forces of the U.S. and its allies in
Afghanistan. As of this writing, and probably forevermore, there have still been zero
intelligence sources named and zero evidence provided for this claim.
As we
discussed yesterday , the only correct response to unsubstantiated claims by anonymous
spooks in a post-Iraq invasion world is to assume that they are lying until you've been
provided with a mountain of hard, independently verifiable evidence to the contrary. The fact
that The New York Times instead chose to uncritically parrot these evidence-free claims
made by operatives within intelligence agencies with a known track record of lying about
exactly these things is nothing short of journalistic malpractice. The fact that western media
outlets are now unanimously regurgitating these still 100–percent baseless assertions is
nothing short of state propaganda.
The consensus-manufacturing, Overton window-shrinking Western propaganda apparatus has been
in full swing with mass media outlets claiming on literally no basis whatsoever that
they have confirmed one another's "great reporting" on this completely unsubstantiated
story.
The Wall Street Journal article
co-authored by Gordon Lubold cites only anonymous "people," who we have no reason to believe
are different people from the NYT's sources, repeating the same unsubstantiated assertions
about an intelligence report. The article cites no evidence that Lubold's "stunning
development" actually occurred beyond " people familiar with the report said
" and " a person
familiar with it said ."
The fact that both Hudson and Lubold were lying about having confirmed TheNew
York Times' reporting means that Savage was also lying when he said they did. When they say
the report has been "confirmed," what they really mean is that it has been agreed upon. All the
three of them actually did was use their profoundly influential outlets to uncritically parrot
something nameless spooks want the public to believe, which is the same as just publishing a
CIA press release free of charge. It is unprincipled stenography for opaque and unaccountable
intelligence agencies, and it is disgusting.
None of this should be happening. The New York Timeshas admitted
itself that it was wrong for uncritically parroting the unsubstantiated spook claims which
led to the Iraq invasion, as has
The Washington Post . There is no reason to believe Taliban fighters would require
any bounty to attack an illegitimate occupying force. The Russian government has denied these
allegations . The Taliban
has denied these allegations . The Trump administration has denied that the
president or the vice president had any knowledge of the spook report in question, denouncing
the central allegation that liberals who are promoting this story have been fixated on.
Yet this story is being magically transmuted into an established fact, despite its being
based on literally zero factual evidence.
Western propagandists are turning this completely empty story into the mainstream consensus,
not with facts, not with evidence, and certainly not with journalism, but with sheer brute
force of narrative control. And now you've got former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democrats'
presumptive presidential nominee,
once again attacking Trump for being insufficiently warlike,
this time because "he failed to sanction or impose any kind of consequences on Russia for
this egregious violation of international law."
You've also got President George W. Bush's former lackey Richard Haas promoting "a
proportionate response" to these baseless allegations.
"Russia is carrying out covert wars vs US troops in Afghanistan and our democracy here at
home," Haas tweeted with a link to The
New York Times story. "A proportionate response would increase the costs to Russia of its
military presence in Ukraine and Syria and, using sanctions and cyber, to challenge Putin at
home."
Haas is the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, a wildly influential think
tank with its fingers in most major U.S. news outlets.
"This story is published just in time to sabotage US-Russia arms control talks,"
Antiwar 's Dave DeCamp noted on Twitter . "As the
US is preparing for a new arms race -- and possibly even live nuclear tests -- The New York
Times provides a great excuse to let the New START lapse, making the world a much more
dangerous place. Russiagate has provided the cover for Trump to pull out of arms control
agreements. First the INF, then the Open Skies, and now possibly the New START. Any talks or
negotiations with Russia are discouraged in this atmosphere, and this Times story will
make things even worse."
"US 'intelligence' agencies (ie, organized crime networks run by the state) want to sabotage
the (admittedly very inadequate) peace talks in Afghanistan," tweeted journalist Ben
Norton. "So they get best of both worlds: blame the Russian bogeyman, fueling the new cold war,
while prolonging the military occupation. It's not a coincidence these dubious Western
intelligence agency claims about Russia came just days after a breakthrough in
peace talks . Afghanistan's geostrategic location (and trillions worth of minerals) is too
important to them."
All parties involved in spreading this malignant psyop are absolutely vile, but a special
disdain should be reserved for the media class who have been entrusted by the public with the
essential task of creating an informed populace and holding power to account. How much of an
unprincipled whore do you have to be to call yourself a journalist and uncritically parrot the
completely unsubstantiated assertions of spooks while protecting their anonymity? How much work
did these empire fluffers put into killing off every last shred of their dignity? It boggles
the mind.
It really is funny how the most influential news outlets in the western world will
uncritically parrot whatever they're told to say by the most powerful and depraved intelligence
agencies on the planet, and then turn around and tell you without a hint of self-awareness that
Russia and China are bad because they have state media.
"Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction." "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass
destruction." "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction."
How many Iraqi civilians have been starved and slaughtered since 2001?
Duckandcover , June 30, 2020 at 09:19
Another false rumor Adam Schiff can run with. He's good at that. It will keep him occupied
for the next four years.
Francis Lee , June 30, 2020 at 05:18
I'm just wondering. Is the US deep state and its media accomplices preparing its
population for a kinetic war against Russia, or is the whole thing just a bluff to get Russia
to surrender without a fight. The Russians, however, will not back down in face of this
increasing intimidation. So what next for the Americans? The problem with the big bluff play
is that the Americans may well have talked their way into war and won't have an exit
strategy. Congratulations must go in particular to the MSM for pushing the world toward the
edge of extinction and possibly over.
Atul Thakker , June 30, 2020 at 00:39
Even if it was all true, were we this outraged after watching Charlie Wilson's War?
David S Hall , June 29, 2020 at 21:29
Obviously a CIA campaign to get a more willing stooge into the Whitelivesmatter House. My
American memory is famously short, can't quite recall who it was created and funded the
Taliban and supplied them with advanced weapons and training to attack the Soviet Army of
Occupation. I imagine the current Taliban would much prefer Verbas to Rubles.
Jean , June 29, 2020 at 19:58
I am totally a Bernie Girl but am being inundated with pitiful pleas to vote for the
Bumpkin, the senile old Neoliberal Bumpkin, because ..Trump. I was almost persuaded until
reading this. The Cheeto is a horror and a whore and has a lot of blood on his hands. But
Byebyedon is worse. He'll lay this country at the feet of the war profiteers and say thank
you for letting me be your whore. I'm not voting for him. Nor for any other neoliberal
warmongering Hillary loving ass wipe the DNC can vomit up. I'm writing in Buddha. Seems to me
a good dead guy could do a better job than all these ass wipes put together. You go
Caitlyn!!!
vinnieoh , June 29, 2020 at 18:51
In passing Caitlin mentions narrative control, the subject she so expertly dissects. It's
important at the premier of this farcically phony addition to the narrative, to remember
that:
It doesn't have to be true;
It doesn't even need a very long half-life;
It doesn't even need to be investigated before it is dropped in the "hold" basket.
All that is need is to be entered into the "official narrative"; because it was reported,
became a media topic, it thus has become "real" and can be later concatenated in a litany of
other "offenses" committed by our shibboleths against us.
It's easy, they do it almost in their sleep now, and the serious faces of our vigilant
media never blink an eye, and no perspiration is seen on their upper lips. One big obedient,
happy family. It doesn't matter how many out in teevee land or social media land believe it,
only that none of the voices of the official narrative break ranks.
Sam F , June 29, 2020 at 18:43
Those who agreed upon and spread this "malignant psyop" of "evidence-free claims" have
engaged in journalistic malpractice and state propaganda, and have long betrayed the public
trust to provide truth and hold power to account.
Mass media and all branches of federal and state government must be regulated for balance
of viewpoints with checks and balances in all areas, and monitored for corrupt influence.
Without such controls we cannot restore democracy.
Realist , June 29, 2020 at 16:56
Basically, the CIA is meddling in the presidential election yet again. They want the
public not only to believe that this absurd fantasy is true but that Trump and his awful
minions looked the other way and gave the evil emperor Putin carte blanche to kill Americans.
What baseless charge could possibly be more inflammatory? Betraying your own armed forces
would be the apex of high treason. This is yet another doubling down on the failed
"Russiagate" conspiracy theory. Not only totally preposterous and completely unsupported but
quite unnecessary if the objective is to extract Trump from the White House. Trump has
already cooked his own goose in the political arena with his handling of the Covid crisis,
the BLM "demonstrations" and the Congressional giveaway of newly-created Fed funny money to
the most financially privileged individuals on the planet. The intel agencies obviously have
no clue that they conspicuously give away their game by being so over-the-top bombastic in
their unending attempts to frame Putin, Russia, and, most importantly, Trump. And the MSM
seem just as clueless about the role they play as witless tools of these behind-the-scenes
string pullers.
Skip Scott , June 30, 2020 at 08:41
I am not yet sure that Trump has "cooked his own goose". Biden is such a horrible
candidate it seems that the DNC wants to lose, and Trump's base never sees anything done by
him as "wrong," or his fault. Whenever I start thinking that the public couldn't get any
dumber or more manipulated, events prove me wrong. One thing is certain, more "theater of the
absurd" lies ahead. Buckle up!
BTW, good to hear from your Realist.
AnneR , June 30, 2020 at 11:15
Ah, but, Realist, can't have too many depleted uranium cased weapons to hand, just in
case, just in case the Strumpet should win against all the odds, at least as advertised by
the pollsters (as was the case in 2016).
And what better for these "liars, cheats, robbers" (as Pompeo averted – with mucho
pride – were the trademarks of the CIA et al) than to once again, despite all common
sense, nominate the Russians as our "real" enemies. The f***ing Blue faces cannot let their
Cold Warrior Russophobic deep seated perceptions of the world go.
And – as one expects – there is no mention in the MSM (as represented in this
household by the faithful Blue Face upholder, NPR) of the CIA (with Brzezinski's full
support) in Afghanistan deliberately helping to create, support, train the mujahadeen
(including what would become the Taliban) to fight, kill and keep the USSR in Afghanistan
until it had its "Vietnam" and shrank economically, thus influentially. No thought that,
well, even if (big if) this NYT tale proves even remotely based in some fact: we are reaping
what we sowed; serves us right. Please – we'd never look at anything done to *us* in
that way. We seem incapable.
Drew Hunkins , June 29, 2020 at 16:19
Anyone who believes the Russian bounty Taliban story is beyond hope and one must not waste
two seconds of their energies trying to reach them. There's now a segment of our (U.S)
population that is TOTALLY immune to any rational and reasonable explanations and facts
pertaining to Russia, a Russia that's a peace and justice champion around the globe promoting
cooperative relations throughout the world community.
AnneR , June 30, 2020 at 11:17
So very true, Drew. So very true – assuming that they consider it at all, that
is.
John Drake , June 29, 2020 at 16:13
Looks like a get Trump disinformation operation. First concoct this pile of nastiness, and
don't tell Potus . Then release it through subservient mass media(best yet with high
stature). Potus says, "huh", didn't know and looks foolish, as well as being positioned into
the Russian stooge trope- mission accomplished.
Next act assorted Congress critters get to pontificate, posture and look patriotic.
Americans are so gullible. Like the Taliban needs a bounty to kill Americans; that's their
job, their goal is to get rid of US presence no need for extra incentive. And of course ,
Russia could care less and would not be so stupid. If you look at a lot of this stuff the
deep state comes up with there is no motive, it doesn't pass the smell test.
Mark Ames twit: "Dubious spy-sourced #BountyGate story getting WAY more
traction than WaPo's bombshell Afghanistan Papers last December, exposing DC conspiracy of lies
to keep their disastrous war going. That deeply-reported story vanished w/out consequences."
"... And Trump said further in a Saturday night tweet : "Intel just reported to me that they did not find this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me or VP." ..."
"... it was likely deemed "chatter" or unsubstantiated rumor picked up either by US or British intelligence -- and subsequently leaked to the press to revive the pretty much dead Russiagate narrative of some level of "Trump-Putin collusion". ..."
"... And of course newly minted "resistance hero" John Bolton, busy with a media blitz promoting his book, made statements to NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday stating his belief that the president was likely briefed on the matter . The former national security adviser called the Trump denial "remarkable" -- enough to grab headlines . ..."
"... Meanwhile, speaking of America's longest war, does anyone at all of Capitol Hill remember this actual confirmed and exhaustively documented story? ..."
A group of Congressional Democrats
will be briefed at the White House Tuesday in response to ongoing accusations that Trump
was made aware of but ignored what The New York Times described last Friday as a Russian
military intelligence operation that sought to kill American troops in Afghanistan by issuing
bounties to Taliban fighters.
This following a Monday briefing of at least seven Republican lawmakers, also as both
Republican and Democratic leaders demand answers and full briefings from the CIA and Pentagon.
Crucially it remains, however, that the White House and the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence have firmly rejected that the president was ever briefed.
On Saturday Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said in a statement that he had
"confirmed that neither the President nor the Vice President were ever briefed on any
intelligence alleged by the New York Times in its reporting."
And Trump said further in a Saturday night tweet : "Intel just
reported to me that they did not find this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me
or VP."
A carefully worded and to be expected somewhat vague Monday evening statement from CIA
Director Gina Haspel appeared to vindicate the White House's assertion of lack of credible
intelligence behind it. Essentially the CIA director seemed to reference the danger of
"cherry-picking" from lower level unvetted raw information.
"When developing intelligence assessments, initial tactical reports often require additional
collection and validation," Haspel
said .
"Leaks compromise and disrupt the critical interagency work to collect, assess, and ascribe
culpability," she added, strongly suggesting that indeed there was not enough to go on
concerning the Russian bounty allegations for it to rise to the level of the
commander-in-chief.
A number of pundits took this as a clear denial that there was anything significant or
worthy of briefing the president on regarding alleged "Russian bounties" -- meaning it was
likely deemed "chatter" or unsubstantiated rumor picked up either by US or British intelligence
-- and subsequently leaked to the press to revive the pretty much dead Russiagate narrative of
some level of "Trump-Putin collusion".
Still, Congress wants answers in what's already indeed looking like
a revived Russiagate scenario conveniently timed for the outrage machine to kick into full
gear just ahead of the November election.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said: "If the reports are true,
that the administration knew about this Russian operation and did nothing, they have broken the
trust of those who serve and the commitment to their families to ensure their loved one's
safety," according to The Hill. "It is imperative that the House Armed Services Committee
receive detailed answers from the Department of Defense."
And of course newly minted "resistance hero" John Bolton, busy with a media blitz promoting
his book, made statements to NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday stating his belief that the
president was likely briefed on the matter . The former national security adviser called the
Trump denial "remarkable" -- enough to grab headlines .
But considering his careful, ambiguous remarks, it's clear that belief is the operative
word here :
"He can disown everything if no-one ever told him about it," Bolton said... "It looks like
just another day in the office at the Trump White House."
Bolton said he didn't know the quality of the intelligence on the Russian bounty plan, or
the extent of it. And not all information that flows through the many U.S. intelligence
agencies is passed on to the commander in chief, Bolton noted.
"There needs to be a filter of intelligence for any president, especially for this
president," he said.
"Active Russian aggression like that against American servicemen is a very, very serious
matter," Bolton added.
So at this point we are still merely at the level of "impossible to verify or confirm
anything", despite the major outlets behind the original story, namely the NY Times and
Washington Post, claiming to have "confirmed" each other's reporting.
* * *
Meanwhile, speaking of America's longest war, does anyone at all of Capitol Hill remember
this actual confirmed and exhaustively documented story?
Regarding the latest NYT drivel, always replace the target's name (in this case Russia)
with the US. I'm sure everyone here knows that Washington DC blames others for the sins
they've committed themselves.
vk | Jun 28 2020 15:46 utc | 17:
Playing the contrarian here. No politician, especially Putin, would admit it as it would
make themselves look incompetent. Russia got enough crap flung their way.
Having read the NY Times article, I'm struck by how thin it is in objective terms,
journalistically speaking. Even if one accepted the legitimacy of running self-serving,
secret-state sourced pieces like this, there should at least be a story. In this article, if
one were to cut away the parts where the writers admit (commendably) the things they don't
know, and all the background of Perfidious Muscovy's alleged war on the good (which, even if
one buys into it, isn't news broken by this article), there would be barely anything left:
just a naked assertion without details or narrative. And yet the mainstream media echo
chamber kicks into gear completely untroubled.
I guess I'm advocating for the propagandists to at least show some pride in their
work.
As for the substance of the article, meager as it is: aside from the fact that there's no
reason to believe it on the basis of this (ahem) reporting, I haven't seen anybody point out
that it's difficult to see what policy Russia would be advancing by doing it.
If Moscow wanted to aid the Taliban in ongoing military operations, this would be an
extremely inefficient use of Russian resources.
On the other hand, one could see such payments as encouraging fighters to break discipline
and attack U.S. forces despite the extant U.S.-Taliban ceasefire, thus attacking both sides
and thereby prolonging the war. I wouldn't put such unsavory tactics beyond Russia (or any
other state), but I find it hard to believe they'd risk poisoning relations with the future
rulers of Afganistan just to give the U.S. a tiny additional impetus to do what it already
specializes in without their encouragement: waging endless, no-win wars.
Still, I could be made to believe that last possibility if there were any actual reporting
to support it, or even more skillful propaganda to fool me.
From the TASS piece quoted by b on Afghanistan "The Russian Foreign Ministry suggested
that those actions might stem from the fact that the US intelligence agencies "do not like
that our and their diplomats have teamed up to facilitate the start of peace talks between
Kabul and the Taliban"
The US is divided between nationalists and an anglo globalist deep state. I have started
reading the Mathew Ehret articles at Strategic Culture https://www.strategic-culture.org/contributors/matthew-ehret/
Putin has said the domestic problems in the US are signs or symptoms of a much deeper
problem. The last four or so articles by Ehret are about the anglo deep state that is driving
the globalist agenda.
one could see such payments as encouraging fighters to break discipline and attack U.S.
forces despite the extant U.S.-Taliban ceasefire,...
David G | Jun 28 2020 17:22 utc
David made clear that this is a hypothetical that he discusses only as a point to argue
something else.
Still, the article was sufficiently well written that it made clear that no American
soldiers were killed after the ceasefire with Taliban in February. There article is actually
clear that the evidence is thinner than the air at the highest peaks in Afghanistan (which
are pretty high), so anyone with some mental faculties (meaning, pitifully small minority of
the readers, although THAT estimate is based on the comments and recommends that were
probably manipulated) can figure it out.
On the other hand, for people who treat our media with some trust, Russians are incredible
bunglers. The unit that supervised the bounties (or most probably among the Russian
intelligence units) is also attributed with failed assassination of Skripals, three (!!??)
failed poisoning attempts on a Bulgarian weapon manufacturers and a failed coup in
Montenegro, and now, additionally it is credited with a scheme to kill American soldiers that
did not result in any killing, but in a wad of American currency found in a Taliban outpost.
I guess that the full name of the unit is Boris & Natasha Ltd.
Russian (alleged) scheme to split Catalonia from Spain and another, to have Bernie Sanders
win primaries, failed too. One could write an article summarizing that record to conclude
that because of indefatigable efforts of our intelligence agencies and their apt allies (yes,
Australia, you can bask in glory as well), we can sleep in peace.
Yeah, for the mental exercise if nothing else, I try to imagine a scenario in which the
Russians might have done this. As you say, if the "bounties" have been on offer during the
ceasefire, they have had no effect. The Times article is vague enough that it leaves open it
might be referring to a pre-ceasefire time frame, but then we're back to it being a stupid
way to try to support the Taliban militarily.
Back in the real world, Scott Ritter, noting the real Russia wants the U.S. out of
Afghanistan, suggests the report originated from the Afghan security agency (NDS), was picked
up by the CIA, and turned into a junk intelligence product good enough for the NY Times, the
motive being an attempt to sabotage the (putative) U.S. withdrawal and generally mess with
Trump. https://www.rt.com/op-ed/493174-nyt-report-russia-afghanistan/
The 'deep state' spits this stuff out anonymously because they know that our sheep in the
NYT, WaPo, and WSJ will publish it without criticism and the sheep reporting it on news shows
will accept it without fact.
Critical thinking: comparing motives
The deep state hates Trump's plan to withdraw troops from Germany, Afghanistan, re-admit
Russia to the G7 (making it the G8), and wants to stir up conflict with Russia.
Russia: Motives
- Piss off their EU customers so that they will pay a premium to buy US / Qatar LNG instead
of Russian NG?
- Derail Trump's plan to withdraw from Afghanistan, Germany, get back into the G7/8, and my
favorite from CNN's 'Russia Expert' Putin is a tactician not a strategist (ie. Putin is
really dumb).
- Russia wants to provoke a U.S. retaliation for us to kill their troops.
Since there is no rational motive for Russia to do this but their are motives for the
'unnamed sources' to like or exaggerate their claims our MSM should question this tall
tale.
I love the outrage by commentators, 'If Trump was not informed then someone should be
fired'. Note, our idiotic MSM accepts the premise as a fact.
BTW I don't know what to make of Veterans Today, it's on the very end of the spectrum of
what I am willing to read before I consider a website too far out there but it does have a
good article every once in a while, and yeah, it's kind of a guilty pleasure even when it
doesn't.
I still think the balance of evidence favors this being U.S. deep state
misinformation.
Americans pay their government to lie to them through major news media! Although it's been
ongoing for decades, some are just now getting the message! But then, that's only some. And
polling data shows demonstratively that a majority of the American public still find the
national government and major media credible--but just barely. Many are incensed at this
recent data and continue to rebel; but against what specifically, they have no unified
answer.
If honest reporting from major media actually became the norm, would we believe
it?
karlof1 @76, I take your post about about 'duh everyone knows American News Media lies
(synopsis)' as sarcasm directed at me. I wish it was true that a slim majority of
Americans still believe the MSM but the vast majority is greatly influenced by them.
Examples, if you poll Americans at which countries are a big threat to the U.S., Iran,
Russia, N.Korea and China fluctuate wildly based on who our corrupt foreign policy
establishment is attacking at the moment. So while the U.S. public distrusts the MSM in the
abstract, they still absorb their poisonous fruit. Let me mourn I am not pretending to have a brand new revelation but as an Engineer I
see this as a system that is incapable of correcting itself so it bothers me. If something is
bad but I see a possibility that it can get better it does not bother me as much but this
feedback is perfectly broken.
1. Deep state lies to MSM. 2. MSM accepts lies uncritically, 3. public never punishes
liars in group 1 or 2 because hey, they are attacking Iranians, Russians, Chinese ... who
cares about them.
The only way this changes is for us to lose a war ... fan-damn-tastic.
America, the pariah state is getting walled off from the rest of the world.
With reference to my comment at #18, younger people are quickly getting infected, I should
add that the large gatherings in the form of protests across the nation are also a key
vector.
"... The purpose of McMaster's essay is to discredit "retrenchers" -- that's his term for anyone advocating restraint as an alternative to the madcap militarism that has characterized U.S. policy in recent decades. Substituting retrenchment for restraint is a bit like referring to conservatives as fascists or liberals as pinks : It reveals a preference for labeling rather than serious engagement. In short, it's a not very subtle smear, as indeed is the phrase madcap militarism. But, hey, I'm only playing by his rules. ..."
"... The militarization of American statecraft that followed the end of the Cold War produced results that were bad for the United States and bad for the world. If McMaster can't figure that out, then he's the one who is behind the times. ..."
"... While Hillary was very clear on her drive against Russia, Trump promised the opposite, so many people had hopes for something on that. Nevertheless, he also promised to go against China and JPCOA, which many people forgot or thought not likely. But lo and behold, with Trump we ended up having the worst of both worlds ..."
"... just because of Trump's rhetoric against military adventurism, I would have voted for him. I would have been wrong, so now I am now extremely weary of any promises on this direction, but still hoped for Tulsi... ..."
H.R. McMaster looks to be one of those old soldiers with an aversion to following Douglas
MacArthur's advice to "just fade away."
The retired army three-star general who served an abbreviated term as national security
adviser has a memoir due out in September. Perhaps in anticipation of its publication, he has
now contributed a big think-piece to the new issue of Foreign Affairs. The essay is
unlikely to help sell the book.
The purpose of McMaster's essay is to discredit "retrenchers" -- that's his term for anyone
advocating restraint as an alternative to the madcap militarism that has characterized U.S.
policy in recent decades. Substituting retrenchment for restraint is a bit like
referring to conservatives as fascists or liberals as pinks : It
reveals a preference for labeling rather than serious engagement. In short, it's a not very
subtle smear, as indeed is the phrase madcap militarism. But, hey, I'm only playing by his
rules.
Yet if not madcap militarism, what term or phrase accurately describes post-9/11 U.S.
policy? McMaster never says. It's among the many matters that he passes over in silence. As a
result, his essay amounts to little more than a dodge, carefully designed to ignore the void
between what assertive "American global leadership" was supposed to accomplish back when we
fancied ourselves the sole superpower and what actually ensued.
Here's what McMaster dislikes about restraint: It is based on "emotions" and a "romantic
view" of the world rather than reason and analysis. It is synonymous with "disengagement" --
McMaster uses the terms interchangeably. "Retrenchers ignore the fact that the risks and costs
of inaction are sometimes higher than those of engagement," which, of course, is not a fact,
but an assertion dear to the hearts of interventionists. Retrenchers assume that the "vast
oceans" separating the United States "from the rest of the world" will suffice to "keep
Americans safe." They also believe that "an overly powerful United States is the principal
cause of the world's problems." Perhaps worst of all, "retrenchers are out of step with history
and way behind the times."
Forgive me for saying so, but there is a Trumpian quality to this line of argument: broad
claims supported by virtually no substantiating evidence. Just as President Trump is adamant in
refusing to fess up to mistakes in responding to Covid-19 -- "We've made every decision
correctly" -- so too McMaster avoids reckoning with what actually happened when the
never-retrench crowd was calling the shots in Washington and set out after 9/11 to transform
the Greater Middle East.
What gives the game away is McMaster's apparent aversion to numbers. This is an essay devoid
of stats. McMaster acknowledges the "visceral feelings of war weariness" felt by more than a
few Americans. Yet he refrains from exploring the source of such feelings. So he does not
mention casualties -- the number of Americans killed or wounded in our post-9/11
misadventures. He does not discuss how much those wars have cost , which, of course,
spares him from considering how the trillions expended in Afghanistan and Iraq might have been
better invested at home. He does not even reflect on the duration of those wars, which
by itself suffices to reveal the epic failure of recent U.S. military policy. Instead, McMaster
mocks what he calls the "new mantra" of "ending endless wars."
Well, if not endless, our recent wars have certainly dragged on for far longer than the
proponents of those wars expected. Given the hundreds of billions funneled to the Pentagon each
year -- another data point that McMaster chooses to overlook -- shouldn't Americans expect more
positive outcomes? And, of course, we are still looking for the general who will make good on
the oft-repeated promise of victory.
What is McMaster's alternative to restraint? Anyone looking for the outlines of a new grand
strategy in step with history and keeping up with the times won't find it here. The best
McMaster can come up with is to suggest that policymakers embrace "strategic empathy: an
understanding of the ideology, emotions, and aspirations that drive and constrain other actors"
-- a bit of advice likely to find favor with just about anyone apart from President Trump
himself.
But strategic empathy is not a strategy; it's an attitude. By contrast, a policy of
principled restraint does provide the basis for an alternative strategy, one that implies
neither retrenchment nor disengagement. Indeed, restraint emphasizes engagement, albeit through
other than military means.
Unless I missed it, McMaster's essay contains not a single reference to diplomacy, a
revealing oversight. Let me amend that: A disregard for diplomacy may not be surprising in
someone with decades of schooling in the arts of madcap militarism.
The militarization of American statecraft that followed the end of the Cold War produced
results that were bad for the United States and bad for the world. If McMaster can't figure
that out, then he's the one who is behind the times. Here's the truth: Those who support the
principle of restraint believe in vigorous engagement, emphasizing diplomacy, trade, cultural
exchange, and the promotion of global norms, with war as a last resort. Whether such an
approach to policy is in or out of step with history, I leave for others to divine.
Andrew Bacevich, TAC's writer-at-large, is president of the Quincy Institute for
Responsible Statecraft.
Surveys show over and over that the Americans overwhelmingly share Dr. Bacevich's views.
There was even hope that Trump will reign on the US military adventurism.
The fact that all this continues unabated and that the general is given space in the Foreign
Affairs is in our face evidence of the glaring democratic deficit existent in the US, and that
in fact democracy is nonexistent being long ago fully replaced by a de facto Oligarchy.
Doesn't matter what Dr. Bachevich writes or says or does. Unless and until the internal
political issues in the US are not addressed, the world will suffer.
While Hillary was very clear on her drive against Russia, Trump promised the opposite, so
many people had hopes for something on that. Nevertheless, he also promised to go against China
and JPCOA, which many people forgot or thought not likely. But lo and behold, with Trump we
ended up having the worst of both worlds...
and the tragedy is that even if Biden is elected,
that direction will not be reversed, or not likely. While I cannot vote, just because of
Trump's rhetoric against military adventurism, I would have voted for him. I would have been
wrong, so now I am now extremely weary of any promises on this direction, but still hoped for
Tulsi...
Looks like the same people who used to push records up the pop charts are now manipulating
the Amazon best sellers charts, though I wouldn't put this past Amazon themselves.
No one buys this garbage other than uni libraries.
scott157 , 2 minutes ago
Matt Taibbi hits ANOTHER grand slam!!!!! regarding robin diangelo, she should cease
scissoring and try a penis........it would spread sunshine all over her
place.......................
Michael Norton , 4 minutes ago
Someone should write a book called White Strength.
novictim , 4 minutes ago
And let us never forget the crackpot theory that only Blacks cannot be racist 'cuz P + P +
R -> (Prejudice + Power) = Racism.
This social theory defines blacks as being definitionally incapable of possessing power
over whites. Ya, that's not racist at all!
johnnyg , 5 minutes ago
Teaming up with Ruth Frankenberg to help attack "fellow whites"? Oy vey!
I wonder if it's "fragility" to need every university, multinational corp, media monopoly,
and celebrity constantly patting you on the *** and silencing any criticism of your constant
terrible behavior?
The "foreign intelligence official" who supposedly leaked this deso to NYT may have come from a country that wishes to increase
US-Russian hostility, in particular, I would be unsurprised if the country in question was
one characterized by some pretty intense fluctuations regarding its territorial size courtesy
of comparable fluctuations in Russian controlled territory over the centuries.
First, Russia is, generally speaking, not in the habit of paying people, in
particular people they arent very fond of, for things they were going to do anyway. If
you think the Talebs require Russian financial incentives to kill Americans where they
reasonably can I have a bridge over the Pacific to sell you.
Secondly, while there is plently of things the Russian would want to extract payback
for, using the Talebs of all people adds to much risk for too little gain. Even using
the same "scheme" of offering boutnies, well. Offering bounties to
Syrian/Iraqi/Lebanese organisations for pretty much the same thing would be less risky
(these organisations are farther from the Russian homeland and have less of a hostile
history with Russia, in addition, Iran rather then Russia would likely get blamed for
it) and about as rewarding.
Third: I fully expect that Trump was not briefed on this "information". It is
actually quite simple, a lot of "intelligence" goes into the US. Then you have people
called analysts, who, among other frequently more interesting things, make judgement
calls in what to pass on or not and if yes with what caveats. This process is repeated
several times, until at some point something ends up with the US National Security
council and/or the president himself.
If the analysts make the, in my opinion wholly justified decisions, that the information
is somewhere between speculation and outright lies, they will not pass it further up the
foodchain.
What I do not know is what types of record keeping are used in the US for the analysts,
who probably have to document their decision on whether to pass certain information or not
in writing probably including their reasoning, it is quite possible that one of the
reasons for not sending it up the food chains was that the "foreign intelligence official"
may have come from a country that wishes to increase US-Russian hostility, in particular, I
would be unsurprised if the country in question was one characterized by some pretty
intense fluctuations regarding its territorial size courtesy of comparable fluctuations in
Russian controlled territory over the centuries.
Notable also that this ludicrous story, whose promotion by the MI6 Guardian confirms the
obvious suspicions about it, also includes the wild claim that the Russian unit responsible
for the bounties was also behind the "Novichok" "attack" on the Skripals.
It is another loyalty oath operation designed to force intelligent people into professing to
believe incredible nonsense.
The bottom line of the bounty claim is that very few Americans have in fact been killed. If
there were an actual bounty the country is full of GIs ripe for plucking. And the money
compares well with poppy growing.
Run by veteran "non-profits careerists" movement is highly suspect
Notable quotes:
"... The black revolution is much more than a struggle for the rights of Negroes. It is forcing America to face all its interrelated flaws -- racism, poverty, militarism, and materialism. It is exposing evils that are rooted deeply in the whole structure of our society. It reveals systemic rather than superficial flaws and suggests that radical reconstruction of society itself is the real issue to be faced. ..."
"... much of what passes for popular and progressive, grass-roots activism has been co-opted, taken over and/or created by corporate America, the corporate-funded " nonprofit industrial complex ," and Wall Street's good friend, the Democratic Party , long known to leftists as "the graveyard of social movements." This " corporatization of activism " (University of British Columbia professor Peter Dauvergne's term) is ubiquitous across much of what passes for the left in the U.S. today. ..."
"... What about the racialist group Black Lives Matter, recipient of a mammoth $100 million grant from the Ford Foundation last year? Sparked by the racist security guard and police killings of Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown and Eric Garner, BLM has achieved uncritical support across the progressive spectrum, where it is almost reflexively cited as an example of noble and radical grass-roots activism in the streets. That is a mistake. ..."
"... I first started wondering where BLM stood on the AstroTurf versus grass roots scale when I read an essay published three years ago in The Feminist Wire by Alicia Garza, one of BLM's three black, lesbian and veteran public-interest careerist founders. ..."
"... Why the prickly, hyperidentity-politicized and proprietary attachment to the "lives matter" phrase? Garza seemed more interested in brand value and narrow identity than social justice. Did she want a licensing fee? Wouldn't any serious, leftist, people's activist eagerly give the catchy "lives matter" phrase away to all oppressed people and hope for their wide and inclusive use in a viciously capitalist society that has subjected everything and everyone to the soulless logic of commodity rule, profit and exchange value? Who were these "charismatic Black men many are rallying around" in the fall of 2014? ..."
"... I couldn't help but wonder about the left-progressive credentials of anyone who gets upset that others would want to have a "conversation" (as Garza put it) about how their lives matter too. Is there really something wrong with a marginalized Native American laborer or a white and not-so "skin-privileged" former factory worker struggling with sickness and poverty wanting to hear that his or her life matters? For any remotely serious progressive, was there anything mysterious about the fact that many white folks facing foreclosure, job loss, poverty wages and the like might not be doing cartwheels over the phrase "black lives matter" when they experience the harsh daily reality that their lives don't matter under the profits system? ..."
"... My concerns about BLM's potential service to the capitalist elite were reactivated when I heard a talk by Garza's fellow BLM founder, Patrisse Cullors (another veteran nonprofit careerist). Cullors spoke before hundreds of cheering white liberals and progressives in downtown Iowa City in February. "We are witnessing the erosion of U.S. democracy," she said, adding that Donald Trump "is building a police state." Relating that she had gone into a "two-week depression" after Hillary Clinton was defeated by Trump, Cullors said she wondered if BLM had "done enough to educate people about the differences between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton." She described Trump as a fascist. ..."
The black revolution is much more than a struggle for the rights of Negroes. It is
forcing America to face all its interrelated flaws -- racism, poverty, militarism, and
materialism. It is exposing evils that are rooted deeply in the whole structure of our society.
It reveals systemic rather than superficial flaws and suggests that radical reconstruction of
society itself is the real issue to be faced. -- Martin Luther King Jr., 1968
You don't have to be one of those conspiratorial curmudgeons who reduces every sign of popular
protest to "George Soros money" to acknowledge that much of what passes for popular and
progressive, grass-roots activism has been co-opted, taken over and/or created by corporate
America, the corporate-funded "
nonprofit industrial complex ," and Wall Street's good friend, the Democratic Party , long known to
leftists as "the graveyard of social movements." This "
corporatization of activism " (University of British Columbia professor Peter Dauvergne's
term) is ubiquitous across much of what passes for the left in the U.S. today.
What about the racialist group Black Lives Matter, recipient of a mammoth $100 million
grant from the Ford Foundation last year? Sparked by the racist security guard and police
killings of Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown and Eric Garner, BLM has achieved uncritical support
across the progressive spectrum, where it is almost reflexively cited as an example of noble and
radical grass-roots activism in the streets. That is a mistake.
I first started wondering where BLM stood on the AstroTurf versus grass roots scale when I
read an essay published three years ago in The Feminist Wire by Alicia
Garza, one of BLM's three black, lesbian and veteran public-interest careerist founders. In
her "Herstory of the #BlackLivesMatter Movement," Garza wrote:
"Black lives. Not just all lives. Black lives. Please do not change the conversation by
talking about how your life matters, too. It does, but we need less watered down unity and a
more active solidarities with us, Black people, unwaveringly, in defense of our humanity. Our
collective futures depend on it."
Denouncing "hetero-patriarchy," Garza described the adaptation of her clever online
catchphrase ("black lives matter") by others -- "brown lives matter, migrant lives matter,
women's lives matter, and on and on" (Garza's dismissive words) -- as "the Theft of Black Queer
Women's Work."
"Perhaps," she added, "if we were the charismatic Black men many are rallying around these
days, it would have been a different story."
From a leftist perspective, this struck me as alarming. Why the prickly,
hyperidentity-politicized and proprietary attachment to the "lives matter" phrase? Garza seemed
more interested in brand value and narrow identity than social justice. Did she want a licensing
fee? Wouldn't any serious, leftist, people's activist eagerly give the catchy "lives matter"
phrase away to all oppressed people and hope for their wide and inclusive use in a viciously
capitalist society that has subjected everything and everyone to the soulless logic of commodity
rule, profit and exchange value? Who were these "charismatic Black men many are rallying around"
in the fall of 2014?
And how representative were Garza's slaps at "hetero-patriarchy" and "charismatic Black men"
of the black community in whose name she spoke? Would it be too hetero-patriarchal of me, I
wondered, to suggest that maybe a black male or two with experience of oppression in the nation's
racist criminal justice system ought to share some space front and center in a movement focused
especially on a police and prison state that targets black boys and men above all?
I defended the phrase "black lives matter" against the absurd charge that it is racist, but
I couldn't help but wonder about the left-progressive credentials of anyone who gets upset
that others would want to have a "conversation" (as Garza put it) about how their lives matter
too. Is there really something wrong with a marginalized Native American laborer or a white and
not-so "skin-privileged" former factory worker struggling with sickness and poverty wanting to
hear that his or her life matters? For any remotely serious progressive, was there anything
mysterious about the fact that many white folks facing foreclosure, job loss, poverty wages and
the like might not be doing cartwheels over the phrase "black lives matter" when they experience
the harsh daily reality that their lives don't matter under the profits system?
My concerns about BLM's potential service to the capitalist elite were reactivated when I
heard a talk by Garza's fellow BLM founder, Patrisse Cullors (another veteran nonprofit
careerist). Cullors spoke before hundreds of cheering white liberals and progressives in downtown
Iowa City in February. "We are witnessing the erosion of U.S. democracy," she said, adding that
Donald Trump "is building a police state." Relating that she had gone into a "two-week
depression" after Hillary Clinton was defeated by Trump, Cullors said she wondered if BLM had
"done enough to educate people about the differences between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton."
She described Trump as a fascist.
Petty scoundrels from NYT are not that inventive. They just want to whitewash Russiagate fiasco. This whole "story" stinks to high heaven. Judy Miller redux
- regime-change info ops, coordinated across multiple media organizations.
Notable quotes:
"... After Iraq WMD and Russia Collusion, we should ask for real evidence instead of the "top intelligence sources". And we should not buy we can't provide any evidence because of sources & methods. ..."
"... On a practical note, how was a Taliban soldier militant meant to verify his claim to a bounty? I assume that scalping was not a feasible option, but if you are going to offer a bounty then you are going to want proof that the person claiming that bounty did, indeed, do the job. ..."
After Iraq WMD and Russia Collusion, we should ask for real evidence instead of the "top
intelligence sources". And we should not buy we can't provide any evidence because of
sources & methods.
Be skeptical of anything published by Pravda on the Hudson and Pravda on the Potomac
when it comes to intelligence matters. Especially months before a general election.
On to Moscow! Where's Bomb'n Bolton when we need him?
"a European intelligence official told CNN."..... "The official did not specify as to the
date of the casualties, their number or nationality, or whether these were fatalities or
injuries."
So, unknown official, unknown date, unknown if there were any actual casualties.
"The US concluded that the GRU was behind the interference in the 2016 US election and
cyberattacks against the Democratic National Committee and top Democratic officials."
Quick, someone tell the House Impeachment Inquiry Committee! Oh, wait, that was Ukraine.
What did Mueller collude, I mean conclude, about that Russian interference?
Let me quote the former acting DNI:
"You clearly don't understand how raw intel gets verified. Leaks of partial information to
reporters from anonymous sources is dangerous because people like you manipulate it for
political gain."
I believe he was tweeting that to the press, but then they are doing this for political
reasons. Lockdowns and socialist revolutionary riots must not be working in the left's
favor. I wonder why?
On a practical note, how was a Taliban soldier militant meant to verify his claim to a
bounty? I assume that scalping was not a feasible option, but if you are going to offer a bounty
then you are going to want proof that the person claiming that bounty did, indeed, do the
job.
So if a coalition soldier died on *this* day how was a Talibani supposed to confirm to
the GRU that "Yep, I did that. Where's my money?"
TTG, I think you are being led away from the truth by your significant bias against Russia.
Those with a blinkered vision see only what they want to see. No mystery there.
Now you want to portray NYT as the paragon of truth telling!! Haven't we seen enough
examples of the lying by Jewish owned neocon media, especially the Times? Now that the
Russia-gate fire is nearly put out, these guys are pumping this story. You really need to understand the depth of hatred the Jews have for Russia and Russians
that makes them like this. That's the only country /civilisation that got away from their
grasp just when they thought have got it. Not once, but twice in the last century.
But then isn't your ancestry from Lithuania. Your hatred is strong. I get that - I see
that all time with people from the ex-Soviet republics formerly ruled by Russia. Hope
others see that too.
Regardless of its veracity, this story will definitely hit Trump where it hurts -
chapeau to the individual(s) who conceived this work of fiction, if indeed it is so.
Again, whether or not performance bonuses* were actually offered by the GRU, has anyone
considered that this may still be a Russian Intelligence op?
Perhaps we should first ask whether the Kremlin wants to deal with a US under
another 4 years of Trump. From their FP POV, the huge uncertainty and instability they see
in the US now will surely be ramped up to a whole new level, in the event that he is
re-elected. And of course all hope that Trump may be able to improve the relationship with
Russia was dashed long ago, by Russiagate and the ongoing Russophobia among the Borg.
Jeffrey's mission in Syria is a case in point. At least the US Deep State is the devil they
know.
If the answer to the above question is "no" it must surely be a trivial matter for the
GRU to feed such a damaging story to Trump's enemies in the USIC.
* "bounties" is an emotive word, useful to Trump's enemies, evoking individual pay for an
individual death - real personal stuff. As others have pointed out the practicality of such
a scheme seems improbable. Surely it is more likely that any such incentive pay would be
for the group, upon coalition casualties confirmed in the aftermath of an attack. The
distinction may not seem important, but the Resistance media can be relied upon to use
language designed to inflict the most harm.
'Intel' without evidence is "bunk". Have we learned nothing from Chrissy Steele and the
Russiagate fiasco - I know a guy who knows a guy who said... the Russians are bad and
Donald Trump is an a......e. Bob Mueller and 18 pissed off democrats have concluded that
the Russians are systemically bad and Donald Trump is an a......e. 4 months before a
Presidential election intel sources have revealed to the NYT that the Russians are very
very bad and Donald Trump is an a......e. Ah yes, the New York Ridiculously Self Degraded
Times has broken another important story. I wonder why? Enough already...and yes, we have
made a systemic laughing stock of ourselves.
Oh, and remind me again of why we've been staying around Kabul - something about improving
the lot of women, or gays, or someone?
I'm personally not ready to "duck and cover" after reading this.
I have accepted the fact that Russia is no longer the Soviet Union. I am watching
television news at night but no longer see the clock ticking as I turn it off and go to
sleep. So far, no one I know has taken to building a fallout shelter in his back yard.
I want an answer to this question: Whatever happened to the pillow and blanket I had to
bring to school and store in the school's basement in case we all had to retreat there and
be locked down in it during the bombing? Who do I go to to get reparations for the cost of
those items? (I was never given the opportunity to retrieve them when I graduated.) Did
Khrushchev have to take his shoe to a cobbler after using it to pound on the table while
threatening to bury us?
There's a rich history of stories about USI involvement in the drug trade. CIA was
involved in the heroin trade during the Viet Nam War. The Iran-Contra mess involved selling
Columbian cocaine to help finance Nicaraguan anti-Communist rebels. US involvement in the
Afghanistan drug trade has been talked about for years. As I said, there are no glitter
fartin' unicorns here.
The Iranian statistics do not lie. Transhipment of drugs across Iran from Afghanistan
has been increasing since the American invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.
The US Office of Foreign Asset Control, the US DIA, the CIA etc. are powerless to do
anything about that but are, evidently, all powerfull against USD transactions of the
Iranian government.
Fox News
5.51M subscribers
SUBSCRIBE
A
look into the domestic terror organization ANTIFA and how it is attempting to take over the current peaceful protests of
the George Floyd death.
#FoxNews
Projection, yet another time. An old and very effective dirty propaganda trick. Fake news outlet are intelligence services
controlled outlets.
Notable quotes:
"... Reporters from the New York Times and the Washington Post were called up by unnamed 'officials' and told to write that Russia pays some Afghans to kill U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. There is zero evidence that the claim is true. The Taliban spokesman denies it. The numbers of U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan is minimal. The alleged sources of the claims are criminals the U.S. has taken as prisoners in Afghanistan. ..."
"... The journalistic standards at the New York Times and Washington Post must be below zero to publish such nonsense without requesting real evidence. The press release like stories below from anti-Trump/anti-Russian sources have nothing to do with ' great reporting ' but are pure stenography. ..."
"... If the Russians were truly inclined in a direction leading them to "pay bounties" for American scalps in Afghanistan, they would instead be doing what we once did: providing state-of-the-art Manpads to Afghan jihadis. Any sort of bar room or shit house rumor these days is attributed to "intelligence officials" or "intelligence sources", always unnamed of course. ..."
"... The paragraph about "reasons to believe" is vacuous in the extreme: ..."
"... "The intelligence assessment is said to be based at least in part on interrogations of captured Afghan militants and criminals. The officials did not describe the mechanics of the Russian operation, such as how targets were picked or how money changed hands. It is also not clear whether Russian operatives had deployed inside Afghanistan or met with their Taliban counterparts elsewhere." ..."
"... We know from the past that US forces were torturing TOTALLY RANDOM INDIVIDUALS, occasionally to death. Needless to say, "officials did not describe the mechanics" of the interrogation, neither did not describe any corroborative details. The most benign scenario is that "captured Afghan militants and criminals" are pure fiction rather than actual people subjected to "anal inspections", "peroneal strikes", left overnight hanging from the ceiling etc. to spit out random incoherent tidbits about the Russians, like "it is also not clear".... A long list of "not clear"'s. ..."
"... Together, it is very crude "manufacturing of consent", and unfortunately, this is a workable technique of manipulation. Crudity is the tool, not a defect in this case. I will explain later what I mean, this post is probably too long already. ..."
Evidence Free Press Release Claims 'Russia Did Bad, Trump Did
Not Respond' - NYT , WaPo Publish ItA. Pols , Jun 27 2020 14:34 utc |
1
There were allegations about emails that someone exfiltrated from the DNC and provided to
Wikileaks . Russia must have done it. The FBI and other intelligence services were
all over it. In the end no evidence was provided to support the claims.
There were allegations that Trump did not really win the elections. Russia must have done
it. The various U.S. intelligence service, together with their British friends, provided all
kinds of sinister leaks about the alleged case. In the end no evidence was provided to
support the claims.
A British double agent, Sergej Skirpal, was allegedly injured in a Russian attack on him.
The intelligence services told all kind of contradicting nonsense about the case. In the end
no evidence was provided to support the claims.
All three cases had two points in common. The were based on sources near to the U.S. and
British intelligence community. They were designed to increase hostility against Russia. The
last point was then used to sabotage Donald Trump's original plans for better relations with
Russia.
Now the intelligence services make another claim that fits right into the above
scheme.
Reporters from the New York Times and the Washington Post were called up
by unnamed 'officials' and told to write that Russia pays some Afghans to kill U.S. soldiers
in Afghanistan. There is zero evidence that the claim is true. The Taliban spokesman denies
it. The numbers of U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan is minimal. The alleged sources of the
claims are criminals the U.S. has taken as prisoners in Afghanistan.
All that nonsense is again used to press against Trump's wish for better relations with
Russia. Imagine - Trump was told about these nonsensical claims and he did nothing about
it!
The same intelligence services and 'officials' previously paid bounties to bring innocent
prisoners to Guantanamo Bay, tortured them until they made false confessions and lied about
it. The same intelligence services and 'officials' lied about WMD in Iraq. The same
'intelligence officials' paid and pay Jihadis disguised as 'Syrian rebels' to kill Russian
and Syrian troops which defend their countries.
The journalistic standards at the New York Times and Washington Post
must be below zero to publish such nonsense without requesting real evidence. The press
release like stories below from anti-Trump/anti-Russian sources have nothing to do with '
great
reporting ' but are pure stenography.
Posted by b at
13:43 UTC |
Comments (3)If the Russians were truly inclined in a direction leading them to "pay
bounties" for American scalps in Afghanistan, they would instead be doing what we once did:
providing state-of-the-art Manpads to Afghan jihadis. Any sort of bar room or shit house
rumor these days is attributed to "intelligence officials" or "intelligence sources", always
unnamed of course.
Biden is the intelligence services' ideal candidate -- an easily manipulated empty suit.
There's a reason why charges of Biden wrongdoing are as easily dismissed as nonsensical
charges against Trump and Russia get fabricated. And that reason is that the media is as
happy to be manipulated as Biden.
The paragraph about "reasons to believe" is vacuous in the extreme:
"The intelligence assessment is said to be based at least in part on interrogations
of captured Afghan militants and criminals. The officials did not describe the mechanics of
the Russian operation, such as how targets were picked or how money changed hands. It is
also not clear whether Russian operatives had deployed inside Afghanistan or met with their
Taliban counterparts elsewhere."
We know from the past that US forces were torturing TOTALLY RANDOM INDIVIDUALS,
occasionally to death. Needless to say, "officials did not describe the mechanics" of the
interrogation, neither did not describe any corroborative details. The most benign scenario
is that "captured Afghan militants and criminals" are pure fiction rather than actual people
subjected to "anal inspections", "peroneal strikes", left overnight hanging from the ceiling
etc. to spit out random incoherent tidbits about the Russians, like "it is also not
clear".... A long list of "not clear"'s.
This is disturbing, although this is precisely the quality of "intelligence" that gets
released to the public. The second disturbing aspect is that the article was opened to
comments, and as usually in such cases, the comments are full of fury at Russians and Trump,
and with the numbers of "recommend"'s reaching thousands. On non-Russian topics, if comments
are allowed, one can see a much wider spectrum of opinion, sometimes with huge numbers of
"recommend"'s to people who criticize and doubt the official positions. Here I lost patience
looking for any skeptical comment.
Together, it is very crude "manufacturing of consent", and unfortunately, this is a
workable technique of manipulation. Crudity is the tool, not a defect in this case. I will
explain later what I mean, this post is probably too long already.
"... In the memo, Barr identified members of the right-wing "Boogaloo" movement and the anti-fascist movement known as Antifa as the top targets of the task force. ..."
"... The task force's mission will be to develop information about "extremist individuals, networks, and movements," share data with local authorities and provide training to local prosecutors on how to wage cases against anti-government extremists. ..."
"... people associated with Antifa. ..."
"... "There are some groups that don't have a particular ideology, other than anarchy. There are some groups that want to bring about a civil war -- the Boogaloo group has been on the margin of this as well," he said earlier this month , adding that the Justice Department would find "constructive solutions." ..."
y Tal Axelrod -
06/26/20 08:13 PM EDT
1289 Comments Attorney General William Barr on Friday directed the Justice
Department to form a task force dedicated to combating "anti-government extremists," according
to a memo obtained by
The Washington Post , raising the stakes in the government's response to nationwide
protests.
Barr argued in the memo that anti-government agitators had infiltrated peaceful
demonstrations against police brutality and systemic racism and "engaged in indefensible acts
of violence designed to undermine public order."
"Among other lawless conduct, these extremists have violently attacked police officers and
other government officials, destroyed public and private property, and threatened innocent
people," Barr wrote. "Although these extremists profess a variety of ideologies, they are
united in their opposition to the core constitutional values of a democratic society governed
by law. ... Some pretend to profess a message of freedom and progress, but they are in fact
forces of anarchy, destruction and coercion."
In the memo, Barr identified members of the right-wing "Boogaloo" movement and the
anti-fascist movement known as Antifa as the top targets of the task force.
Craig Carpenito, the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, and Erin Nealy Cox, the U.S. attorney for
the Northern District of Texas, will head the task force, which will also include
representatives from the FBI and other prosecutors' offices.
The task force's mission will be to develop information about "extremist individuals,
networks, and movements," share data with local authorities and provide training to local
prosecutors on how to wage cases against anti-government extremists.
"The ultimate goal of the task force will be not only to enable prosecutions of extremists
who engage in violence, but to understand these groups well enough that we can stop such
violence before it occurs and ultimately eliminate it as a threat to public safety and the rule
of law," Barr wrote.
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Hill
regarding the memo.
Barr said in
an interview with NPR on Thursday that the Department of Justice has launched
"approximately 300 investigations" nationwide, including into some people associated with
Antifa.
Barr has sought to take a tough posture on anti-government groups since some early protests
over George Floyd's death in Minneapolis turned violent.
"There are some groups that don't have a particular ideology, other than anarchy. There are
some groups that want to bring about a civil war -- the Boogaloo group has been on the margin
of this as well," he
said earlier this month , adding that the Justice Department would find "constructive
solutions."
"... On Saturday, the Russian Foreign Ministry dismissed the NYT story as "fake information." ..."
"... This unsophisticated plant clearly illustrates the low intellectual abilities of the propagandists from US intelligence, who, instead of inventing something more plausible, resort to conjuring up such nonsense. ..."
"... "Then again, what else can one expect from intelligence services that have bungled the 20-year war in Afghanistan," the ministry said. ..."
"... Moscow has suggested that this misinformation was "planted" because the US may be against Russia "assisting" in peace talks between the Taliban and the internationally-recognised government in Kabul. ..."
The Russian Foreign Ministry has rejected a US media report
claiming Moscow offered to pay jihadi militants to attack US soldiers in Afghanistan. It said such 'fake news' merely betrays the
low skill levels of US spy agencies. Citing US intelligence officials – unnamed, of course – the New York Times reported that, last
year, Moscow had "covertly offered rewards" to Taliban-linked militants to attack American troops and their NATO allies
in Afghanistan.
On Saturday, the Russian Foreign Ministry dismissed the NYT story as "fake information."
This unsophisticated plant clearly illustrates the low intellectual abilities of the propagandists from US intelligence,
who, instead of inventing something more plausible, resort to conjuring up such nonsense.
"Then again, what else can one expect from intelligence services that have bungled the 20-year war in Afghanistan," the
ministry said.
Moscow has suggested that this misinformation was "planted" because the US may be against Russia "assisting"
in peace talks between the Taliban and the internationally-recognised government in Kabul.
US-led NATO troops have been fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan since 2001. The campaign, launched in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist
attacks, has cost Washington billions of dollars and resulted in the loss of thousands of American soldiers' lives. Despite maintaining
a military presence for almost two decades, the US has failed to defeat the Taliban, which is still in control of vast swaths of
the country.
Moreover, the office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction has compiled several reports detailing how
tens of millions of US taxpayers' funds have been spent on dubious regeneration projects.
This whole "story" stinks to high heaven. Judy Miller redux - regime-change info ops, coordinated across multiple media
organizations.
Notable quotes:
"... To be clear, this is journalistic malpractice. Mainstream media outlets which publish anonymous intelligence claims with no proof are just publishing CIA press releases disguised as news. They're just telling you to believe what sociopathic intelligence agencies want you to believe under the false guise of impartial and responsible reporting. This practice has become ubiquitous throughout mainstream news publications, but that doesn't make it any less immoral. ..."
"... "Same old story: alleged intelligence ops IMPOSSIBLE to verify, leaked to the press which reports them quoting ANONYMOUS officials," tweeted journalist Stefania Maurizi. ..."
"... "So we are to simply believe the same intelligence orgs that paid bounties to bring innocent prisoners to Guantanamo, lied about torture in Afghanistan, and lied about premises for war from WMD in Iraq to the Gulf of Tonkin 'attack'? All this and no proof?" ..."
"... "It's totally outrageous for Russia to support the Taliban against Americans in Afghanistan. Of course, it's totally fine for the US to support jihadi rebels against Russians in Syria, jihadi rebels who openly said the Taliban is their hero," ..."
"... On the flip side, all the McResistance pundits have been speaking of this baseless allegation as a horrific event that is known to have happened, with Rachel Maddow going so far as to describe it as Putin offering bounties for the "scalps" of American soldiers in Afghanistan. This is an interesting choice of words, considering that offering bounties for scalps is, in fact, one of the many horrific things the US government did in furthering its colonialist ambitions , which, unlike the New York Times allegation, is known to have actually happened. ..."
By Caitlin Johnstone , an independent journalist based
in Melbourne, Australia. Her website is here and you can follow her on
Twitter @caitoz
Whenever one sees a news headline ending in
"US Intelligence Says", one should always mentally replace everything that comes before it with "Blah blah blah we're probably lying."
"Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill Troops, US Intelligence Says", blares the
latest viral headline from the New York Times . NYT's unnamed sources
allege that the GRU "secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing coalition forces in Afghanistan -- including
targeting American troops", and that the Trump administration has known this for months.
To be clear, this is journalistic malpractice. Mainstream media outlets which publish anonymous intelligence claims with no proof
are just publishing CIA press releases disguised as news. They're just telling you to believe what sociopathic intelligence agencies
want you to believe under the false guise of impartial and responsible reporting. This practice has become ubiquitous throughout
mainstream news publications, but that doesn't make it any less immoral.
In a post-Iraq-invasion world, the only correct response to unproven anonymous claims about a rival government by intelligence
agencies from the US or its allies is to assume that they are lying until you are provided with a mountain of independently verifiable
evidence to the contrary. The US has far too extensive a record of lying
about these things for any other response to ever be justified as rational, and its intelligence agencies consistently play a foundational
role in those lies.
Voices outside the mainstream-narrative control matrix have been calling these accusations what they are: baseless, lacking in
credibility, and not reflective of anything other than fair play, even if true.
"Same old story: alleged intelligence ops IMPOSSIBLE to verify, leaked to the press which reports them quoting ANONYMOUS officials,"
tweeted journalist Stefania Maurizi.
"So we are to simply believe the same intelligence orgs that paid bounties to bring innocent prisoners to Guantanamo, lied
about torture in Afghanistan, and lied about premises for war from WMD in Iraq to the Gulf of Tonkin 'attack'? All this and no proof?"
tweeted author and analyst Jeffrey Kaye.
"It's totally outrageous for Russia to support the Taliban against Americans in Afghanistan. Of course, it's totally fine
for the US to support jihadi rebels against Russians in Syria, jihadi rebels who openly said the Taliban is their hero," tweeted author and analyst Max Abrams.
On the flip side, all the McResistance pundits have been
speaking of this baseless allegation as a horrific event that is known to have happened, with Rachel Maddow
going so far as to describe it as Putin offering
bounties for the "scalps" of American soldiers in Afghanistan. This is an interesting choice of words, considering that
offering bounties for scalps is, in fact, one of the many horrific things
the US government did in furthering its colonialist ambitions , which, unlike the New York Times allegation, is known to have
actually happened.
It is true, as many have been pointing out, that it would be fair play for Russia to fund violent opposition the the US in Afghanistan,
seeing as that's exactly what the US and its allies have been doing to Russia and its allies in Syria, and did to the Soviets in
Afghanistan via Operation Cyclone . It is also true
that the US military has no business in Afghanistan anyway, and any violence inflicted on US troops abroad is the fault of the military
expansionists who put them there. The US military has no place outside its own easily defended borders, and the assumption that it
is normal for a government to circle the planet with military bases is a faulty premise.
But before even getting into such arguments, the other side of the debate must meet its burden of proof that this has even happened.
That burden is far from met. It is literally the US intelligence community's job to lie to you. The New York Times has an extensive
history of pushing for new wars at every opportunity,
including the unforgivable
Iraq invasion , which killed a million people, based on lies. A mountain of proof is required before such claims should be seriously
considered, and we are very, very far from that.
I will repeat myself: it is the US intelligence community's job to lie to you. I will repeat myself again: it is the US intelligence
community's job to lie to you. Don't treat these CIA press releases with anything but contempt.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
Trump himself has rubbished the NYT's Russia/Taliban story on Twitter today:
"Nobody briefed or told me, @VP Pence, or Chief of Staff @MarkMeadows about the so-called
attacks on our troops in Afghanistan by Russians, as reported through an "anonymous source"
by the Fake News @nytimes. Everybody is denying it & there have not been many attacks on
us..... " https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1277202159109537793
NYT exclusive: breaking, bombshell report, bombshell report, Russia pays Taliban to kill
U.S. Troops
The puppets dance for their puppet masters yet again. I was struck that in all of the MSM
responses on CNN and FOX every single host accepted it as an absolute fact that this was
true. If an unnamed source said something to a reporter at the NYT then it must have happened
in that way and the facts are irrefutable. Wow our 'journalists' are pathetic.
1. The guy who leaked this could be twisting a half or even quarter truth to embarrass
Trump, derail our withdrawal from Germany or Afghanistan ... nahh impossible. Our CIA guys
never have an agenda.
2. This could be disinformation against Russia ... nahh we are the good guys, that's not
how we roll.
The guy on CNN could not believe the WH statement that they were not briefed, 'it strains
credibility'. Maybe one POW made an outlandish claim to get better treatment and lower level
staff did not think the claim itself had enough credibility. Nope, it was leaked by an
Intelligence guy, therefore it must be true.
journalism is dead. buried, dug up, cremated and then scattered over a trash dump in
the U.S.
20 Jun, 2020 Ali Jr., who lives in Florida, also singled out Antifa, the group recently
recognized by Trump as a terrorist organization.
"They're no different from Muslim terrorists. They should all get what they deserve.
They're f**king up businesses, beating up innocent people in the neighborhood, smashing up
police stations and shops. They're terrorists – they're terrorizing the community. I
agree with the peaceful protests, but Antifa, they need to kill everyone in that thing," he
said.
Some comments show that black community might not benefit from those events. but on the
contrary. The same is true for Antifa memvbers and left radicals. Sttments like " Antifa is an
anti-white Marxist revolutionary group" does not promise them anything good.
What is funny in no way financial oligarchy is threatened by those events. And for them
that's all that matter. They will sell all US statures to China for the cost of metal, if that
suit them.
Notable quotes:
"... Assault, battery & attempted robberty commited by antifa/blm on @OANN 's reporter @JackPosobiec in DC earlier this evening. ..."
"... One of Posobiec's assailants has been identified as 25-year-old Jason Robert Charter , an Antifa terrorist who has a history of agitating at political events . ..."
"... Posobiec has filed a report with US Park Police and will be pressing charges ..."
"... Kuhn made headlines in 2017 when Project Veritas busted him in an undercover sting at Comet Ping Pong pizzeria - plotting to attack a DC Trump inauguration party. The sting resulted in the arrest of Kuhn - who once made several pedophilic posts to usenet internet groups. Kuhn was sentenced to probation in exchange for agreeing not to attend future Antifa events - however he was caught on camera in April, 2017 when Posobiec was assaulted by another member of Antifa . ..."
"... @JackPosobiec assaulted by Antifa - and pedo advocate Paul 'Luke' Kuhn caught on cam apparently violating probation! https://t.co/a96zafeIA0 pic.twitter.com/1fWAmAUC5p ..."
"... The man who punched Posobiec, Sydney Alexander Ramsey-Laree, served 60 days in jail. ..."
Post
Millennial reports: " The situation escalated when a black-clad Antifa insurgent wearing a
pair of red ski goggles and bicycle helmet identified Posobiec and accused him of "founding the
alt-lite" and of being a "literal Nazi," drawing a larger group of Antifa to approach and
surround the journalist."
Assault, battery & attempted robberty commited by antifa/blm on @OANN 's reporter @JackPosobiec in DC
earlier this evening.
More video of violent black bloc militants attacking @JackPosobiec in D.C. They dumped
liquid all over him, hit him and tried to steal his phone. pic.twitter.com/DCrOq8ZUtB
-- Cassandra Fairbanks
(@CassandraRules) June 27,
2020
Posobiec has filed a report with US Park Police and will be pressing charges. Meanwhile, noted Antifa agitator Luke Kuhn was reportedly spotted at the protest.
Kuhn made headlines in 2017 when Project Veritas busted him in an undercover sting at Comet
Ping Pong pizzeria - plotting to attack a DC Trump inauguration party. The sting resulted in
the arrest of Kuhn - who once made several
pedophilic posts to usenet internet groups. Kuhn was sentenced to probation in exchange for
agreeing not to attend future Antifa events - however he was caught on camera in April, 2017
when Posobiec was assaulted by another member of Antifa .
The man who punched Posobiec, Sydney Alexander Ramsey-Laree, served 60 days in jail.
Md4 , 1 hour ago
"The man who punched Posobiec, Sydney Alexander Ramsey-Laree, served 60 days in jail."
Well...you now know who they are...
Freespeaker , 3 hours ago
Militant wing of the Democrat Party.
Freespeaker , 4 hours ago
BLM/Antifa endorsement via Washington state healthcare letter is indicative. Medical
professionals in Houston were out marching for Social Justice a week ago.
BrutusTheBomber , 5 hours ago
Everyone remember.
The police are allowing this to happen. In my opinion, if you are not doing anything to
stop it, it's because you are in on it.
Thats the only explanation i can come up with.
@therealOrangeBuffoon , 5 hours ago
I repeat myself but: Oligarchy is the problem and BLM is the only real opposition to them.
They are taking the lead.
Either get behind them or start an effective movement, and I don't mean jabbering about
your stupid guns.
Perry Colace , 5 hours ago
So will I:
It's an anti-white agenda, backed by avowed Marxists intent on overthrowing this
government, and I will meet them in the street armed and ready to speak to them in the only
language they respect: Extreme violence.
VWAndy , 6 hours ago
Stupid on this scale dont happen by chance. At this scale its always well funded. These
kids cant even wipe their own asses without some else buying the tp.
Rest Easy , 6 hours ago
In general black people have amply demonstrated, almost universally, that they are unable
to peacefully co-exist. The collateral damage, if it can be called that, and blind hate do
not inspire future saintly behavior. Nor is it intended to.
But who is to say? They are the only ones fighting presently. Against a system that makes
slaves of us all. Or attempts to.
Perry Colace , 5 hours ago
Antifa is an anti-white Marxist revolutionary group that must be eliminated
physically.
Rest Easy , 6 hours ago
Wow. Completely deleted another post. No swearing. No bad terms. That I can recall. Just
opinion. And some scrip.
This to be precise.
Ephesians 6:12 King James Version (KJV)
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities,
against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual
wickedness in high places.
Jesus is the way.
ThomasJefferson69 , 6 hours ago
Always carry. With spare mags. And stay out of **** cities. The collapse has already
started there.
Anonymous IX , 6 hours ago
I can't afford a weapon yet, but I'm getting some pepper spray + tear gas and a stun gun
to carry with me at all times until I can get out of this city.
Lonesome Cowboy Burt , 6 hours ago
Can get a subcompact for $250.
Jeff-Durden , 4 hours ago
Ruger Security 9 with a box of 50 shells is 325
numapepi , 7 hours ago
This from the article above...
"Kuhn made headlines in 2017 when Project Veritas busted him in an undercover sting at
Comet Ping Pong pizzeria - plotting to attack a DC Trump inauguration party. The sting
resulted in the arrest of Kuhn - who once made several
pedophilic posts to usenet internet groups."
Isn't it odd, the supposedly "debunked conspiracy theory" based on the Podesta emails, that
was debunked without having to go to the the tedious work of actually investigating it...
democrats orbit pedophilia and pedophiles?
fersur , 7 hours ago
Just wait until the already released unreleased still pictures captured ( all on a single
page ) of children in Orgy Island dungeon, identify the Lady and identify what the Children
were forced to do, Childrens Lives Matter will then be the Worlds Outcry !
numapepi , 7 hours ago
If that is true... I pray it all comes out in the open before November.
(Although, I also pray it isn't true, but fear it is).
Rest Easy , 7 hours ago
The 1st is only applicable if you are not an enemy of them. Otherwise, if your identity
and that of your family is known. You, and they will suffer. They will punish you. Severely
for not conforming. At all times. To what they determine is acceptable.
Punish them in return. Severely.
This movement has sponsors. Deny them your support financially. Bad mouth them at every
opportunity. Universities are not immune to finances. They do not wish to uphold 1st
Ammendment rights. Of students doxxing other students for a tweet. Calling for expulsion. For
a tweet, For 1/2 poor taste, 1/2 truth very likely. Sue them.
This behavior is so rampant. So pervasive. So unAmerican. So thoroughly one sided. It
should terrify any real Americans.
Soros's 'Act Blue' funds Antifa and funds Black Lives Matter while being in existance to
be the Arm of Democrat Political Campaign Fundraising Organization, everything is all out in
the open, even early releasing convicted Criminals to advance Democrat Death and Distruction
Mandate !
ToSoft4Truth , 7 hours ago
Republicans are going to get a Final Stand.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said there should be a "review" of historical statues for
possible removal, perhaps even those of the Founding Fathers.
"... I concluded that the circumstantial evidence pointing toward a regime-change operation has reached critical mass. Based on that evidence, for me the Kennedy assassination is not a conspiracy theory but rather the fact of a national-security state regime-change operation, no different in principle than other regime-change operations, including through assassination, carried out by the U.S. national-security establishment, especially through the CIA. ..."
"... I start out with a basic thesis: Lee Harvey Oswald was an intelligence agent for the U.S. deep state. Now, that thesis undoubtedly shocks people who have always believed in the lone-nut theory of the assassination. They just cannot imagine that Oswald could have really been working for the U.S. government at the time of the assassination. ..."
"... Indeed, if you want a modern-day version of how the U.S. national-security state treats suspected traitors and betrayers of its secrets, reflect on Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and Chelsea Manning. That's how we expect national-security state officials to behave toward those they consider traitors and betrayers of U.S. secrets. ..."
"... Not so with Oswald. With him, we have what amounts to two separate parallel universes. One universe involves all the Cold War hoopla against communists. Another one is the one in which Oswald is sauntering across the world stage as one of America's biggest self-proclaimed communists -- a U.S. Marine communist -- who isn't touched by some congressional investigative committee, some federal grand jury, or some FBI agent. How is that possible? ..."
"... Later, when Oswald ended up in Dallas, his friends were right-wingers, not left-wingers. He even got job at a photographic facility that developed top-secret photographs for the U.S. government. How is that possible? Later, when he ended up in New Orleans, he got hired by a private company that was owned by a fierce anti-communist right-winger. Why would he hire a supposed communist who supposedly had betrayed America by supposedly joining up with America's avowed communist enemy, the Soviet Union, and to whom he had supposedly given U.S. national-security state secrets, just like Julian and Ethel Rosenberg had? ..."
One of the fascinating phenomena in the JFK assassination is the fear of some Americans to
consider the possibility that the assassination was actually a regime-change operation carried
out by the U.S. national-security establishment rather than simply a murder carried out by a
supposed lone-nut assassin.
The mountain of evidence that has surfaced, especially since the 1990s, when the JFK Records
Act mandated the release of top-secret assassination-related records within the
national-security establishment, has been in the nature of circumstantial evidence, as compared
to direct evidence. Thus, I can understand that someone who places little faith in the power of
circumstantial evidence might study and review that evidence and decide to embrace the
"lone-nut theory" of the case.
But many of the people who have embraced the lone-nut theory have never spent any time
studying the evidence in the case and yet have embraced the lone-nut theory. Why? My hunch is
that the reason is that they have a deep fear of being labeled a "conspiracy theorist," which
is the term the CIA many years ago advised its assets in the mainstream press to employ to
discredit those who were questioning the official narrative in the case.
Like many others, I have studied the evidence in the case. After doing that, I concluded
that the circumstantial evidence pointing toward a regime-change operation has reached critical
mass. Based on that evidence, for me the Kennedy assassination is not a conspiracy theory but
rather the fact of a national-security state regime-change operation, no different in principle
than other regime-change operations, including through assassination, carried out by the U.S.
national-security establishment, especially through the CIA.
Interestingly, there are those who have shown no reluctance to study the facts and
circumstances surrounding foreign regime-change operations carried out by the CIA and the
Pentagon. But when it comes to the Kennedy assassination, they run for the hills, exclaiming
that they don't want to be pulled down the "rabbit hole," meaning that they don't want to take
any chances of being labeled a "conspiracy theorist."
For those who have never delved into the Kennedy assassination but have interest in the
matter, let me set forth just a few of the reasons that the circumstantial evidence points to a
U.S. national-security state regime-change operation. Then, at the end of this article, I'll
point out some books and videos for those who wish to explore the matter more deeply.
I start out with a basic thesis: Lee Harvey Oswald was an intelligence agent for the U.S.
deep state. Now, that thesis undoubtedly shocks people who have always believed in the lone-nut
theory of the assassination. They just cannot imagine that Oswald could have really been
working for the U.S. government at the time of the assassination.
Yet, when one examines the evidence in the case objectively, the lone-theory doesn't make
any sense. The only thesis that is consistent with the evidence and, well, common sense, is
that Oswald was an intelligence agent.
Ask yourself: How many communist Marines have you ever encountered or even heard of? My
hunch is none. Not one single communist Marine. Why would a communist join the Marines?
Communists hate the U.S. Marine Corps. In fact, the U.S. Marine Corps hates communists. It
kills communists. It tortures them. It invades communist countries. It bombs them. It destroys
them.
What are the chances that the Marine Corps would permit an openly avowed communist to serve
in its ranks? None! There is no such chance. And yet, here was Oswald, whose Marine friends
were calling "Oswaldovitch," being assigned to the Atsugi naval base in Japan, where the U.S.
Air Force was basing its top-secret U-2 spy plane, one that it was using to secretly fly over
the Soviet Union. Why would the Navy and the Air Force permit a self-avowed communist even near
the U-2? Does that make any sense?
While Oswald was serving in the Marine Corps, he became fluent in the Russian language. How
is that possible? How many people have you known who have become fluent in a foreign langue all
on their own, especially when they have a full-time job? Even if they are able to study a
foreign language from books, they have to practice conversing with people in that language to
become proficient in speaking it. How did Oswald do that? There is but one reasonable
possibility: Language lessons provided by U.S. military-suppled tutors.
After leaving the Marine Corps, Oswald traveled to the Soviet Union, walked into the U.S.
embassy, renounced his citizenship, and stated that he intended to give any secrets he learned
while serving in the military to the Soviet Union. Later, when he stated his desire to return
to the United States, with a wife with family connections to Soviet intelligence, Oswald was
given the red-carpet treatment on his return. No grand jury summons. No grand-jury indictment.
No FBI interrogation. No congressional summons to testify.
Remember: This was at the height of the Cold War, when the U.S. national-security
establishment was telling Americans that there was a worldwide communist conspiracy based in
Moscow that was hell-bent on taking over the United States and the rest of the world. The U.S.
had gone to war in Korea because of the supposed communist threat. They would do the same in
Vietnam. They would target Cuba and Fidel Castro with invasion and assassination. They would
pull off regime-change operations on both sides of the Kennedy assassination: Iran (1953),
Guatemala (1954), Cuba (1960s), Congo (1963), and Chile (1973).
During the 1950s, they were targeting any American who had had any connections to communism.
They were subpoenaing people to testify before Congress as to whether they had ever been
members of the Communist Party. They were destroying people's reputations and costing them
their jobs. Remember the case of Dalton Trumbo and other Hollywood writers who were criminally
prosecuted and incarcerated. Recall the Hollywood blacklist. Recall the Rosenbergs, who they
executed for giving national-security state secrets to the Soviets. Think about Jane Fonda.
Indeed, if you want a modern-day version of how the U.S. national-security state treats
suspected traitors and betrayers of its secrets, reflect on Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and
Chelsea Manning. That's how we expect national-security state officials to behave toward those
they consider traitors and betrayers of U.S. secrets.
Not so with Oswald. With him, we have what amounts to two separate parallel universes. One
universe involves all the Cold War hoopla against communists. Another one is the one in which
Oswald is sauntering across the world stage as one of America's biggest self-proclaimed
communists -- a U.S. Marine communist -- who isn't touched by some congressional investigative
committee, some federal grand jury, or some FBI agent. How is that possible?
Later, when Oswald ended up in Dallas, his friends were right-wingers, not left-wingers. He
even got job at a photographic facility that developed top-secret photographs for the U.S.
government. How is that possible? Later, when he ended up in New Orleans, he got hired by a
private company that was owned by a fierce anti-communist right-winger. Why would he hire a
supposed communist who supposedly had betrayed America by supposedly joining up with America's
avowed communist enemy, the Soviet Union, and to whom he had supposedly given U.S.
national-security state secrets, just like Julian and Ethel Rosenberg had?
"... It's is also worth noting that there are still thousands of assassination-related records that the National Archives is keeping secret, owing to a request by the CIA to President Trump early in his administration to continue keeping them secret, a request that Trump granted. The CIA's reason for the continued secrecy? The CIA told Trump that the disclosure of the 56-year-old records to the American people would endanger "national security." ..."
"... Given all these facts and circumstances, a question naturally arises: How can anyone with a critical mind blindly accept the official narrative surrounding the Kennedy assassination? Doing so only goes to show how a deep fear of being labeled a "conspiracy theorist" can influence people's behavior. ..."
Let's now move to the autopsy
that the U.S. military conducted on the President
John F. Kennedy's body on the evening of the assassination, November 22, 1963.
Texas law required the autopsy to be conducted in Texas. Dr. Earl Rose, the Dallas Medical
Examiner, insisted on conducting the autopsy immediately upon Kennedy's death. An armed team of
Secret Service agents, brandishing their guns, refused to permit that to happen and forced their
way out of Parkland Hospital. Operating on orders, their objective was to get the president's body
to the airport, where Vice President Lyndon Johnson was waiting for it. His objective: to put the
autopsy in the hands of the U.S. military.
In the 1970s, the U.S. House of Representatives opened up a new investigation into Kennedy's
assassination. During and after those hearings, a group of Navy enlisted men came forward with a
remarkable story. They stated that they had secretly carried Kennedy's body into the morgue at
Bethesda Naval Medical Center in Maryland about an hour-and-a-half before the body was officially
brought into the morgue.
They also stated that they had all been sworn to secrecy immediately after the autopsy and had
been threatened with severe punishment, including criminal prosecution, if they ever revealed to
anyone the classified secrets about the autopsy that they had acquired.
The Boyajian Report
In the 1990s, the Assassination Records Review Board, which was formed to enforce the JFK
Records Act, uncovered an official document that had been kept secret for more than 30 years. It
became known as the Boyajian Report. It had been created by Marine Sergeant Roger Boyajian
immediately after the autopsy. Boyajian gave a copy of the report to the ARRB. Boyajian and his
report confirmed that his team carried the president's body into the morgue in a cheap
military-style shipping casket at 6:35 p.m., about 1 and 1/2 hours before 8 p.m., the time that the
body was officially brought into the morgue in the expensive, ornate casket into which it had been
placed in Dallas.
On the night of the autopsy, one of the autopsy physicians, Admiral James Humes, telephoned U.S.
Army Colonel Pierre Finck asking him to come to the morgue and assist with the autopsy. That phone
call was made at 8 p.m. During the conversation, Humes told Finck that they already had some x-rays
made of the president's head. Yet, how could they have x-rays of the president's head, given that
the president's body was being officially brought into the morgue at 8 p.m.? Humes's testimony
inadvertently confirmed the accuracy of the Boyajian Report and the statements of the enlisted men
who had secretly carried the president's body into the morgue an hour-and-a-half before the
official 8 p.m. time that the body was brought into the morgue.
The magic bullet
During the autopsy, Finck began to "dissect" the president's neck wound, a wound that later
became embroiled in what became known as the "magic bullet" controversy. As Finck began the
procedure, he was ordered by some unknown figure to cease and desist and to leave the wound alone.
Finck complied with the order. The order showed that the three autopsy physicians were not in
charge of the autopsy and that there was a higher force within the deep state that was
orchestrating and directing the overall operation.
The brain examinations
It's worth mentioning the brain examinations that took place as part of the autopsy. In an
autopsy, there is only one brain examination. In the Kennedy autopsy, there were two, the second of
which involved a brain that could not possibly have belonged to the president. Rather than detail
the circumstances surrounding that unusual occurrence, I'll simply link to the following two
articles that the mainstream press published about it for those who might be interested in that
aspect of the autopsy:
It is also worth noting that when Congress enacted the JFK Records Act mandating that federal
agencies had to release their long-secret records relating to the assassination, the law that
brought the ARRB into existence to enforce the law expressly prohibited the ARRB from investigating
any aspect of the assassination. It was a provision that the ARRB board strictly enforced on the
ARRB staff, which thereby prevented the staff from investigating the two separate brain
examinations once they were discovered or, for that matter, anything else.
Continued secrecy
It's is also worth noting that there are still thousands of assassination-related records that
the National Archives is keeping secret, owing to a request by the CIA to President Trump early in
his administration to continue keeping them secret, a request that Trump granted. The CIA's reason
for the continued secrecy? The CIA told Trump that the disclosure of the 56-year-old records to the
American people would endanger "national security."
Fraudulent autopsy photos
The ARRB also took the sworn testimony of a woman named Saundra Spencer, a U.S. Navy petty
officer who served the the Navy's photography lab in Washington, D.C. She worked closely with the
White House on both classified and non-classified photographs. The ARRB summoned her to testify,
and she gave a remarkable story. She testified that on the weekend of the assassination, she was
asked to develop, on a top-secret basis, the official autopsy photographs in the Kennedy autopsy.
When the ARRB showed her the autopsy photographs in the official record, she closely examined them
and then testified directly and unequivocally that they were not the photographs she developed on
the weekend of the assassination.
Fear
Given all these facts and circumstances, a question naturally arises: How can anyone
with a critical mind blindly accept the official narrative surrounding the Kennedy assassination?
Doing so only goes to show how a deep fear of being labeled a "conspiracy theorist" can influence
people's behavior.
* * *
For those who wish to delve into the Kennedy regime-change operation more deeply, I
recommend starting with the following books and videos:
Looks like antifa members is recruited and trained using the same methods as members of opposition in countries where the USA
plans to stage a color revolution. One important constituency are students. What is important all of them are paid. Adapting Maoism
with its cult of violence for those purposes is not a big deal.
I think that like is the case with the Red Brigades the level of infiltration by intelligence agencies is iether considerable or
total.
Notable quotes:
"... "By 1969, the Panthers began to use fascism as a theoretical framework to critique the U.S. political economy. They defined fascism as 'the power of finance capital' which 'manifests itself not only as banks, trusts and monopolies but also as the human property of FINANCE CAPITAL -- the avaricious businessman, the demagogic politician, and the racist pig cop.'" ..."
"... Other ideological anchors of the modern Antifa movement in the United States include a left-wing terrorist group known as the Weather Underground Organization, the American equivalent to Germany's Red Army Faction. The Weather Underground, responsible for bombings and riots throughout the 1970s, sought to achieve "the destruction of U.S. imperialism and form a classless communist world." ..."
"... In June 2018, Republican Representative Dan Donovan of New York introduced Bill HR 6054 -- "Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018" -- that calls for prison sentences of up to 15 years for anyone who, while wearing a mask or disguise, "injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates" someone else who is exercising any right or privilege guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. The bill remains stalled in the House of Representatives. ..."
"... "Antifa are terrorists, violent masked bullies who 'fight fascism' with actual fascism, protected by Liberal privilege," said Cassidy. "Bullies get their way until someone says no. Elected officials must have courage, not cowardice, to prevent terror." ..."
"... Antifa radicals increasingly are using incendiary events such as the death of George Floyd in Minnesota as springboards to achieve their broader aims, one of which includes removing President Trump from office. ..."
"... "We believe that a significant amount of people who came here from out of the area, who have come here as well as the advance preparation, having advance scouts, the use of encrypted information, having resupply routes for things such as gasoline and accelerants as well as rocks and bottles, the raising of bail, the placing of medics. Taken together, this is a strong indicator that they planned to act with disorder, property damage, violence, and violent encounters with police before the first demonstration and/or before the first arrest." ..."
"... "It's in 40 different states and 60 cities; it would be impossible for somebody outside of Antifa to fund this. It's a radical, leftist, socialist attempt at revolution. ..."
"... "What Antifa is doing is they're basically hijacking the black community as their army. They instigate, they antagonize, they get these young black men and women to go out there and do stupid things, and then they disappear off into the sunset." ..."
"... Across the country, in Bellevue, Washington, which was also hit by looting and violence, Police Chief Steve Mylett confirmed that the people responsible were organized, from out of town, and being paid: ..."
"... AFGJ has received substantial funding from organizations often claiming to be the mainstream of the center-left. The Open Society Foundations, Tides Foundation, Arca Foundation, Surdna Foundation, Public Welfare Foundation, the Ben & Jerry Foundation and the Brightwater Fund have all made contributions to AFGJ, according to Influence Watch. ..."
This is Part II of a series on the history of the
global Antifa movement.
Part
I
described Antifa and explored the ideological origins of the group. Part II examines
the history, tactics and goals of the movement in the United States.
U.S. President Donald Trump recently
announced
that
the American government would designate Antifa -- a militant "anti-fascist" movement -- as a
terrorist organization
due to the violence that erupted at George Floyd
protests
across
the United States.
The Code of Federal Regulations (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)
defines
terrorism
as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a
government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social
objectives."
American media outlets sympathetic to Antifa have jumped to its defense.
They
argue that the group cannot be classified as a terrorist organization because, they claim, it is a
vaguely-defined protest movement that lacks a centralized structure.
As the following report shows, Antifa is, in fact, highly networked, well-funded and has a clear
ideological agenda: to subvert, often with extreme violence, the American political system, with
the ultimate aim of replacing capitalism with communism. In the United States, Antifa's immediate
aim
is
to remove President Trump from office.
Gatestone Institute has identified Antifa groups in all 50 U.S. states, with the possible
exception of West Virginia. Some states, including California, Texas and Washington, appear to have
dozens of sub-regional Antifa organizations.
It is difficult precisely to determine the size of the Antifa movement in the United States. The
so-called "
Anti-Fascists of Reddit
,"
the "premier anti-fascist community" on the social media platform Reddit, has approximately 60,000
members. The oldest Antifa group in America, the Portland, Oregon-based "
Rose
City Antifa
," has more than 30,000 Twitter followers and 20,000 Facebook followers, not all of
whom are necessarily supporters. "
It's Going Down
," a media
platform for anarchists, anti-fascists and autonomous anti-capitalists, has 85,000 Twitter
followers and 30,000 Facebook followers.
Germany, which has roughly one-quarter of the population of the United States, is home to 33,000
extreme leftists, of whom 9,000 are believed to be extremely dangerous,
according
to
the domestic intelligence agency (
Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz, BfV
). Violent left-wing
agitators are predominantly male, between 21 and 24 years of age, usually unemployed, and,
according
to
BfV, 92% still live with their parents. Anecdotal evidence suggests that most Antifa members in the
United States have a similar socio-economic profile.
In America, national Antifa groups, including "Torch Antifa Network," "Refuse Fascism"
and "World Can't Wait" are being financed -- often generously, as shown below -- by individual donors
as well as by large philanthropic organizations,
including
the
Open Society Foundations founded by George Soros.
To evade detection by law enforcement, Antifa groups in the United States often use encrypted
social media platforms, such as
Signal
and
Telegram Messenger, to communicate and coordinate their activities, sometimes across state lines.
Not surprisingly, the U.S. Department of Justice is currently
investigating
individuals
linked to Antifa as a step to unmasking the broader organization.
Historical Origins of American Antifa
In the United States, Antifa's ideology, tactics and goals, far from being novel, are
borrowed
almost
entirely from Antifa groups in Europe, where so-called anti-fascist groups, in one form or another,
have been active, almost without interruption, for a century.
As in Europe, the aims and objectives of the American Antifa movement can be traced back to a
single, overarching century-long ideological war against the "fascist ideals" of capitalism and
Christianity, which the Antifa movement wants to
replace
with
a "revolutionary socialist alternative."
The first so-called anti-fascist group in the United States was the American League
Against War and Fascism, established in 1933 by the Communist Party USA.
The League, which
claimed to oppose fascism in Europe, was actually
dedicated
to
subverting and overthrowing the U.S. government.
In testimony to the U.S. Congress in 1953, CPUSA leader Manning Johnson
revealed
that
the American party had been instructed by the Communist International in the 1930s to set up the
American League Against War and Fascism:
"as a cover to attack our government, our social system, our leaders... used as a cover to
attack our law-enforcement agencies and to build up mass hate against them... used as a cover to
undermine national security... used as a cover to defend Communists, the sworn enemies of our
great heritage... used as a cover for preparing millions of people ideologically and
organizationally for the overthrow of the United States Government."
A precursor to the modern Antifa movement was the Black Panthers, a revolutionary political
organization established in October 1966 by Marxist college students in Oakland, California. The
group
advocated
the use of violence and
guerilla tactics to overthrow the U.S. government.
Historian Robyn C. Spencer
noted
that
Black Panther leaders were deeply influenced by "The United Front of the Working Class Against
Fascism," a
report
by
Georgi Dimitroff delivered at the Seventh World Congress of the Communist International in July and
August 1935:
"By 1969, the Panthers began to use fascism as a theoretical framework to critique the U.S.
political economy. They defined fascism as 'the power of finance capital' which 'manifests
itself not only as banks, trusts and monopolies but also as the human property of FINANCE
CAPITAL -- the avaricious businessman, the demagogic politician, and the racist pig cop.'"
In July 1969, the Black Panthers organized an "anti-fascist" conference called "United Front
Against Fascism,"
attended
by
nearly 5,000 activists:
"The Panthers hoped to create a 'national force' with a 'common revolutionary ideology and
political program which answers the basic desires and needs of all people in fascist,
capitalist, racist America.'"
The last day of the conference was devoted to a detailed plan by the Black Panthers to
decentralize police forces nationwide. Spencer
wrote
:
"They proposed amending city charters to establish autonomous community-based police
departments for every city which would be accountable to local neighborhood police control
councils comprised of 15 elected community members. They launched the National Committees to
Combat Fascism (NCCF), a multiracial nationwide network, to organize for community control of
the police."
In 1970, members of the Black Panthers created a terrorist group called the Black
Liberation Army, whose
stated
goal
was to "weaken the enemy capitalist state."
BLA member Assata Shakur
described
the
group's organizational structure, which is similar to the one used by today's Antifa movement:
"The Black Liberation Army was not a centralized, organized group with a common leadership
and chain of command. Instead there were various organizations and collectives working together
out of various cities, and in some larger cities there were often several groups working
independently of each other."
Other ideological anchors of the modern Antifa movement in the United States include a left-wing
terrorist group known as the Weather Underground Organization, the American equivalent to Germany's
Red Army Faction. The Weather Underground,
responsible
for
bombings
and
riots throughout the 1970s, sought to
achieve
"the
destruction of U.S. imperialism and form a classless communist world."
Former FBI Counterterrorism Director Terry Turchie has
noted
the
similarities between Black Lives Matter today and the Black Panther Party and Weather Underground
groups of the 1960s and 1970s:
"The Black Panther Party was a Marxist Maoist Leninist organization and that came from Huey
Newton, one of the co-founders, who said we're standing for nothing more than the total
transformation of the United States government.
"He went on to explain that they wanted to take the tension that already existed in black
communities and exacerbate it where they can. To take those situations where there is a
tinderbox and light the country on fire.
"Today we're seeing the third revolution and they think they can make this happen. The only
thing that is different are the names of the groups."
American Antifa
The roots of the modern Antifa movement in the United States can be traced back to the
1980s,
with the establishment of Anti-Racist Action, a network of anarchist punk rock
aficionados dedicated to fist-fighting neo-Nazi skinheads.
Mark Bray, author of "
The Antifa Handbook
,"
explained
:
"In many cases, the North American modern Antifa movement grew up as a way to defend the punk
scene from the neo-Nazi skinhead movement, and the founders of the original Anti-Racist Action
network in North America were anti-racist skinheads. The fascist/anti-fascist struggle was
essentially a fight for control of the punk scene during the 1980s, and that was true across of
much of north America and in parts of Europe in this era.
"There's a huge overlap between radical left politics and the punk scene, and there's a
stereotype about dirty anarchists and punks, which is an oversimplification but grounded in a
certain amount of truth."
Anti-Racist Action was
inspired
by
Anti-Fascist Action (AFA), a militant anti-fascist group founded in Britain in the late 1970s. The
American group shared the British group's penchant for
violently
attacking
political opponents. ARA was eventually renamed the
Torch
Network
, which currently brings together nine militant Antifa groups.
In November 1999, mobs of masked anarchists, predecessors to today's Antifa movement,
laid
waste
to downtown Seattle, Washington, during violent demonstrations that disrupted a
ministerial conference of the World Trade Organization.
The Seattle WTO protests
birthed
the
anti-globalization movement.
In April 2001, an estimated 50,000 anti-capitalists
gathered
in
Quebec to oppose the Third Summit of the Americas, a meeting of North and South American leaders
who were negotiating a deal to create a free trade area that would encompass the Western
Hemisphere.
In February 2003, hundreds of thousands of anti-war protesters
demonstrated
against
the Iraq War. After the war went ahead anyway, some parts of the so-called progressive movement
became more radicalized and birthed the current Antifa movement.
The Rose City Antifa (RCA), founded in Portland, Oregon, in 2007, is the oldest American group
to use "Antifa" in its name. Antifa is
derived
from
a group called
Antifaschistische Aktion
, founded in May 1932 by Stalinist leaders of the
Communist Party of Germany. Antifa's logo, with two flags representing anarchism (black flag) and
communism (red flag), are derived from the German Antifa movement.
The American Antifa movement gained momentum in 2016, after Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a
self-described Socialist, lost the Democratic Party's nomination to Hillary Clinton. Grassroots
supporters of Sanders
vowed
to
continue his "political revolution" to establish socialism in America.
Meanwhile, immigration became a new flashpoint in American politics after Donald Trump
campaigned on a pledge to reduce illegal migration. In June 2016, protestors
violently
attacked
supporters of Donald Trump outside a rally in San Jose, California. In January 2017,
hundreds of Antifa rioters tried to
disrupt
President
Trump's inauguration ceremony in Washington, DC.
In February 2017, Antifa rioters employing so-called
black
bloc
tactics -- they wear black clothing, masks or other face-concealing items so that they
cannot be identified by police --
shut
down
a speech by Milos Yiannopoulos, a far-right activist who was slated to speak at the
University of California at Berkeley, the birthplace of the 1964 Free Speech Movement.
Antifa radicals
claimed
that
Yiannopoulos was planning to "out" undocumented students at Berkeley for the purpose of having them
arrested. Masked Antifa vandals armed with Molotov cocktails, bricks and a host of other makeshift
weapons
fought
police
and
caused
more
than $100,000 in property damage.
In June 2018, Republican Representative Dan Donovan of New York
introduced
Bill
HR 6054 -- "Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018" -- that calls for prison sentences of up to 15 years for
anyone who, while wearing a mask or disguise, "injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates"
someone else who is exercising any right or privilege guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. The
bill remains
stalled
in
the House of Representatives.
In July 2019, Antifa radical Willem Van Spronsen
attempted
to
firebomb the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility in Tacoma, Washington. He
was killed in a confrontation with police.
That same month, U.S. Senators Ted Cruz and Bill Cassidy
introduced
a
resolution that would label Antifa a "domestic terrorist organization." The resolution
stated
:
"Whereas members of Antifa, because they believe that free speech is equivalent to violence,
have used threats of violence in the pursuit of suppressing opposing political ideologies;
Whereas Antifa represents opposition to the democratic ideals of peaceful assembly and free
speech for all; Whereas members of Antifa have physically assaulted journalists and other
individuals during protests and riots in Berkeley, California;
"Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the Senate ... calls for the groups and organizations
across the country who act under the banner of Antifa to be designated as domestic terrorist
organizations."
"Antifa are terrorists, violent masked bullies who 'fight fascism' with actual fascism,
protected by Liberal privilege,"
said
Cassidy.
"Bullies get their way until someone says no. Elected officials must have courage, not cowardice,
to prevent terror."
Antifa Exploits Death of George Floyd
Antifa radicals increasingly are using incendiary events such as the death of George Floyd in
Minnesota as springboards to achieve their broader aims, one of which
includes
removing
President Trump from office.
Veteran national security correspondent Bill Gertz recently
reported
that
the Antifa movement began planning to foment a nationwide anti-government insurgency as early as
November 2019, when the U.S. presidential campaign season kicked off in earnest.
Former
National Security Council staff member Rich Higgins
said
:
"Antifa's actions represent a hard break with the long tradition of a peaceful political
process in the United States. Their Marxist ideology seeks not only to influence elections in
the short term but to destroy the use of elections as the determining factor in political
legitimacy.
"Antifa's goal is nothing less than fomenting revolution, civil war and silencing America's
anti-communists. Their labeling of Trump supporters and patriots as Nazis and racists is
standard fare for left-wing communist groups.
"Antifa is currently functioning as the command and control of the riots, which are
themselves the overt utilization of targeted violence against targets such as stores --
capitalism; monuments -- history; and churches -- God."
Joe Myers, a former Defense Intelligence Agency official and counterinsurgency expert,
added
:
"President Trump's election and revitalization of America are a threat to Antifa's nihilist
goals. They are fomenting this violence to create havoc, despair and to target the Trump
campaign for defeat in 2020. It is employing organized violence for political ends: destruction
of the constitutional order."
New York's top terrorism officer, Deputy Commissioner for Intelligence and Counterterrorism John
Miller,
explained
why
the George Floyd protests in New York City became so violent and destructive:
"No. 1, before the protests began, organizers of certain anarchist groups set out to raise
bail money and people who would be responsible to be raising bail money, they set out to recruit
medics and medical teams with gear to deploy in anticipation of violent interactions with
police.
"They prepared to commit property damage and directed people who were following them that
this should be done selectively and only in wealthier areas or at high-end stores run by
corporate entities.
"And they developed a complex network of bicycle scouts to move ahead of demonstrators in
different directions of where police were and where police were not for purposes of being able
to direct groups from the larger group to places where they could commit acts of vandalism
including the torching of police vehicles and Molotov cocktails where they thought officers
would not be.
"We believe that a significant amount of people who came here from out of the area, who have
come here as well as the advance preparation, having advance scouts, the use of encrypted
information, having resupply routes for things such as gasoline and accelerants as well as rocks
and bottles, the raising of bail, the placing of medics. Taken together, this is a strong
indicator that they planned to act with disorder, property damage, violence, and violent
encounters with police before the first demonstration and/or before the first arrest."
In an interview with
The Epoch Times
, Bernard B. Kerik, former police commissioner of
the New York City Police Department,
said
that
Antifa "100 percent exploited" the George Floyd protests:
"It's in 40 different states and 60 cities; it would be impossible for somebody outside of
Antifa to fund this. It's a radical, leftist, socialist attempt at revolution.
"They're coming from other cities. That cost money. They didn't do this on their own.
Somebody's paying for this.
"What Antifa is doing is they're basically hijacking the black community as their
army.
They instigate, they antagonize, they get these young black men and women to go
out there and do stupid things, and then they disappear off into the sunset."
After photos appeared to show protesters with military-grade communications radios and
earpieces, Kerik
noted
:
"They have to be talking to somebody at a central command center with a repeater. Where do those
radios go to?"
Across the country, in Bellevue, Washington, which was also hit by looting and violence, Police
Chief Steve Mylett
confirmed
that
the people responsible were organized, from out of town, and being paid:
"There are groups paying these looters money to come in and they're getting paid by the
broken window. This is something totally different we are dealing with that we have never seen
as a profession before. We did have officers that were in different areas that were chasing
these groups. When we make contact, they just disperse."
Antifa Financing
The coordinated violence raises questions about how Antifa is financed. The Alliance for Global
Justice (AFGJ) is an organizing group that serves as a fiscal sponsor to numerous radical left-wing
initiatives,
according
to
Influence Watch, a research group that collects data on advocacy organizations, foundations and
donors.
AFGJ, which describes itself as "anti-capitalist" and
opposed
to
the principles of liberal democracy, provides "fiscal sponsorship" to groups advocating numerous
foreign and domestic far-left and extreme-left causes, including
eliminating
the
State of Israel.
The Tucson, Arizona-based AFGJ, and people associated with it, have
advocated
for
socialist and communist authoritarian regimes, including in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. In the
2000s, AFGJ was involved in anti-globalization demonstrations. In the 2010s, AFGJ was a
financial
sponsor
of the Occupy Wall Street movement.
AFGJ has received substantial funding from organizations often claiming to be the mainstream of
the center-left. The Open Society Foundations, Tides Foundation, Arca Foundation, Surdna
Foundation, Public Welfare Foundation, the Ben & Jerry Foundation and the Brightwater Fund have all
made contributions to AFGJ,
according
to
Influence Watch.
One of the groups funded by AFGJ is called
Refuse Fascism
,
a radical left-wing organization devoted to promoting nationwide action to remove from office
President Donald Trump, and all officials associated with his administration, on the grounds that
they constitute a "fascist regime." The group has been present at many Antifa radical-left
demonstrations, also
according
to
Influence Watch. The group is an offshoot of the Radical Communist Party (RCP).
In July 2017, the RCP
bragged
that
it took part in violent riots against the G20 Summit in Hamburg, Germany. The RCP has
argued
that
capitalism is synonymous with fascism and that the election of President Trump would lead the U.S.
government to "bludgeon and eliminate whole groups of people."
In June 2020, Refuse Fascism took advantage of the death of George Floyd to raise money for a
"National Revolution Tour" evidently aimed at subverting the U.S. government. The group's slogan
states
:
"This System Cannot Be Reformed, It Must Be Overthrown!"
Antifa's "Utopia"
Meanwhile, in Seattle, Washington, Antifa radicals, protesters from Black Lives Matter, and
members of the anti-capitalist John Brown Gun Club seized control of the East Precinct neighborhood
and established a six-square-block "autonomous zone" called the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone,
"CHAZ," recently
renamed
"CHOP,"
the Capitol Hill Organized (or Occupied) Protest. A cardboard sign at the barricades
declares
:
"You are now leaving the USA." The group
issued
a
list of 30 demands, including the "abolition" of the Seattle Police Department and court system.
"Rapes, robberies and all sorts of violent acts have been occurring in the area and
we're not able to get to them,"
said
Seattle
Police Chief Carmen Best. Several people have been
wounded
or killed
.
Christopher F. Rufo, a contributing editor of
City Journal
,
observed
:
"The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone has set a dangerous precedent: armed left-wing activists
have asserted their dominance of the streets and established an alternative political authority
over a large section of a neighborhood. They have claimed de facto police power over thousands
of residents and dozens of businesses -- completely outside of the democratic process. In a
matter of days, Antifa-affiliated paramilitaries have created a hardened border, established a
rudimentary form of government based on principles of intersectional representation, and
forcibly removed unfriendly media from the territory.
"The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone is an occupation and taking of hostages: none of the
neighborhood's residents voted for Antifa as their representative government. Rather than
enforce the law, Seattle's progressive political class capitulated to the mob and will likely
make massive concessions over the next few months. This will embolden the Antifa coalition -- and
further undermine the rule of law in American cities."
Antifa in its Own Words
The American Antifa movement's long-term objectives are identical to those of the Antifa
movement in Europe: replacing capitalism with a communist utopia. Mark Bray, one of the most vocal
apologists for Antifa in the United States and author of "Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,"
explained
:
"The only long-term solution to the fascist menace is to undermine its pillars of strength in
society grounded not only in white supremacy but also in ableism, heteronormativity, patriarchy,
nationalism, transphobia, class rule, and many others. This long-term goal points to the
tensions that exist in defining anti-fascism, because at a certain point destroying fascism is
really about promoting a revolutionary socialist alternative."
Nikkita Oliver, former mayoral candidate of Seattle, Washington,
added
:
"We need to align ourselves with the global struggle that acknowledges that the United States
plays a role in racialized capitalism. Racialized capitalism is built upon patriarchy, white
supremacy, and classism."
Patrisse Cullors, a co-founder of the Black Lives Matter movement,
confirmed
that
the immediate goal is to remove President Trump from office:
"Trump not only needs to not be in office in November, but he should resign now. Trump needs
to be out of office. He is not fit for office. And so, what we are going to push for is a move
to get Trump out. While we're also going to continue to push and pressure Joe Biden around his
policies and relationship to policing and criminalization. That's going to be important. But our
goal is to get Trump out."
"As antifascists we know that our fight is not just against organized fascism, but also
against the capitalist state, and the police that protect it. Another world is possible!"
"This is the revolution, this is our time and we will make no excuses for the terror."
A group called PNW Youth Liberation Front, Antifa's youth organization,
tweeted
:
"The only way to win a world without police, prisons, borders, etc. is to destroy the
oppressive systems which we are currently caught in. We must continue the fight against the
state, imperialism, capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy, and so on if we ever want to be
free."
A pamphlet distributed in the Seattle "Autonomous Zone"
stated
:
"The idea that the working class can control our own lives, without states, governments or
borders, is also called anarchism. But how do we get from our current capitalist society to a
future anarchist-communist one? .... In order to destroy the current order, there will need to
be a revolution, a time of great upheaval."
A poster in the Seattle "Autonomous Zone"
stated
:
"Oh, you thought I just wanted to defund the police? This whole system needs to go."
One of the leaders of the Seattle "Autonomous Zone"
said
:
"Every single day that I show up here I'm not here to peacefully protest. I'm here to disrupt
until my demands are met. You cannot rebuild until you break it all the way down. Respond to the
demands of the people or prepare to be met with any means necessary. By any means necessary.
It's not a slogan or even a warning. I'm letting people know what comes next."
A group called the Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement, which has nearly 15,000 Twitter
followers,
called
for
an insurrection:
"Revolutionary greetings from the insurrection sweeping throughout the occupied territories
of the so-called United States of America.
"As the history of this miserable nation repeats itself once again, what has become clearly
evident is that black people have been and will continue to be the only revolutionary force that
is capable of toppling the oppressive status quo.
"Everywhere the pigs [a derogatory
term
for
police] have lost their will to fight. Their eyes, which only yesterday were windows to empty
hatred and contempt, now display stultifying self-doubt and cowardice. For once, their behavior
portrays their weakness as every step they take back is marked by hesitation.
"Together, if we keep pushing, this land of chattel slavery, indigenous genocide, and foreign
imperial aggression can finally be wiped out so that it will only be remembered as one of the
more ugly chapters in human history."
"This isn't protest. This is rebellion. When rebellion gets organized we get revolution. We
are seeing the beginnings of that and it's glorious."
An Antifa agitator from New York
comments
on
the American flag:
"That sh*t is a fucking cloth with colors on it. It doesn't live or breathe and is nothing
but a representation. Any Black, Latinx, or Native person looking at that thing being respected,
should be offended at that flag that represents genocide, rape, slavery, and colonization."
An Antifa media platform, "It's Going Down,"
wrote
:
"Looting is an effective means of wealth redistribution."
An Antifa activist from North Carolina on
free
speech
:
"The idea that freedom of speech is the most important thing that we can protect can only be
held by someone who thinks that life is analogous to a debate hall. In my opinion, 'no
platforming' fascists often infringes (sic) upon their speech, but this infringement is
justified for its role in the political struggle against fascism."
Torch Antifa Network, in
response
to
President Trump's announced plans to designate Antifa as a terrorist group:
"Antifa will be designating the United States of America as a terrorist organization."
Because they seem to creep around Washington, from one administration to the next, forever whispering in the ears of the power players, and more recently, weaving their evil spells directly to millions, as respected members of the MSM
Notable quotes:
"... I advocate for 'scum' as a serviceable moniker of all-around utility for those who do the dirt because it's business and pleasure, all in one. ..."
"... Now that I think of it, " the filth" is British slang for the police. That could work. Cockney rhyming slang is "Sweeney" ("flying squad" = "Sweeny Todd"). That has the right connotations, but it's a little twee. ..."
"... "The Slime" also seems to fit quite nicely. ..."
Um irony work not well on screen, methinks and not for the first (or last) time
But as to "intelligence community" pejorative, I think good old-fashioned 'scum' works
quite well. Mind you, this is for those who have "proven" themselves by persisting and upping
the ante of loathesomeness; I certainly do not mean to include people-in-process who
sometimes exit Big Brother's nether fissure to emerge as woken humans.
I'm thinking specifically and especially of John Kiriakou, for whom I had the honor of
extending jail support during the time he was incarcerated for "outing" a CIA torturer (who,
needless to say, received not even a tap on the wrist).
Keep it simple, pithy, homely, and familiar: I advocate for 'scum' as a serviceable
moniker of all-around utility for those who do the dirt because it's business and pleasure,
all in one.
> I think good old-fashioned 'scum' works quite well.
Now that I think of it, "
the filth" is British slang for the police. That could work. Cockney rhyming slang is
"Sweeney" ("flying squad" = "Sweeny Todd"). That has the right connotations, but it's a
little twee.
Re. preferred pejorative, I lean toward "IC creep" myself. Because they seem to creep
around Washington, from one administration to the next, forever whispering in the ears of the
power players, and more recently, weaving their evil spells directly to millions, as
respected members of the MSM.
"... Editor's Note: This article originally appeared on ..."
"... most of the CIA's sensitive cyberweapons "were not compartmented, users shared systems administrator-level passwords, there were no effective removable media [thumb drive] controls, and historical data was available to users indefinitely," the report said ..."
"... The Center for Cyber Intelligence also did not monitor who used its network, so the task force could not determine the size of the breach. However, it determined that the employee who accessed the intelligence stole about 2.2 billion pages -- or 34 terabytes -- of information, the Post reported. ..."
Editor's Note: This article originally appeared onBusiness Insider .
The Central Intelligence Agency's elite hacking team "prioritized building cyber weapons at
the expense of securing their own systems," according to an internal agency report prepared for
then-CIA director Mike Pompeo and his deputy, Gina Haspel, who is now the agency's
director.
In March 2017, US officials discovered the breach when the radical pro-transparency group
WikiLeaks published troves of documents detailing the CIA's electronic surveillance and
cyberwarfare capabilities. WikiLeaks dubbed the series of documents "Vault 7," and officials
say it was the biggest unauthorized disclosure of classified information in the agency's
history.
The internal report was introduced in criminal proceedings against former CIA employee
Joshua Schulte, who was charged with swiping the hacking tools and handing them over to
WikiLeaks.
The government brought in witnesses who prosecutors said showed, through forensic analysis,
that Schulte's work computer accessed an old file that matched some of the documents WikiLeaks
posted.
Schulte's lawyers, meanwhile, pointed to the internal report as proof that the CIA's
internal network was so insecure that any employee or contractor could have accessed the
information Schulte is accused of stealing.
A New York jury failed
to reach a verdict in the case in March after the jurors told Judge Paul Crotty that they
were "extremely deadlocked" on many of the most serious charges, though he was convicted on two
counts of contempt of court and making false statements to the FBI.
Crotty subsequently declared a mistrial, and prosecutors said they intended to try Schulte
again later this year.
The report was compiled in October 2017 by the CIA's WikiLeaks Task Force, and it found that
security protocol within the hacking unit that developed the cyberweapons, housed within the
CIA's Center for Cyber Intelligence, was "woefully lax," according to the Post.
The outlet reported that the CIA may never have discovered the breach in the first place if
WikiLeaks hadn't published the documents or if a hostile foreign power had gotten a hold of the
information first.
"Had the data been stolen for the benefit of a state adversary and not published, we might
still be unaware of the loss," the internal report said.
It also faulted the CIA for moving "too slowly" to implement safety measures "that we knew
were necessary given successive breaches to other U.S. Government agencies." Moreover, most
of the CIA's sensitive cyberweapons "were not compartmented, users shared systems
administrator-level passwords, there were no effective removable media [thumb drive] controls,
and historical data was available to users indefinitely," the report said .
The Center for Cyber Intelligence also did not monitor who used its network, so the task
force could not determine the size of the breach. However, it determined that the employee who
accessed the intelligence stole about 2.2 billion pages -- or 34 terabytes -- of information,
the Post reported.
"... let us not forget that bolton threatened a un officials kids because they guy wasn't going along with the iraq war propaganda. ..."
"... Close -- the threatened official was Jose Bustani, at that time (2002) the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)as he had been for five years. ..."
"... Bustani had been working to bring Iraq and Libya into the organization, which would have required those two countries to eliminate all of their chemical weapons. ..."
"... The US, though, had other ideas -- chiefly invading and destroying both of those nations, and when Bustani insisted on continuing his efforts then Bolton threatened Bustani's adult children. ..."
The political establishment in Canada appeared dismayed at the prospect of Bolton as National
Security Adviser. See these interviews with Hill + Knowlton strategies Vice-chairman, Peter
Donolo, from 2018:
So Bolton gets in, Meng Wangzhou is detained in Vancouver on the US request (that's
another story), and in time, Canada appoints a new Ambassador to China - Mr. Dominic
Barton.
Close -- the threatened official was Jose Bustani, at that time (2002) the head of the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)as he had been for five
years.
Bustani had been working to bring Iraq and Libya into the organization, which would
have required those two countries to eliminate all of their chemical weapons.
The US, though, had other ideas -- chiefly invading and destroying both of those
nations, and when Bustani insisted on continuing his efforts then Bolton threatened Bustani's
adult children.
let the lobbyists with the most money win... that's what defines the usa system, leadership
and decision making process... no one in their right mind would support this doofus..
At least the one saving grace about John Bolton's memoir is that it might be a tad closer to
reality than Christopher Steele's infamous dossier and might prove valuable as a source of
evidence in a court of law. Maybe
Yosemite Sam himself should start quaking in his boots.
Yes why not? If Obama awarded the Noble prize even before he begins serving his first term
I can't see why Bolton not nominated now. America is a joke, not a banana republic. It
deserves Obama, Trump, Bolton or Biden another stoopid joker.
@ Jpc
When faced with Trump's behavior of employing warmongers, including several generals, some
observers opined that Trump wanted people with contrasting opinions so that he could consider
them and then say "no." He did more with Bolton eventually, sending him to Mongolia while he
(Trump) went to Singapore (or somewhere over there).
re Ian2 | Jun 17 2020 23:08 utc | 19
who hazarded : My guess Trump went along with the tough guy image that Bolton projected in
media and recommendations by others.
Not at all, if you go back to the earliest days of the orangeman's prezdency, you will see
Trump resisted the efforts by Mercer & the zionist casino owner to give Bolton a gig.
He knew that shrub had problems with the boasts of Bolton and as his reputation was as an
arsehole who sounded his own trumpet at his boss's expense orangeman refused for a long time.
Trump believes the trump prezdency is about trump no one else.
Thing was at the time he was running for the prez gig trump was on his uppers, making a few
dollars from his tv show, plus licensing other people's buildings by selling his name to be
stuck on them. trump tower azerbnajan etc.
He put virtually none of his own money into the 'race' so when he won the people who had put
up the dosh had power over him.
Bolton has always been an arse kisser to any zionist cause he suspects he can claw a penny
outta, so he used the extreme loony end of the totally looney zionist spectrum to hook him
(Bolton) up with a gig by pushing for him with trump.
It was always gonna end the way it did as Bolton is forever briefing the media against
anyone who tried to resist his murderous fantasies. Trump is never gonna argue for any scheme
that doesn't have lotsa dollars for him in it so he had plenty of run ins with Bolton who
then went to his media mates & told tales.
When bolton was appointed orangey's stakes were at a really low ebb among DC warmongers, so
he reluctantly took him on then spent the next 18 months getting rid of the grubby
parasite.
div> Yosemite Sam did it better. I would prefer a Foghorn Leghorn-type
character, for US diplomacy.
Real History: Candidate Trump praised Bolton and named him as THE number one Foreign Policy
expert he (Trump) respected.
Imagine the mustachioed Mister Potatoe (sic) Head and zany highjinks!
Bolton and one of his first wives were regulars at Plato's Retreat for wife swapping
orgies. The wife was not real keen on the behavior, but she allegedly found herself verbally
and physically abused for objecting.
Trump is at fault for hiring him to appease the Zionist lobby. We all knew the guy was a
warmonger and a scumbag. It's not a surprise. Trump surrounds himself with the worst people
Did John Bolton put his personal interests above the will of congress in an attempt to extort
the Ukrainian government? You're making a false equivalence. You seem to have a soft spot for
Trump. Bolton is an in-your-face son of a bitch, but Trump, Trump is just human garbage.
Pretty much a nothing burger if thats all he has got. Just a distraction. Trumps outrage just
meant help Bolton sell some books. Lol. People are so easy to fool.
I still think Bolton managing the operations as COG in Cheneys old bunker. Coming out for
a vacation while next phase is planned
Bolton is just another American arsehole. Nothing new. When they do not get their way, the y
always turn on their superiors, or those in charge. Bolton is just another "Anhänger"
personal gain is what motivates him.
He should have been a blot on his parents bedsheets or at least a forced abortion, but
unfortunately that did not happen...
The self-appointed Deep State has pretty much thwarted him (Trump) and his voters.
Posted by: bob sykes | Jun 17 2020 20:55 utc | 11
Trump thwarted Trump. Before he got elected, Trump mentioned his admiration of Bolton more
than once. Voters of Trump elected a liar and an incoherent person -- at time,
incomprehensible, a nice bonus. But it is worth noticing that Trump never liked being binded
by agreement, like, say, an agreement to pay money back to creditors, or whatever
international agreement would restrict USA from doing what they damn please.
Superficially, it is mysterious why Trump made an impression that he wants to negotiate
with North Korea with some agreement at the end. Was he forced to make a mockery from the
negotiation by someone sticking knife to his back?
Some may remember that Trump promised to abolish Affordable Care Act and replace it with
"something marvelous". The latest version is that he will start thinking about it again after
re-election. If you believe that...
Granted, Trump is more sane than Bolton, but just a bit, unlike Bolton he has some moments
of lucidity.
In conclusion, I would advocate to vote for Biden. If you need a reason, that would be
that Biden never tweets, or if he does, it is forgettable before the typing is done. Unlike
the hideous Trumpian productions.
"men fit to be shaved," Tiberius, on Bolton and Friedman.
he is the best & brightest we have. when a dreadful mouth is called for. his insights
into the Trump WH are probably as deep as his knowledge of VZ, Iran, Cuba, etc. he's a useful
idiot, a willing fool. like Trump, he's the verbal equivalent of the cops on the street, in
foreign "policy." another abusive father figure
reading the imperial steak turds - an American form of reading the tea leaves or goat
livers or chicken flight or celestial what have you. an emperor craps out a big hairy one
like Bolton and the priests and hierophants and lawyers and scribes come for a long, close up
inspection and fact-gathering smell of another steaming pile of gmo-corn-and-downer-cow-fed,
colon cancer causing, Kansas feed-lot raised, grade A Murkin BEEF. guess what they in their
wisdom find? Trump stinks.
Scotch Bingeington @ 6 -- "Take a look at his face. It's obvious to me that even John Bolton
does not enjoy being John Bolton. That mouth, it's drooping to an absurd degree. Comparable
to Merkel's face, come to think of it.
At last, someone who notices physionomy!
That face drips with false modesty, kind of trying to make his face say, "... look at
harmless old me..."
That walrus bushiness points at an attempt to hide, to camouflage his true thoughts, his
malevolence.
That pretended stoop, with one hand clutching a sheaf of briefing papers, emulating the
posture of deferential court clerks, speaks to a lifetime of a snake in the grass "fighting"
from below for things important to himself.
But those of us who have been around the block a couple times will know to watch our backs
around this type. Poisoned-tipped daggers are their fave weapons, and your backs are their
fave "battle space". LOL
This statement by Jeffrey Sachs may as well also describe America's leadership crisis: "At
the root of America's economic crisis lies a moral crisis: the decline of civic virtue among
America's political and economic elite."
GeorgeV @ 8 -- "It's like standing on a street corner watching two prostitutes calling each
other a whore! How low has the US sunk."
And the US "leadeship" sends these types out to lecture other peoples on "values"? on how
to become "normal nations"? on how to "contain" old civilisations such as Iran, Russia,
China?
It is axiomatic that the stupid do not know they are stupid. Same goes for morals. The
immoral do not know they are immoral. Or, perhaps, as Phat Pomp-arse shows, they know they
are immoral, but do not care. Which makes one rightly guess that people like Bolt-On and him
must be depraved.
Yes, it may take centuries before the leadership in this depraved Exceptionally
Indispensable Nation to become truly normal again.
Of course, Trump actually campaigned to leave Afghanistan and Syria, and he was elected to do
so. The self-appointed Deep State has pretty much thwarted him and his voters. by: bob sykes
11
I wondered about He King claims that Trump actually attempted to do those awful things, .
.. , I looked for evidence to prove the claim.. I asked just about every librarian I could
find to please show me evidence that confirms the deep state over rode Mr. Trump's actual
attempt to remove USA anything from Afghanistan and Syria. thus far, no confirming or
supporting facts have been produced. to support such a claim. Mr. Trump could easily have
tweeted to his supporters something to the effect that the damn military, CIA, homeland
security, state department, foreign service, federal reserve, women's underwear association
and smiley Joe's hamburger stand in fact every militant in the USA governed America were
holding hands, locked in a conspiracy to block President Trumps attempt to remove USA
anything from Afghanistan or Syria.. If Mr. Trump has asked for those things, they would have
happened. The next day there would have been parties in the streets as the militant agency
heads began rolling as Mr. Trump fired them each and everyone.. No firings happened, the
party providers were disappointed, no troops, USA contractors or privatization pirates left
any foreign place.. as far as I can tell. 500 + military bases still remain in Europe none
have been abandoned.. and one was added in Israel. BTW i heard that Mr. Trump managed to get
17 trillion dollars into the hands of many who are contractors or suppliers to those foreign
operations. I can't say I am against Trump, but i can ask you to show me some evidence to
prove your claim.
Trump searches for new slogan as he abandons Keep America Great amid George Floyd and covid
turmoil
The president has taken to inserting the term 'Transition to Greatness' into his remarks.
His 2016 slogan was 'Make America Great Again'. After election he polled audiences on whether
to go with 'Keep America Great'. He told CPAC this year and said at the State of the Union
'The Best is Yet to Come'. Tweaks come as he trails Biden in new NBC and CNN polls, as the
nation struggles with the coronavirus and protests over police violence.
Ukrainian police seize $6 Million in bribes paid to kill the new case into crooked
Burisma.
This money is a Followup to the multi-millions in bribes Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and
President Poroshenko earned to leverage their offices to kill the original case.
goals that you consider important are different from personal interests.
What personal interests has Trump actually advanced during his time as president. Leaving out
the fake allegations, I'm hard put to think of any. If you look at Trump's actual behaviour
rather than his bullshit or the bullshit aimed at him, I'm also hard put to think of anything
illegal he's done while in office that wasn't done by previous administrations.
US President Donald Trump sought help from Xi Jinping to win the upcoming 2020 election,
"pleading" with the Chinese president to boost imports of American agricultural products,
according to a new book by former national security adviser John Bolton. The accusations were
included in an excerpt from The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir, which is set to
be released on June 23. Bolton also wrote that Trump demonstrated other "fundamentally
unacceptable behaviour", including privately expressing support for China's mass interment of
Uygur Muslims and other ethnic minority groups in Xinjiang.*This video has been updated to
fix a spelling mistake.
@42 Mao I'm struggling to see how "pleading" with any country for it to purchase more US
goods is "fundamentally unacceptable behaviour" from a US President.
Pleading to Xi for China to give, say, Israel preferential access to markets, sure.
I have lived in the United States for a total of 24 years and I have witnessed many crises
over this long period, but what is taking place today is truly unique and much more serious
than any previous crisis I can recall. And to explain my point, I would like to begin by
saying what I believe the riots we are seeing taking place in hundreds of US cities are not
about. They are not about:
* Racism or "White privilege"
* Police violence
* Social alienation and despair
* Poverty
* Trump
* The liberals pouring fuel on social fires
* The infighting of the US elites/deep state
They are not about any of these because they encompass all of these issues, and more.
It is important to always keep in mind the distinction between the concepts of "cause" and
"pretext". And while it is true that all the factors listed above are real (at least to some
degree, and without looking at the distinction between cause and effect), none of them are
the true cause of what we are witnessing. At most, the above are pretexts, triggers if you
want, but the real cause of what is taking place today is the systemic collapse of the US
society.
Don't really want to take sides between those two odious characters, but I think there's a
difference in what the paper is saying.
One is about someone pursuing policy goals they favour, the other "personal interest".
From what I have seen so far, Bolton's main definition of Trump's "personal interest" is his
chances for re-election (rather than any personal business interest).
I think Bolton was happy for Trump to pursue the policy goals he favoured, at least when
they coincided with Bolton's!
How many people have cashed in on Trump so far? Countless numbers of them. An ocean of them.
Scathing books about Trump is one way to cash in on thr Trump effect, and the authors, many
of whom don't even write the book themselves, get promoted and their books promoted in the
mainstream media and elsewhere.
There is nothing new under the sun when it comes to Trump. We know everything there is to
know about Trump. Some of us knew everything there was to know about him before he became
POTUS. And yet, there he is, sitting like the Cheshire Cat in the Oval Office, untouchable
and beyond reproach. Meanwhile, even more scathing books are in the pipeline because there's
money, so much money, to be made don't you know.
Bolton is a shitbird every bit as much as Trump is and in fact an argument can be made
Bolton is even worse and even more dangerous than Trump because if Bolton had his druthers,
Iran would be a failed state right about now and America would be bogged down in a senseless
money-making (for the defense contractors owned by the extractive wealthy elite) quagmire in
Iran just as it was in Iraq and still is in Afghanistan.
Colbert is all into the Bolton book because he and his staff managed to secure an
interview with Bolton. Bolton, of course, has agreed to this because it's a great way to
promote his book to the likes of Cher who is the perfect example of the demographic Colbert
caters to with his show. Some of the commercials during Colbert's show last night? One was an
Old Navy commercial where they bragged about how they're giving to the poor. The family they
used for the commercial, the recipients of this beneficence, was a black family. Biden is
proud of Old Navy because don't you know, poor and black are one and the same. In otherwords,
there are no poor people except black people. No, that's not racist. Not at all. Also,
another commercial during Colbert's show was for the reopening of Las Vegas amidst the
spreading pandemic. This is immediately after a segment where Colbert is decrying Republican
governors for opening southern states too early. The hypocritical irony is so stark, you can
cut it with a chainsaw.
Mao @ 45 quoting The Saker -- ".... the real cause of what is taking place today is the
systemic collapse of the US society."
And the cause of American societal collapse has been corrupt US leadership.
In my 50 years of studying American society, I have learned to watch what US leaders do,
not what they preach. More profitable is to look at what declassified US documents tell us
about the truth, not what the presstitudes of the day pretend to dish up. Also, what other
world leaders might, in a candid moment, tell us about America.
And the cause of American societal collapse has been corrupt US leadership.
I would argue that this is a symptom or a feature versus the root of the problem.
Afterall, a system that allows for creeping entrenched endemic corruption, is a crappy
system. It's the system that's the root of this and it's not just isolated to the United
States. It's civilization itself that's the root and what enabled civilization -- the spirit
in our genes as Reg asserts.
I'm fully expecting the Dem "left" to try and praise the monsterous Bolton for "going
against Trump", as they did with war criminal Mad Dog Matis and Bush. Bolton has to be one
of the most evil mass murders on the face of the Earth. The world will be an infinitely
better place when he and his ilk like Netanyahu, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Chertoff..etc finally go
back to hell.
I agree. They would, because they already have and continue to do so, coddle and provide
apologia for any and all monsters who decry Trump. Hell, I'm convinced they would clamor for
Derek Chauvin's exoneration if he vocally decried Trump. Chauvin would make the rounds on the
media circuit excoriating Trump and telling the world, contritely of course, that it was
Trump who made him do it and now he sees the error of his ways. He'd be on Morning Joe and
Chris Cuomo's and Don Lemon's shows not to mention Ari Melber and Anderson Cooper and
Lawrence O'Donnell. The conservatives and their networks, who have provided apologia for
Chauvin thus far, would now be his worst enemy. Colbert and Kimmel would have him on and
guffawing with him asking him how it felt to choke the life out of someone, laughing all the
way so long as he hates Trump and tells the world how much he hates Trump.
This world is an insane asylum, especially America. All under the banner and aegis of
progress. And to think, humanity wants to export this madness to space and the universe at
large. Any intelligent life that would ever make its way to Planet Earth, if ever, would be
well-advised to exterminate the species human before it spread its poison to the universe at
large. Not that that is possible, but just in case the .000000000001% chance of that does
miraculously manifest.
Concerning Trump "pleading" with Xi, it is only right for a leader to request others to
buy more US farm produce. We have only Bolton's word that the request was a plea. We also
have only Bolton's word that the request / plea was to seek "help from Xi Jinping to win the
upcoming 2020 election". Too early to believe Bolton. Wait till we see the meeting
transcripts.
Bolton also alleged that Trump exhibited "fundamentally unacceptable behaviour" concerning
the Uygurs. Again, only Bolton's word. Even so, saying it is "unacceptable behavior" presumes
that China does wrong to incarcerate Uygurs. If not, ie, China either does not incarcerate
them, or if China has good moral grounds to do so, then Bolton is wrong to disagree with his
boss for uttering the right sentiment. Judging by how the anglo-zios shout about China's
"crime", I tend to think the opposite just might be the truth, and that says that Bolton is
simply mudslinging to sell books; score brownie points with the anglo-zios, virtue-signalling
for his next gig.
NYT writes Bolton direct US policy to fit his own political agenda,
while Bolton emphasizes Trump direct US policy in the way that pocket him most money.
Politician Bolton is consistent with his politician job (like it or not), Trump is
corrupted.
@56, I would argue that if one person could be both at the same time, that one person would
be Donald Trump. He's already proven, like Chauncey Gardner, he can walk on water. Seriously,
that excellent movie, Being There , starring the incomparable Peter Sellers, was about
Donald Trump's ascension to the Oval Office.
Using this 'quod licet jovi ...' the author apparently knows quite a bit of Latin, the dead
language!
But seriously, the nomination of Bolton who had always behaved like 2nd rate advisor, a 3rd
rate mcarthist cold warrior was a surprise to me. Such a short sighted heavily biased person
could be, yes, chosen a Minister or advisor in a banana Republic but was picked up by the
United states.
One can only conclude such a choice was driven by very specific interests of the deep
state.They needed a bulldog and got it for one year and half and threw the stinky perro soon
as the job was done.
And the cause of American societal collapse has been corrupt US leadership.
I would argue that this is a symptom or a feature versus the root of the problem.
Posted by: 450.org | Jun 18 2020 12:30 utc | 52
The primary cause of corrupt leadership is corrupt and corruption-accepting
population.
Without a population that is fundamentally corrupt and immoral, corrupt leadership is
unstable. Conversely - and this is important to recognise as the same phenomenon - democracy
cannot exist if the population accepts and takes for granted corruption, as the two are
mutually exclusive. In other words if you root out the corrupt leadership without dealing
with the mentality of the population, the corruption will quickly come back and any
democratic experiment will collapse very quickly.
There is one important qualifier - an overwhelming external influence (since WWII always
the USA, either directly or as secondary effect) can leverage latent corruption so that it
becomes more exaggerated than it normally would be.
What is clear from only this account of the crucial role of big money foundations behind
protest groups such as Black lives Matter is that there is a far more complex agenda driving
the protests now destabilizing cities across America. The role of tax-exempt foundations tied
to the fortunes of the greatest industrial and financial companies such as Rockefeller, Ford,
Kellogg, Hewlett and Soros says that there is a far deeper and far more sinister agenda to
current disturbances than spontaneous outrage would suggest.
Bolton pretended to be President, screwing up negotiations with his Libya Model talk,
threatening Venezuela (and anywhere generally) and directing fleets all over the world
(including Britain's to capture that Iranian oil tanker). Vindman revered "Ambassador" Bolton
because he was keeping the Ukraine corruption in Americans (and Ukrainian Americans') hands,
and daring the Russians to "start" WWIII. Bolton might have been a bit more bearable if he
had ever been elected, but was happy to see him go. Trump seemed mystified by him.
b has presented us (knowingly or not, but I wouldn't put it past him) with the Socratic
question of the presumed identity between the morality of the State and personal morality, as
best encountered in Plato's dialogue, 'The Republic' ['Politeia' in the Greek] That dialogue
begins by examining personal morality, but changes to an examination of what would bring into
being a perfect state. In doing the latter, however, it is how to create public spirited
persons, in the best sense, which is the actual concern, and the conversation ranges far and
wide, becoming more and more complex.
I've always thought that to consider the perfect state had to be an impossibility if the
individual, the person him or herself isn't up to the task - and that is the point of the
Politeia enterprise. Like the ongoing relay race on horseback that is happening at the same
time in the Piraeus, the passing of the argument one person to another that happens in the
dialogue demonstrates that what is most crucial for the state as well as for the individual
is personal integrity.
I take as an example the message of Saker's essay, linked by Down South and commented on
above by others. Saker is pointing out that the protests have been seized upon by the
anti-Trumpists who have been disrupting things from the beginning of his administration. But
he also says:
"My personal feeling is that Trump is too weak and too much of a coward to fight his
political enemies"
Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? The discussion of different kinds of states,
which we often have here pursued, or the discussion of what makes a person able to function
in one or another state? I don't think Plato was saying that Greece had it made, that Greece
needed to throw its weight around more to be great. He's pointing out that it had lost
greatness, the same way every empire loses when it forgets that individual spark that is in a
single person, his virtue. And the sad thing is it all comes down to the education of our
young people in the values, the virtues that apply both to his own personal life and to the
life of the state.
At its heart, the protests which are beginning, only beginning, and which are peaceful,
may be politeia vs. republic, the 'polis' itself against 'things political'. A new and true
enlightenment, multipolar.
Corruption's been a fact of life in North America ever since it was "discovered."
Bernard Bailyn captured it quite well in his The New England Merchants in the
Seventeenth Century , that is during the very first stages of plantation, with most
corruption taking place in Old England then exported to the West. Even the Founders were
corrupt, although they didn't see themselves as such. Isn't Adam & Eve's corruption
detailed in Genesis merely an indicator of a general human trait that needs to be managed via
culture? That human culture has generally failed to contain and discipline corruption speaks
volumes about both. John Dos Passos in his opus USA noted that everyone everywhere was
on the "hustle"--from the hobo to the banker. "Every child gots to have its own" are some of
the truest lyrics ever written. Will humanity ever transcend this major failure in its
nature?
Who is behind the claim that China is imprisoning vast numbers of Uighurs in concentration
camps and what evidence has been presented? See the Greyzone for its recent report on this.
Thanks to all of you for your insights on Bolton.
I still don't see anything to explain why he got a second gig in the Whitehouse.
Or anything that he did that enhanced US security long term.
And another guy who dodged active service.
Strange angry dude,!
Pat Lang believes that Bolton has breached a law requiring US Officials with access to Top
Secret Stuff to submit personal memoirs for scrutiny before publishing. Col Lang is awaiting
similar approval for a memoir of his own and thinks Bolton didn't bother waiting for the
Official OK.
There's a diverse range of comments. Most commentators like the idea of Bolton being tossed
in the slammer. Others speculate that as a Swamp Creature, Bolton will escape prosecution.
It's interesting that no-one has asked to see the publisher's copy of the USG's signed &
dated Approval To Publish document, relevant to Bolton's book.
This is mainly alt-rght opinions. But as Oscar Wilde noted "Objective opinion is our opinion
about people we do not like"
"What is the essential quality of an Antifa? What is that attribute which, if you took it
away, would result in the person on the street wearing black clothes and a face mask no longer
being a member of the Antifa?" Can connection of ADL and Israel be such an essential quality?
Both far right and far left usually are infiltrated and sometimes even controlled by intelligence
agencies. So it is impossible for antifa to act as bold as they acted without covert blessing
from intelligence agency that control them
You bring up some great questions. No doubt that the violent protesters in cities across
America were planning this and outmaneuvered police who were still using crowd control
tactics and equipment from 20 years ago. Do you think that ANTIFA and BLM were born out of
the "Occupy Movement" from 2011-2012?
Okay, boring, but let's get back to that stuff Intelligent Dasein brought up a month ago.
What is the essential quality of an Antifa? What is that attribute which, if you took
it away, would result in the person on the street wearing black clothes and a face mask no
longer being a member of the Antifa?
A skateboard? A five dollar latte? A sign bearing a seven-word slogan that encapsulates
their entire life's thought process?
I submit that the essential characteristic of an Antifa is that they blame white people
for every ill which besets everyone of every race worldwide.
Why they do this is a different question, but the answer is "Because "white people" is
what they know." It's who's closest to them. It's who frustrates them. (Not plural because
that would mean they dealt with white people individually, i.e. fairly). So they are peoples
whose experience is severely circumscribed. What's the word I'm looking for? Of limited
breadth. Virtual isolates. Unable to compare dispassionately because they lack exposure to
other civilizations. Prone to blow up their frustrations to world-wide proportions. Delusions
of grandeur.
Anyway. If anyone has a better essential characteristic, hammer it out on the keyboard and
share it.
The fake virus was the cover for another huge theft by the elites like the bailout for the
super rich in 08-09. People were starting see the Corona fraud so they had the media change
scenes back to the race card and do the fake Floyd.
The left and the right are both elements of control from the top. The goal of the Zionists
is to demoralize and destabilize western societies using the techniques from the Jewish
Frankfurt School. Most of the riots are instigated by paid activists. It appears that some
police departments are in on it too.
The Elite's aim to instigate enough problems so that people will demand action from the
federal gov. The plan is to remove local control of the police and to nationalize them.
All totalitarian states have a centrally controlled police to do the bidding of the
bosses at the top. The Zionists have many key positions under their control. The
Presidency has been since Woodrow Wilson, and none in the Senate will defy aIPAC and the
other Jew groups and very few in the House will. It is easy for the CIA or other
intelligence Agencies to stage false flag events like fake murders and Los Vegas type
shootings since The Jews control all of the MSM. Everything the gov. does is a lie and a
fraud. From the contrived world wars and the War on Terror to 911 and WMD's it's the same
Zionist criminal syndicate at work.
@ThreeCranesYes, most of them are useful idiots as Lenin called them. Many are paid
actors in the Soros (Swartz Gyorgy) ANTIFA group. All of this is from the top down,
planned and coordinated by the Zionist criminals. They must have conflict, hatred and war to
achieve progress. A society of contented people does nothing for them. Once the
destabilization process has resulted in chaos then the rabble will be swept from the streets.
Order will be restored. Order of the totalitarian state.
@Corporal Punishment They were born out of the establishment of the NAACP in 1907 by Jew
International Banker Jacob Schiff. This began the process of radicalizing the blacks to
become proxy warriors for the Jews. It was supercharged by the so called civil rights mov. of
the 60's to gain more federal control within the unconstitutional 14th Amedment and open the
door to the antisemitism, and hate speech laws along with the anti white culture promoted by
our Zionist politicians and the Jew controlled MSM.
Gasoline was poured on the fire when the negroes were baited with minority set asides,
affirmative action and the general corrosive effects of the welfare state.
Excellent article. Once again, our glorious (((MSM))) is playing a pivotal role in attempting
to deflect attention away from the actual perpetrators of an organized campaign to produce
culture-wide mayhem and destruction. Entrenched media dishonesty in America is breathtaking.
The BLM endgame is extortion, pure and simple. The agitated perps want boatloads of
justice in the form of a massive wealth transfer. Cash and capital is to be shifted from big
corporations as well as the American taxpayer to underperforming POC.
Look for 'affirmative action' (anti-white hiring practices) to ramp-up as well. The
cops and pols are running scared. Disagree with this 'new normal' and you could be doxxed,
'un-hired', or branded a white supremacist.
Meanwhile, left wing activists posing as observers and journalists want us to believe that
all this George-Floyd-inspired violence is actually another vast right-wing conspiracy to
topple Confederate statues, loot Targets, and take over entire sections of US cities. Oh
sure.
The fact that the Lügenpresse are now trying to deflect blame for the riots onto
'right-wing Boogaloo bois' is probably good news. It means that their internal polling shows
what an unmitigated disaster these riots have been for the image of the Democrats. They were
probably all assuming that Trump would play to type, send in the Marines and go medieval on
the BLM and the Antifa, but he didn't. After making a few provocative tweets, he just decided
to sit back and enjoy the show along with the rest of us. And now it's starting to dawn on
Trump's enemies that they have completely destroyed their own cities for nothing!
I'm starting to think that this time not only will Trump win the election, but he'll
probably win the popular vote, too.
The footprints probably lead to the back door of the DNC. There's various billionaires
involved but they're tied in with politicians. There's lots of people out there willing to
hire on as Antifa thanks to the rotten gig economy where millions of young people are trapped
and see very little future for themselves .
You see them all over working service jobs with no future. They tattoo themselves up,
use drugs and are open to radicalization. What's to lose?Money, excitement and a cause are
being offered by the mysterious paymasters.
@Ann Nonny MouseI am laughing at blaming the DNC. They are hapless puppets who can't
go to the bathroom without asking permission from their wealthy donors. The "hate whitey"
propaganda is in Western Europe, Australia, even Japan. That is far out of DNC land. Who owns
and controls the mass media in all "democracies" around the world? It is _not_ the DNC.
Pelosi: One Thing That Would Remain Is Our Support For Israel Clip from the conference of the Israeli-American Council in Hollywood, Fla., Dec. 2, 2018.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, left, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, center, Haim Saban
@Piglet EyesWideOpen
30 subscribers
Clip from the conference of the Israeli-American Council in Hollywood, Fla., Dec. 2, 2018.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, left, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, center, Haim Saban , right.
QUOTE: "if this Capitol crumbled to the ground, the one thing that would remain would be
our commitment to our aid, I don't even call it our aid, our cooperation with Israel."
– Nancy Pelosi, Israel-American Council Conference
@Nicholas Stix Sheldon Adelson is the 'go to" man for Republicans in need of campaign
cash, and his equivalent on the Democratic side is Haim Saban. You'll find more on Saban
here:
Excerpt:
Democrats are now largely owned by Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban who calls himself
somewhere to the right of the late Ariel Sharon. Saban, a media mogul, recently gave $5-10
million to the Clinton Library and is Hillary's principal backer.
Exceprt:
In America's corrupt political culture, a monster like Sheldon Adelson can buy both a White
House and Congress on behalf of a foreign government for a paltry $150 million or so. It is a
reasonable investment for him given his views, as through him Israel is able to control a
large slice of American foreign policy while also receiving billions of dollars each year
from the US Treasury. And for those who think it would be different if the Democrats were in
charge, think again. The Democrats have their own Adelson. His name is Haim Saban, an
Israeli-American media magnate who has said he is a "one issue guy and my issue is Israel."
He is also the largest individual contributor to the Democratic Party.
"... Twitter Robespierres who move from discipline to discipline torching reputations and jobs with breathtaking casualness. ..."
"... The leaders of this new movement are replacing traditional liberal beliefs about tolerance, free inquiry, and even racial harmony with ideas so toxic and unattractive that they eschew debate, moving straight to shaming, threats, and intimidation. They are counting on the guilt-ridden, self-flagellating nature of traditional American progressives, who will not stand up for themselves, and will walk to the Razor voluntarily. ..."
"... Now, this madness is coming for journalism. Beginning on Friday, June 5th, a series of controversies rocked the media. By my count, at least eight news organizations dealt with internal uprisings (it was likely more). Most involved groups of reporters and staffers demanding the firing or reprimand of colleagues who'd made politically "problematic" editorial or social media decisions. ..."
"... The New York Times, the Intercept , Vox, the Philadelphia Inquirier, Variety , and others saw challenges to management. ..."
"... I always question, why does a Black life matter only when a white man takes it?... Like, if a white man takes my life tonight, it's going to be national news, but if a Black man takes my life, it might not even be spoken of It's stuff just like that that I just want in the mix. ..."
"... The traditional view of the press was never based on some contrived, mathematical notion of "balance," i.e. five paragraphs of Republicans for every five paragraphs of Democrats. The ideal instead was that we showed you everything we could see, good and bad, ugly and not, trusting that a better-informed public would make better decisions. This vision of media stressed accuracy, truth, and trust in the reader's judgment as the routes to positive social change. ..."
Sometimes it seems life can't get any worse in this country. Already in terror of a
pandemic, Americans have lately been bombarded with images of grotesque state-sponsored
violence, from the murder of George Floyd to countless scenes of police clubbing and
brutalizing protesters.
Our president, Donald Trump, is a clown who makes a great reality-show villain but is
uniquely toolless as the leader of a superpower nation. Watching him try to think through two
society-imperiling crises is like waiting for a gerbil to solve Fermat's theorem.
Calls to "dominate" marchers and ad-libbed speculations about Floyd's "great day" looking
down from heaven at Trump's crisis management and new unemployment numbers ("
only" 21 million out of work!) were pure gasoline at a tinderbox moment. The man seems
determined to talk us into civil war.
But police violence, and Trump's daily assaults on the presidential competence standard, are
only part of the disaster. On the other side of the political aisle, among self-described
liberals, we're watching an intellectual revolution. It feels liberating to say after years of
tiptoeing around the fact, but the American left has lost its mind. It's become a cowardly mob
of upper-class social media addicts, Twitter Robespierres who move from discipline to
discipline torching reputations and jobs with breathtaking casualness.
The leaders of this new movement are replacing traditional liberal beliefs about tolerance,
free inquiry, and even racial harmony with ideas so toxic and unattractive that they eschew
debate, moving straight to shaming, threats, and intimidation. They are counting on the
guilt-ridden, self-flagellating nature of traditional American progressives, who will not stand
up for themselves, and will walk to the Razor voluntarily.
Now, this madness is coming for journalism. Beginning on Friday, June 5th, a series of
controversies rocked the media. By my count, at least eight news organizations dealt with
internal uprisings (it was likely more). Most involved groups of reporters and staffers
demanding the firing or reprimand of colleagues who'd made politically "problematic" editorial
or social media decisions.
The New York Times, the Intercept , Vox, the Philadelphia
Inquirier, Variety , and others saw challenges to management.
Probably the most disturbing story involved Intercept writer Lee Fang, one of a
fast-shrinking number of young reporters actually skilled in investigative journalism. Fang's
work in the area of campaign finance especially has led to concrete impact, including a
record fine to a conservative Super PAC : few young reporters have done more to combat
corruption.
Yet Fang found himself denounced online as a racist, then hauled before H.R. His crime?
During protests, he tweeted this interview with an African-American
man named Maximum Fr, who described having two cousins murdered in the East Oakland
neighborhood where he grew up. Saying his aunt is still not over those killings, Max asked:
I always question, why does a Black life matter only when a white man takes it?...
Like, if a white man takes my life tonight, it's going to be national news, but if a Black
man takes my life, it might not even be spoken of It's stuff just like that that I just want
in the mix.
Shortly after, a co-worker of Fang's, Akela Lacy, wrote, "Tired of being made to deal
continually with my co-worker @lhfang continuing to push black on black crime narratives after
being repeatedly asked not to. This isn't about me and him, it's about institutional racism and
using free speech to couch anti-blackness. I am so fucking tired." She followed with, "Stop
being racist Lee."
Like many reporters, Fang has always viewed it as part of his job to ask questions in all
directions. He's written critically of political figures on the center-left, the left, and
"obviously on the right," and his reporting has inspired serious threats in the past. None of
those past experiences were as terrifying as this blitz by would-be colleagues, which he
described as "jarring," "deeply isolating," and "unique in my professional experience."
To save his career, Fang had to craft a public apology for
"insensitivity to the lived experience of others." According to one friend of his, it's been
communicated to Fang that his continued employment at The Intercept is contingent upon
avoiding comments that may upset colleagues. Lacy to her credit publicly thanked Fang for his
statement and expressed willingness to have a conversation; unfortunately, the throng of
Intercept co-workers who piled on her initial accusation did not join her in this.
I first met Lee Fang in 2014 and have never known him to be anything but kind, gracious, and
easygoing. He also appears earnestly committed to making the world a better place through his
work. It's stunning that so many colleagues are comfortable using a word as extreme and
villainous as racist to describe him.
Though he describes his upbringing as "solidly middle-class," Fang grew up in up in a
diverse community in Prince George's County, Maryland, and attended public schools where he was
frequently among the few non-African Americans in his class. As a teenager, he was witness to
the murder of a young man outside his home by police who were never prosecuted, and also
volunteered at a shelter for trafficked women, two of whom were murdered. If there's an edge to
Fang at all, it seems geared toward people in our business who grew up in affluent
circumstances and might intellectualize topics that have personal meaning for him.
In the tweets that got him in trouble with Lacy and other co-workers, he questioned the
logic of protesters attacking immigrant-owned businesses " with no connection to police brutality
at all ." He also offered his opinion on Martin Luther King's attitude toward
violent protest (Fang's take was that King did not support it; Lacy responded, "you know
they killed him too right"). These are issues around which there is still considerable
disagreement among self-described liberals, even among self-described leftists. Fang also
commented, presciently as it turns out, that many reporters were "terrified of openly
challenging the lefty conventional wisdom around riots."
Lacy says she never intended for Fang to be "fired, 'canceled,' or deplatformed," but
appeared irritated by questions on the subject, which she says suggest, "there is more concern
about naming racism than letting it persist."
Max himself was stunned to find out that his comments on all this had created a Twitter
firestorm. "I couldn't believe they were coming for the man's job over something I said," he
recounts. "It was not Lee's opinion. It was my opinion."
By phone, Max spoke of a responsibility he feels Black people have to speak out against all
forms of violence, "precisely because we experience it the most." He described being affected
by the Floyd story, but also by the story of retired African-American police captain David
Dorn, shot to death in recent
protests in St. Louis. He also mentioned Tony Timpa, a white man whose 2016 asphyxiation by
police was only uncovered last year. In body-camera footage, police are heard joking after
Timpa passed out and stopped moving, "
I don't want to go to school! Five more minutes, Mom !"
"If it happens to anyone, it has to be called out," Max says.
Max described discussions in which it was argued to him that bringing up these other
incidents now is not helpful to the causes being articulated at the protests. He understands
that point of view. He just disagrees.
"They say, there has to be the right time and a place to talk about that," he says. "But my
point is, when? I want to speak out now." He pauses. "We've taken the narrative, and instead of
being inclusive with it, we've become exclusive with it. Why?"
There were other incidents. The editors of Bon
Apetit and Refinery29 both resigned amid accusations
of toxic workplace culture. The editor of Variety, Claudia Eller, was
placed on leave after calling a South Asian freelance writer "bitter" in a Twitter exchange
about minority hiring at her company. The self-abasing apology ("I have tried to diversify our
newsroom over the past seven years, but I HAVE NOT DONE ENOUGH") was insufficient. Meanwhile,
the Philadelphia Inquirer's editor, Stan Wischowski, was forced out after approving a
headline, "Buildings matter, too."
In the most discussed incident, Times editorial page editor James Bennet was ousted
for green-lighting an anti-protest editorial by Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton
entitled, " Send in the
troops ."
I'm no fan of Cotton, but as was the case with Michael Moore's documentary and many other
controversial speech episodes, it's not clear that many of the people angriest about the piece
in question even read it. In classic Times fashion, the paper has already scrubbed a
mistake they made misreporting what their own editorial said, in an article about Bennet's
ouster. Here's how the piece by Marc Tracy
read originally (emphasis mine):
James Bennet, the editorial page editor of The New York Times, has resigned after a
controversy over an Op-Ed by a senator calling for military force against protesters in
American cities.
James Bennet resigned on Sunday from his job as the editorial page editor of The New York
Times, days after the newspaper's opinion section, which he oversaw, published a
much-criticized Op-Ed by a United States senator calling for a military response to civic
unrest in American cities.
Cotton did not call for "military force against protesters in American cities." He spoke of
a "show of force," to rectify a situation a significant portion of the country saw as spiraling
out of control. It's an important distinction. Cotton was presenting one side of the most
important question on the most important issue of a critically important day in American
history.
As Cotton points out in the piece, he was advancing a view arguably held by a majority of
the country. A Morning Consult poll showed
58% of Americans either strongly or somewhat supported the idea of "calling in the U.S.
military to supplement city police forces." That survey included 40% of self-described
"liberals" and 37% of African-Americans. To declare a point of view held by that many people
not only not worthy of discussion, but so toxic that publication of it without even necessarily
agreeing requires dismissal, is a dramatic reversal for a newspaper that long cast itself as
the national paper of record.
Incidentally, that
same poll cited by Cotton showed that 73% of Americans described protecting property as
"very important," while an additional 16% considered it "somewhat important." This means the
Philadelphia Inquirer editor was fired for running a headline – "Buildings
matter, too" – that the poll said expressed a view held by 89% of the population,
including 64% of African-Americans.
(Would I have run the Inquirer headline? No. In the context of the moment, the use
of the word "matter" especially sounds like the paper is equating "Black lives" and
"buildings," an odious and indefensible comparison. But why not just make this case in a
rebuttal editorial? Make it a teaching moment? How can any editor operate knowing that airing
opinions shared by a majority of readers might cost his or her job?)
The main thing accomplished by removing those types of editorials from newspapers -- apart
from scaring the hell out of editors -- is to shield readers from knowledge of what a major
segment of American society is thinking.
It also guarantees that opinion writers and editors alike will shape views to avoid
upsetting colleagues, which means that instead of hearing what our differences are and how we
might address those issues, newspaper readers will instead be presented with page after page of
people professing to agree with one another. That's not agitation, that's misinformation.
The instinct to shield audiences from views or facts deemed politically uncomfortable has
been in evidence since Trump became a national phenomenon. We saw it when reporters told
audiences Hillary Clinton's small crowds were a "
wholly intentional " campaign decision. I listened to colleagues that summer of 2016 talk
about ignoring poll results, or anecdotes about Hillary's troubled campaign, on the grounds
that doing otherwise might "help Trump" (or, worse, be perceived that way).
Even if you embrace a wholly politically utilitarian vision of the news media – I
don't, but let's say – non-reporting of that "enthusiasm" story, or ignoring adverse poll
results, didn't help Hillary's campaign. I'd argue it more likely accomplished the opposite,
contributing to voter apathy by conveying the false impression that her victory was secure.
After the 2016 election, we began to see staff uprisings. In one case, publishers at the
Nation faced a revolt – from the Editor on down – after
articles by Aaron Mate
and Patrick Lawrence questioning the evidentiary basis for Russiagate claims was run.
Subsequent events, including the recent
declassification of congressional testimony , revealed that Mate especially was right to
point out that officials had no evidence for a Trump-Russia collusion case. It's precisely
because such unpopular views often turn out to be valid that we stress publishing and debating
them in the press.
In a related incident, the New Yorker ran an article about Glenn Greenwald's
Russiagate skepticism that quoted that same Nation editor, Joan Walsh, who had edited
Greenwald at Salon. She suggested to the New Yorker that Greenwald's
reservations were rooted in "disdain" for the Democratic Party, in part because of its
closeness to Wall Street, but also because of the " ascendance
of women and people of color ." The message was clear: even if you win a Pulitzer Prize,
you can be accused of racism for deviating from approved narratives, even on questions that
have nothing to do with race (the New Yorker piece also implied Greenwald's
intransigence on Russia was pathological and grounded in trauma from childhood).
In the case of Cotton, Times staffers protested on the grounds that " Running
this puts Black @NYTimes staff in danger ." Bennet's editorial decision was not merely
ill-considered, but literally life-threatening (note pundits in the space of a few weeks have
told us that
protesting during lockdowns and notprotesting during
lockdowns are both literally lethal). The Times first attempted to rectify the
situation by apologizing, adding a long
Editor's note to Cotton's piece that read, as so many recent "apologies" have, like a note
written by a hostage.
Editors begged forgiveness for not being more involved, for not thinking to urge Cotton to
sound less like Cotton ("Editors should have offered suggestions"), and for allowing rhetoric
that was "needlessly harsh and falls short of the thoughtful approach that advances useful
debate." That last line is sadly funny, in the context of an episode in which reporters were
seeking to pre-empt a debate rather than have one at all; of course, no one got the joke, since
a primary characteristic of the current political climate is a total absence of a sense of
humor in any direction.
As many guessed, the "apology" was not enough, and Bennet was whacked a day later
in a terse announcement.
His replacement, Kathleen Kingsbury, issued a staff directive essentially telling employees
they now had a veto over
anything that made them uncomfortable : "Anyone who sees any piece of Opinion journalism,
headlines, social posts, photos -- you name it -- that gives you the slightest pause, please
call or text me immediately."
All these episodes sent a signal to everyone in a business already shedding jobs at an
extraordinary rate that failure to toe certain editorial lines can and will result in the loss
of your job. Perhaps additionally, you could face a public shaming campaign in which you will
be denounced as a racist and rendered unemployable.
These tensions led to amazing contradictions in coverage. For all the
extraordinary/inexplicable scenes of police viciousness in recent weeks -- and there was a ton
of it, ranging from police slashing tires in Minneapolis,
to Buffalo officers knocking over an elderly man,
to Philadelphia
police attacking protesters -- there were also
12 deaths in the first nine days of protests, only one at the hands of a police officer
(involving a man who may or may not have been aiming a gun at police).
Looting in some communities has been so bad that people have been left without banks to cash
checks, or pharmacies to fill prescriptions; business owners have been wiped out ("
My life is gone ," commented one Philly store owner); a car dealership in San Leandro,
California saw
74 cars stolen in a single night. It isn't the whole story, but it's demonstrably true that
violence, arson, and rioting are occurring.
Even people who try to keep up with protest goals find themselves denounced the moment they
fail to submit to some new tenet of ever-evolving doctrine, via a surprisingly consistent
stream of retorts: fuck you, shut up, send money, do better, check yourself, I'm tired
and racist .
Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey, who argued for police reform and attempted to show solidarity
with protesters in his city, was shouted down after he refused to
commit to defunding the police. Protesters shouted "Get the fuck out!" at him, then chanted "
Shame !" and threw refuse, Game of Thrones-style , as he skulked out of the gathering.
Frey's "shame" was refusing to endorse a position polls show 65% of
Americans oppose , including 62% of Democrats, with just 15% of all people, and only 33% of
African-Americans, in support.
Each passing day sees more scenes that recall something closer to cult religion than
politics. White protesters in Floyd's Houston hometown
kneeling and praying to black residents for "forgiveness for years and years of racism" are
one thing, but what are we to make of white police in Cary, North Carolina, kneeling and
washing the feet of Black pastors? What about Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer kneeling
while dressed in "
African kente cloth scarves "?
There is symbolism here that goes beyond frustration with police or even with racism: these
are orgiastic, quasi-religious, and most of all, deeply weird scenes, and the press is too
paralyzed to wonder at it. In a business where the first job requirement was once the
willingness to ask tough questions, we've become afraid to ask obvious ones.
On CNN, Minneapolis City Council President Lisa Bender was asked a hypothetical question
about a future without police: "What if in the middle of the night, my home is broken into? Who
do I call?" When Bender, who is white, answered , "I know that comes from
a place of privilege," questions popped to mind. Does privilege mean one should let someone
break into one's home, or that one shouldn't ask that hypothetical question? (I was genuinely
confused). In any other situation, a media person pounces on a provocative response to dig out
its meaning, but an increasingly long list of words and topics are deemed too dangerous to
discuss.
The media in the last four years has devolved into a succession of moral manias. We are told
the Most Important Thing Ever is happening for days or weeks at a time, until subjects are
abruptly dropped and forgotten, but the tone of warlike emergency remains: from James Comey's
firing, to the deification of Robert Mueller, to the Brett Kavanaugh nomination, to the
democracy-imperiling threat to intelligence "whistleblowers," all those interminable months of
Ukrainegate hearings (while Covid-19 advanced), to fury at the death wish of lockdown
violators, to the sudden reversal on that same issue, etc.
It's been learned in these episodes we may freely misreport reality, so long as the
political goal is righteous. It was okay to publish the now-discredited Steele dossier, because
Trump is scum. MSNBC could put Michael Avenatti on live TV to air a gang rape allegation
without vetting, because who cared about Brett Kavanaugh – except press airing of that
wild story ended up being a crucial factor in convincing key swing voter Maine Senator Susan
Collins the anti-Kavanaugh campaign was a political hit job (the allegation illustrated, "why
the presumption of innocence is so important,"
she said ). Reporters who were anxious to prevent Kavanaugh's appointment, in other words,
ended up helping it happen through overzealousness.
There were no press calls for self-audits after those episodes, just as there won't be a few
weeks from now if Covid-19 cases spike, or a few months from now if Donald Trump wins
re-election successfully painting the Democrats as supporters of violent protest who want to
abolish police. No: press activism is limited to denouncing and shaming colleagues for
insufficient fealty to the cheap knockoff of bullying campus Marxism that passes for leftist
thought these days.
The traditional view of the press was never based on some contrived, mathematical notion of
"balance," i.e. five paragraphs of Republicans for every five paragraphs of Democrats. The
ideal instead was that we showed you everything we could see, good and bad, ugly and not,
trusting that a better-informed public would make better decisions. This vision of media
stressed accuracy, truth, and trust in the reader's judgment as the routes to positive social
change.
For all our infamous failings, journalists once had some toughness to them. We were supposed
to be willing to go to jail for sources we might not even like, and fly off to war zones or
disaster areas without question when editors asked. It was also once considered a virtue to
flout the disapproval of colleagues to fight for stories we believed in (Watergate, for
instance).
Today no one with a salary will stand up for colleagues like Lee Fang. Our brave
truth-tellers make great shows of shaking fists at our parody president , but not one of them
will talk honestly about the fear running through their own newsrooms. People depend on us to
tell them what we see, not what we think. What good are we if we're afraid to do it?
This is such an IMPORTANT story.
But it's not just happening in newsrooms, it's happening everywhere: college campuses,
corporations and the workplace, social media platforms, politics, you name it. These
ideologues are the Red Guard of a new Cultural Revolution. Their goal is power and their
method is leveraging progressive guilt. I think they are far, far more dangerous than
Donald Trump or anything going on with the right. Thank you Matt for writing about this!
163
Dazed and Confused Jun 13
Bravo for writing this Matt.
You could, of course, have written it without first establishing your bona fides as a trump
detractor. The problem you address has nothing to do with trump and would exist regardless
of who was in the white house. This doesn't mean there are no problems with trump, or that
he hasn't made a bad situation worse. But that is where we are today. Before anyone can
criticize the obviously insane ideological absurdities within the liberal/left wing press
they must first take a swing at trump in case anyone thinks criticism of the press is the
same thing as supporting trump. How sad.
"... It's a commonplace to say the primary job of police is to "protect and serve," but that's not their goal in the way it's commonly understood -- not in the deed, the practice of what they daily do, and not true in the original intention, in why police departments were created in the first place. "Protect and serve" as we understand it is just the cover story. ..."
"... Urban police forces in America were created for one purpose -- to "maintain order" after a waves of immigrants swept into northern U.S. cities, both from abroad and later from the South, immigrants who threatened to disturb that "order." The threat wasn't primarily from crime as we understand it, from violence inflicted by the working poor on the poor or middle class. The threat came from unions, from strikes, and from the suffering, the misery and the anger caused by the rise of rapacious capitalism. ..."
"... What's being protected? The social order that feeds the wealthy at the expense of the working poor. Who's being served? Owners, their property, and the sources of their wealth, the orderly and uninterrupted running of their factories. The goal of police departments, as originally constituted, was to keep the workers in line, in their jobs, and off the streets. ..."
"... In most countries, the police are there solely to protect the Haves from the Have-Nots. In fact, when the average frustrated citizen has trouble, the last people he would consider turning to are the police. ..."
"... Jay Gould, a U.S. robber baron, is supposed to have claimed that he could hire one half of the working class to kill the other half. ..."
"... I spent some time in the Silver Valley of northern Idaho. This area was the hot bed of labor unrest during the 1890's. Federal troops controlled the area 3 separate times,1892, 1894 and 1899. Twice miners hijacked trains loaded them with dynamite and drove them to mining company stamping mills that they then blew up. Dozens of deaths in shoot outs. The entire male population was herded up and placed in concentration camps for weeks. The end result was the assassination of the Governor in 1905. ..."
"... Interestingly this history has been completely expunged. There is a mining museum in the town which doesn't mention a word on these events. Even nationwide there seems to be a complete erasure of what real labor unrest can look like.. ..."
"... Straight-up fact: The police weren't created to preserve and protect. They were created to maintain order, [enforced] over certain subjected classes and races of people, including–for many white people, too–many of our ancestors, too.* ..."
Yves here. Tom mentions in passing the role
of Pinkertons as goons for hire to crush early labor activists. Some employers like Ford went as far as forming private armies for
that purpose. Establishing police forces were a way to socialize this cost.
[In the 1800s] the police increasingly presented themselves as a thin blue line protecting civilization, by which they meant
bourgeois civilization, from the disorder of the working class.
-- Sam Mitrani
here
It's a commonplace to say the primary job of police is to "protect and serve," but that's not their goal in the way it's commonly
understood -- not in the deed, the practice of what they daily do, and not true in the original intention, in why police departments
were created in the first place. "Protect and serve" as we understand it is just the cover story.
To understand the true purpose of police, we have to ask, "What's being protected?" and "Who's being served?"
Urban police forces in America were created for one purpose -- to "maintain order" after a waves of immigrants swept into northern
U.S. cities, both from abroad and later from the South, immigrants who threatened to disturb that "order." The threat wasn't primarily
from crime as we understand it, from violence inflicted by the working poor on the poor or middle class. The threat came from unions,
from strikes, and from the suffering, the misery and the anger caused by the rise of rapacious capitalism.
What's being protected? The social order that feeds the wealthy at the expense of the working poor. Who's being served? Owners,
their property, and the sources of their wealth, the orderly and uninterrupted running of their factories. The goal of police departments,
as originally constituted, was to keep the workers in line, in their jobs, and off the streets.
Looking Behind Us
The following comes from an
essay
published at the blog of the Labor and Working-Class History Association, an academic group for teachers of labor studies, by
Sam Mitrani, Associate Professor of History at the College of DuPage and author of The Rise of the Chicago Police
Department: Class and Conflict, 1850-1894 .
According to Mitrani, "The police were not created to protect and serve the population. They were not created to stop crime, at
least not as most people understand it. And they were certainly not created to promote justice. They were created to protect the
new form of wage-labor capitalism that emerged in the mid to late nineteenth century from the threat posed by that system's offspring,
the working class."
Keep in mind that there were no police departments anywhere in Europe or the U.S. prior to the 19th century -- in fact, "anywhere
in the world" according to Mitrani. In the U.S., the North had constables, many part-time, and elected sheriffs, while the South
had slave patrols. But nascent capitalism soon created a large working class, and a mass of European immigrants, "yearning to be
free," ended up working in capitalism's northern factories and living in its cities.
"[A]s Northern cities grew and filled with mostly immigrant wage workers who were physically and socially separated from the
ruling class, the wealthy elite who ran the various municipal governments hired hundreds and then thousands of armed men to impose
order on the new working class neighborhoods ." [emphasis added]
America of the early and mid 1800s was still a world without organized police departments. What the
Pinkertons were to strikes , these
"thousands of armed men" were to the unruly working poor in those cities.
Imagine this situation from two angles. First, from the standpoint of the workers, picture the oppression these armed men must
have represented, lawless themselves yet tasked with imposing "order" and violence on the poor and miserable, who were frequently
and understandably both angry and drunk. (Pre-Depression drunkenness, under this interpretation, is not just a social phenomenon,
but a political one as well.)
Second, consider this situation from the standpoint of the wealthy who hired these men. Given the rapid growth of capitalism during
this period, "maintaining order" was a costly undertaking, and likely to become costlier. Pinkertons, for example, were hired at
private expense, as were the "thousands of armed men" Mitrani mentions above.
The solution was to offload this burden onto municipal budgets. Thus, between 1840 and 1880, every major northern city
in America had created a substantial police force, tasked with a single job, the one originally performed by the armed men paid by
the business elites -- to keep the workers in line, to "maintain order" as factory owners and the moneyed class understood it.
"Class conflict roiled late nineteenth century American cities like Chicago, which experienced major strikes and riots in 1867,
1877, 1886, and 1894. In each of these upheavals, the police attacked strikers with extreme violence, even if in 1877 and 1894 the
U.S. Army played a bigger role in ultimately repressing the working class. In the aftermath of these movements, the police increasingly
presented themselves as a thin blue line protecting civilization , by which they meant bourgeois civilization, from the disorder
of the working class. This ideology of order that developed in the late nineteenth century echoes down to today – except that today,
poor black and Latino people are the main threat, rather than immigrant workers."
That "thin blue line protecting civilization" is the same blue line we're witnessing today. Yes, big-city police are culturally
racist as a group; but they're not just racist. They dislike all the "unwashed." A
recent study that reviewed "all the data
available on police shootings for the year 2017, and analyze[d] it based on geography, income, and poverty levels, as well as race"
revealed the following remarkable pattern:
" Police violence is focused overwhelmingly on men lowest on the socio-economic ladder : in rural areas outside the
South, predominately white men; in the Southwest, disproportionately Hispanic men; in mid-size and major cities, disproportionately
black men. Significantly, in the rural South, where the population is racially mixed, white men and black men are killed by police
at nearly identical rates."
As they have always been, the police departments in the U.S. are a violent force for maintaining an order that separates and protects
society's predator class from its victims -- a racist order to be sure, but a class-based order as well.
Looking Ahead
We've seen the violence of the police as visited on society's urban poor (and anyone else, poor or not, who happens to be the
same race and color as the poor too often are), and we've witnessed the violent reactions of police to mass protests challenging
the racism of that violence.
But we've also seen the violence of police during the mainly white-led Occupy movement (one instance
here ; note that while the officer involved
was fired, he was also compensated $38,000 for "suffering he experienced after the incident").
So what could we expect from police if there were, say, a national, angry, multiracial rent strike with demonstrations? Or a student
debt s trike? None of these possibilities are off the table, given the
economic damage -- most of it still unrealized -- caused by the current Covid crisis.
Will police "protect and serve" the protesters, victims of the latest massive
transfer of wealth
to the already massively wealthy? Or will they, with violence, "maintain order" by maintaining elite control of the current predatory
system?
If Mitrani is right, the latter is almost certain.
Possible solutions? One, universal public works system for everyone 18-20. [Avoiding armed service because that will never
happen, nor peace corp.] Not allow the rich to buy then or their children an out. Let the billionaires children work along side
those who never had a single family house or car growing up.
Two, eliminate suburban school districts and simply have one per state, broken down into regional areas. No rich [or white]
flight to avoid poor systems. Children of differing means growing up side by side. Of course the upper class would simply send
their children to private schools, much as the elite do now anyway.
Class and privilege is the real underlying issue and has been since capital began to be concentrated and hoarded as the article
points out. It has to begin with the children if the future is to really change in a meaningful way.
I would add items targeted as what is causing inequality. Some of these might be:
1). Abolish the Federal Reserve. It's current action since 2008 are a huge transfer of wealth from us to the wealthy. No more
Quantitative Easing, no Fed buying of stocks or bonds.
2). Make the only retirement and medical program allowed Congress and the President, Social Security and Medicare. That will
cause it to be improved for all of us.
3). No stock ownership allowed for Congress folk while serving terms. Also, rules against joining those leaving Congress acting
as lobbyists.
4). Something that makes it an iron rule that any law passed by Congress and the President, must equally apply to Congress
and the President. For example, no separate retirement or healthcare access, but have this more broadly applied to all aspects
of legislation and all aspects of life.
I think you'd also have to legalize drugs and any other thing that leads creation of "organized ciminal groups." Take away
the sources that lead to the creation of the well-armed gangs that control illegal activities.
Unfortunately, legalising drugs in itself, whatever the abstract merits, wouldn't solve the problem. Organised crime would
still have a major market selling cut-price, tax-free or imitation drugs, as well, of course, as controlled drugs which are not
allowed to be sold to just anybody now. Organised crime doesn't arise as a result of prohibitions, it expands into new areas thanks
to them, and often these areas involve smuggling and evading customs duties. Tobacco products are legal virtually everywhere,
but there's a massive criminal trade in smuggling them from the Balkans into Italy, where taxes are much higher. Any time you
create a border, in effect, you create crime: there is even alcohol smuggling between Sweden and Norway. Even when activities
are completely legal (such as prostitution in many European countries) organised crime is still largely in control through protection
rackets and the provision of "security."
In effect, you'd need to abolish all borders, all import and customs duties and all health and safety and other controls which
create price differentials between states. And OC is not fussy, it moves from one racket to another, as the Mafia did in the 1930s
with the end of prohibition. To really tackle OC you'd need to legalise, oh, child pornography, human trafficking, sex slavery,
the trade in rare wild animals, the trade in stolen gems and conflict diamonds, internet fraud and cyberattacks, and the illicit
trade in rare metals, to name, as they say, but a few. As Monty Python well observed, the only way to reduce the crime rate (and
hence the need for the police) is to reduce the number of criminal offences. Mind you, if you defund the police you effectively
legalise all these things anyway.
I dunno, ending Prohibition sure cut down on the market for bootleg liquor. It's still out there, but the market is nothing
like what it once was.
Most people, even hardcore alcoholics, aren't going to go through the hassle of buying rotgut of dubious origin just to save
a few dimes, when you can go to the corner liquor store and get a known product, no issues with supply 'cause your dealer's supplier
just got arrested.
For that matter, OC is still definitely out there, but it isn't the force that it was during Prohibition, or when gambling
was illegal.
As an aside, years ago, I knew a guy whose father had worked for Meyer Lansky's outfit, until Prohibition put him and others
out of a job. As a token of his loyal service, the outfit gave him a (legal) liquor store to own and run.
Yes, but in Norway, for example, you'd pay perhaps $30 for a six-pack of beer in a supermarket, whereas you'd pay half that
to somebody selling beers out of the back of a car. In general people make too much of the Prohibition case, which was geographically
and politically very special, and a a stage in history when OC was much less sophisticated. The Mob diversified into gambling
and similar industries (higher profits, fewer risks). These days OC as a whole is much more powerful and dangerous, as well as
sophisticated, than it was then, helped by globalisation and the Internet.
I think ending prohibitions on substances, would take quite a bite out of OC's pocketbook. and having someone move trailers
of ciggarettes of bottles of beer big deal. That isn't really paying for the lifestyle.and it doesn't buy political protection.
An old number I saw @ 2000 . the UN figured(guess) that illegal drugs were @ 600 billion dollars/year industry and most of that
was being laundered though banks. Which to the banking industry is 600 billion in cash going into it's house of mirrors. Taking
something like that out of the equation EVERY YEAR is no small thing. And the lobby from the OC who wants drugs kept illegal,
coupled with the bankers who want the cash inputs equals a community of interest against legalization
and if the local police forces and the interstate/internationals were actually looking to use their smaller budgets and non-bill
of rights infringing tactics, on helping the victim side of crimes then they could have a real mission/ Instead of just abusing
otherwise innocent people who victimize no one.
so if we are looking for "low hanging fruit" . ending the war on drugs is a no brainer.
"What's being protected? The social order that feeds the wealthy at the expense of the working poor. " – Neuberger
In the aftermath of these movements, the police increasingly presented themselves as a thin blue line protecting civilization,
by which they meant bourgeois civilization, from the disorder of the working class. – Mitrani
I think this ties in, if only indirectly, with the way so many peaceful recent protests seemed to turn violent after the police
showed up. It's possible I suppose the police want to create disorder to frighten not only the protestors with immediate harm
but also frighten the bourgeois about the threate of a "dangerous mob". Historically violent protests created a political backlash
that usually benefited political conservatives and the wealthy owners. (The current protests may be different in this regard.
The violence seems to have created a political backlash against conservatives and overzealous police departments' violence. )
My 2 cents.
Sorry, but the title sent my mind back to the days of old -- of old Daley, that is, and his immortal quote from 1968: "Gentlemen,
let's get the thing straight, once and for all. The policeman isn't there to create disorder; the policeman is there to preserve
disorder."
LOL!!! great quote. Talk about saying it the way it is.
It kind of goes along with, "Police violence is focused overwhelmingly on men lowest on the socio-economic ladder: in rural
areas outside the South, predominately white men; in the Southwest, disproportionately Hispanic men; in mid-size and major cities,
disproportionately black men. Significantly, in the rural South, where the population is racially mixed, white men and black men
are killed by police at nearly identical rates."
I bang my head on the table sometimes because poor white men and poor men of color are so often placed at odds when they increasingly
face (mostly) the same problems. God forbid someone tried to unite them, there might really be some pearl clutching then.
yeah, like Martin Luther King's "poor people's campaign". the thought of including the poor ,of all colors .. just too much
for the status quo to stomach.
The "mechanism" that keeps masses in line . is one of those "invisible hands" too.
Great response! I am sure you have more to add to this. A while back, I was researching the issues you state in your last paragraph.
Was about ten pages into it and had to stop as I was drawn out of state and country. From my research.
While not as overt in the 20th century, the distinction of black slave versus poor white man has kept the class system alive
and well in the US in the development of a discriminatory informal caste system. This distraction of a class level lower than
the poorest of the white has kept them from concentrating on the disproportionate, and growing, distribution of wealth and income
in the US. For the lower class, an allowed luxury, a place in the hierarchy and a sure form of self esteem insurance.
Sennett and Cobb (1972) observed that class distinction sets up a contest between upper and lower class with the lower social
class always losing and promulgating a perception amongst themselves the educated and upper classes are in a position to judge
and draw a conclusion of them being less than equal. The hidden injury is in the regard to the person perceiving himself as a
piece of the woodwork or seen as a function such as "George the Porter." It was not the status or material wealth causing the
harsh feelings; but, the feeling of being treated less than equal, having little status, and the resulting shame. The answer for
many was violence.
James Gilligan wrote "Violence; Reflections on A National Epidemic." He worked as a prison psychiatrist and talked with many
of the inmates of the issues of inequality and feeling less than those around them. His finding are in his book which is not a
long read and adds to the discussion.
A little John Adams for you.
" The poor man's conscience is clear . . . he does not feel guilty and has no reason to . . . yet, he is ashamed. Mankind
takes no notice of him. He rambles unheeded.
In the midst of a crowd; at a church; in the market . . . he is in as much obscurity as he would be in a garret or a cellar.
He is not disapproved, censured, or reproached; he is not seen . . . To be wholly overlooked, and to know it, are intolerable
."
likbez, June 19, 2020 at 3:18 pm
That's a very important observation.
Racism, especially directed toward blacks, along with "identity wedge," is a perfect tool for disarming poor white, and suppressing
their struggle for a better standard of living, which considerably dropped under neoliberalism.
In other words, by providing poor whites with a stratum of the population that has even lower social status, neoliberals manage
to co-opt them to support the policies which economically ate detrimental to their standard of living as well as to suppress the
protest against the redistribution of wealth up and dismantling of the New Deal capitalist social protection network.
This is a pretty sophisticated, pretty evil scheme if you ask me. In a way, "Floydgate" can be viewed as a variation on the same
theme. A very dirty game indeed, when the issue of provision of meaningful jobs for working poor, social equality, and social
protection for low-income workers of any color is replaced with a real but of secondary importance issue of police violence against
blacks.
This is another way to explain "What's the matter with Kansas" effect.
John Anthony La Pietra, June 19, 2020 at 6:20 pm
I like that one! - and I have to admit it's not familiar to me, though I've been a fan since before I got to play him in a
neighboring community theater. Now I'm having some difficulty finding it. Where is it from, may I ask?
run75441, June 20, 2020 at 7:56 am
JAL:
Page 239, "The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States."
Read the book "Violence: Reflections of A National Epidemic" . Not a long read and well documented.
MLK Jr. tried, and look what happened to him once he really got some traction. If the Rev. William Barber's Poor People's Campaign
picks up steam, I'm afraid the same thing will happen to him.
I wish it were only pearl-clutching that the money power would resort to, but that's not the way it works.
Yeah – that quote struck me too, never seen it before. At times when they feel so liberated to 'say the quiet part out loud',
then as now, you know the glove is coming off and the vicious mailed fist is free to roam for victims.
Those times are where you know you need to resist or .well, die in many cases.
That's something that really gets me in public response to many of these things. The normal instinct of the populace to wake
from their somnambulant slumber just long enough to ascribe to buffoonery and idiocy ala Keystone Cops the things so much better
understood as fully consciously and purposefully repressive, reactionary, and indicating a desire to take that next step to crush
fully. To obliterate.
Many responses to this – https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1273809160128389120
– are like, 'the police are dumb', 'out of touch', 'a lot of dumb gomer pyles in that room, yuk yuk yuk'. Or, 'cops/FBI are
so dumb to pursue this antifa thing, its just a boogieman' thinking that somehow once the authorities realize 'antifa' is a boogieman,
their attitudes towards other protesters will somehow be different 'now that they realize the silliness of the claims'.
No, not remotely the case – to a terrifyingly large percentage of those in command, and in rank & file they know exactly where
it came from, exactly how the tactics work, and have every intention of classifying all protesters (peaceful or not) into that
worldview. The peaceful protesters *are* antifa in their eyes, to be dealt with in the fully approved manner of violence and repression.
In most countries, the police are there solely to protect the Haves from the Have-Nots. In fact, when the average frustrated
citizen has trouble, the last people he would consider turning to are the police.
This is why in the Third World, the only job of lower social standing than "policeman" is "police informer".
The anti-rascist identity of the recent protests rests on a much larger base of class warfare waged over the past 40 years
against the entire population led by a determined oligarchy and enforced by their political, media and militarized police retainers.
This same oligarchy, with a despicable zeal and revolting media-orchestrated campaign–co-branding the movement with it's usual
corporate perpetrators– distorts escalating carceral and economic violence solely through a lens of racial conflict and their
time-tested toothless reforms. A few unlucky "peace officers" may have to TOFTT until the furor recedes, can't be helped.
Crowding out debt relief, single payer health, living wages, affordable housing and actual justice reform from the debate that
would benefit African Americans more than any other demographic is the goal.
The handful of Emperors far prefer kabuki theater and random ritual Seppuku than facing the rage of millions of staring down
the barrel of zero income, debt, bankruptcy, evictions and dispossession. The Praetorians will follow the money as always.
I suppose we'll get some boulevards re-named and a paid Juneteenth holiday to compensate for the destruction 100+ years of
labor rights struggle, so there's that..
Homestead, Ludlow, Haymarket, Matewan -- the list is long
Working men and women asking for justice gunned down by the cops. There will always be men ready to murder on command as long
as the orders come from the rich and powerful. We are at a moment in history folks were some of us, today mostly people of color,
are willing to put their lives on the line. It's an ongoing struggle.
So how can a tier of society(the police) . be what a society needs ? When as this story and many others show how and why the
police were formed. To break heads. When they have been "the tool" of the elite forever. When so many of them are such dishonest,
immoral, wanna be fascists. And the main direction of the US is towards a police state and fascists running the show . both
republican and democrat. With technology being the boot on the neck of the people and the police are there to take it to the streets.
Can those elusive "good apples" turn the whole rotten barrel into sweet smelling apple pie? That is a big ask.
Or should the structure be liquidated, sell their army toys. fill the ranks with people who are not pathological liars and
abusers and /or racists; of one sort or another. Get rid of the mentality of overcompensation by uber machismo. and make them
watch the andy griffith show. They ought to learn that they can be respected if they are good people, and that they are not respected
because they seek respect through fear and intimidation.
Is that idiot cry of theirs, .. the whole yelling at you; demanding absolute obedience to arbitrary ,assinine orders, really
working to get them respect or is it just something they get off on?
When the police are shown to be bad, they strike by work slowdown, or letting a little chaos loose themselves. So the people
know they need them So any reform of the police will go through the police not doing their jobs . but then something like better
communities may result. less people being busted and harassed , or pulled over for the sake of a quota . may just show we don't
need so much policing anyway. And then if the new social workers brigade starts intervening in peoples with issues when they are
young and in school maybe fewer will be in the system. Couple that with the police not throwing their family in jail for nothing,
and forcing them to pay fines for breaking stupid laws. The system will have less of a load, and the new , better cops without
attitudes will be able to handle their communities in a way that works for everyone. Making them a net positive, as opposed to
now where they are a net negative.
Also,
The drug war is over. The cops have only done the bidding of the organized criminal elements who make their bread and butter
because of prohibition.
Our representatives can legally smoke pot , and grow it in their windowboxes in the capital dc., but people in many places
are still living in fear of police using possession of some substance,as a pretext to take all their stuff,throw them in jail.
But besides the cops, there are the prosecutors . they earn their salaries by stealing it from poor people through fines for things
that ought to be legal. This is one way to drain money from poor communities, causing people to go steal from others in society
to pay their court costs.
And who is gonna come and bust down your door when you can't pay a fine and choose to pay rent and buy your kids food instead
. the cops. just doing their jobs. Evil is the banality of business as usual
The late Kevin R C O'Brien noted that in every case where the Police had been ordered to "Round up the usual suspects" they
have done so, and delivered them where ordered. It did not matter who the "Usual suspects" were, or to what fate they were
to be delivered. They are the King's men and they do the King's bidding.
To have a reasonable discussion, I think that it should be recognized that modern police are but one leg of a triad. The first
of course is the police who appear to seem themselves as not part of a community but as enforcers in that community. To swipe
an idea from Mao, the police should move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea. Not be a patrolling shark that attacks
who they want at will knowing that there will be no repercussions against them. When you get to the point that you have police
arresting children in school for infractions of school discipline – giving them a police record – you know that things have gotten
out of hand.
The next leg is the courts which of course includes prosecutors. It is my understanding that prosecutors are elected to office
in the US and so have incentives to appear to be tough on crime"" . They seem to operate more like 'Let's Make a Deal' from what
I have read. When they tell some kid that he has a choice of 1,000 years in prison on trumped up charges or pleads guilty to a
smaller offence, you know that that is not justice at work. Judges too operate in their own world and will always take the word
of a policeman as a witness.
And the third leg is the prisons which operate as sweatshops for corporate America. It is in the interest of the police and
the courts to fill up the prisons to overflowing. Anybody remember the Pennsylvania "kids for cash" scandal where kids lives were
being ruined with criminal records that were bogus so that some people could make a profit? And what sort of prison system is
it where a private contractor can build a prison without a contract at all , knowing that the government (California in
this case) will nonetheless fill it up for a good profit.
In short, in sorting out police doctrine and methods like is happening now, it should be recognized that they are actually
only the face of a set of problems.
How did ancient states police? Perhaps Wiki is a starting point of this journey. Per Its entry, Police, in ancient Greece,
policing was done by public owned slaves. In Rome, the army, initially. In China, prefects leading to a level of government
called prefectures .
I spent some time in the Silver Valley of northern Idaho. This area was the
hot bed of labor unrest during
the 1890's. Federal troops controlled the area 3 separate times,1892, 1894 and 1899. Twice miners hijacked trains loaded them
with dynamite and drove them to mining company stamping mills that they then blew up. Dozens of deaths in shoot outs. The entire
male population was herded up and placed in concentration camps for weeks. The end result was the assassination of the Governor
in 1905.
Interestingly this history has been completely expunged. There is a mining museum in the town which doesn't mention a word
on these events. Even nationwide there seems to be a complete erasure of what real labor unrest can look like..
Yeah, labor unrest does get swept under the rug. Howard zinn had examples in his works "the peoples history of the United States"
The pictched battles in upstate new york with the Van Rennselear's in the 1840's breaking up rennselearwyk . the million acre
estate of theirs . it was a rent strike.
People remembering , we have been here before doesn't help the case of the establishment so they try to not let it happen.
We get experts telling us . well, this is all new we need experts to tell you what to think. It is like watching the
footage from the past 100 years on film of blacks marching for their rights and being told.. reform is coming.. the more things
change, the more things stay the same. Decade after decade. Century after century. Time to start figuring this out people. So,
the enemy is us. Now what?
Doubtless the facts presented above are correct, but shouldn't one point out that the 21st century is quite different from
the 19th and therefore analogizing the current situation to what went on before is quite facile? For example it's no longer necessary
for the police to put down strikes because strike actions barely still exist. In our current US the working class has diminished
greatly while the middle class has expanded. We are a much richer country overall with a lot more people–not just those one percenters–concerned
about crime. Whatever one thinks of the police, politically an attempt to go back to the 18th century isn't going to fly.
" the 21st century is quite different from the 19th "
From the Guardian: "How Starbucks, Target, Google and Microsoft quietly fund police through private donations"
More than 25 large corporations in the past three years have contributed funding to private police foundations, new report
says.
These foundations receive millions of dollars a year from private and corporate donors, according to the report, and are
able to use the funds to purchase equipment and weapons with little public input. The analysis notes, for example, how the
Los Angeles police department in 2007 used foundation funding to purchase surveillance software from controversial technology
firm Palantir. Buying the technology with private foundation funding rather than its public budget allowed the department to
bypass requirements to hold public meetings and gain approval from the city council.
The Houston police foundation has purchased for the local police department a variety of equipment, including Swat equipment,
sound equipment and dogs for the K-9 unit, according to the report. The Philadelphia police foundation purchased for its police
force long guns, drones and ballistic helmets, and the Atlanta police foundation helped fund a major surveillance network of
over 12,000 cameras.
In addition to weaponry, foundation funding can also go toward specialized training and support programs that complement
the department's policing strategies, according to one police foundation.
"Not a lot of people are aware of this public-private partnership where corporations and wealthy donors are able to siphon
money into police forces with little to no oversight," said Gin Armstrong, a senior research analyst at LittleSis.
Maybe it is just me, but things don't seem to be all that different.
While it is true, this is a new century. Knowing how the present came to be, is entirely necessary to be able to attempt any
move forward.
The likelihood of making the same old mistakes is almost certain, if one doesn't try to use the past as a reference.
And considering the effect of propaganda and revisionism in the formation of peoples opinions, we do need " learning against learning"
to borrow a Jesuit strategy against the reformation, but this time it should embrace reality, rather than sow falsehoods.
But I do agree,
We have never been here before, and now is a great time to reset everything. With all due respect to "getting it right" or at
least "better".
and knowing the false fables of righteousness, is what people need to know, before they go about "burning down the house".
You know it's not as though white people aren't also afraid of the police. Alfred Hitchcock said he was deathly afraid of police
and that paranoia informed many of his movies. Woody Allen has a funny scene in Annie Hall where he is pulled over by a cop and
is comically flustered. White people also get shot and killed by the police as the rightwingers are constantly pointing out.
And thousands of people in the streets tell us that police reform is necessary. But the country is not going to get rid of
them and replace police with social workers so why even talk about it? I'd say the above is interesting .not terribly relevant.
Straight-up fact: The police weren't created to preserve and protect. They were created to maintain order, [enforced] over
certain subjected classes and races of people, including–for many white people, too–many of our ancestors, too.*
And the question that arises from this: Are we willing to the subjects in a police state? Are we willing to continue to let
our Black and brown brothers and sisters be subjected BY such a police state, and to half-wittingly be party TO it?
Or do we want to exercise AGENCY over "our" government(s), and decide–anew–how we go out our vast, vast array of social ills.
Obviously, armed police officers with an average of six months training–almost all from the white underclass–are a pretty f*cking
blunt instrument to bring to bear.
On our own heads. On those who we and history have consigned to second-class citizenship.
Warning: this is a revolutionary situation. We should embrace it.
*Acceding to white supremacy, becoming "white" and often joining that police order, if you were poor, was the road out of such
subjectivity. My grandfather's father, for example, was said to have fled a failed revolution in Bohemia to come here. Look back
through history, you will find plenty of reason to feel solidarity, too. Race alone cannot divide us if we are intent on the lessons
of that history.
"... The endless and extravagant election cycles, he said, are an example of politics without politics. ..."
"... "Instead of participating in power," he writes, "the virtual citizen is invited to have 'opinions': measurable responses to questions predesigned to elicit them." ..."
"... Political campaigns rarely discuss substantive issues. They center on manufactured political personalities, empty rhetoric, sophisticated public relations, slick advertising, propaganda and the constant use of focus groups and opinion polls to loop back to voters what they want to hear. Money has effectively replaced the vote. Every current presidential candidate -- including Bernie Sanders -- understands, to use Wolin's words, that "the subject of empire is taboo in electoral debates." The citizen is irrelevant. He or she is nothing more than a spectator, allowed to vote and then forgotten once the carnival of elections ends and corporations and their lobbyists get back to the business of ruling. ..."
"... "If the main purpose of elections is to serve up pliant legislators for lobbyists to shape, such a system deserves to be called 'misrepresentative or clientry government,' " Wolin writes. "It is, at one and the same time, a powerful contributing factor to the depoliticization of the citizenry, as well as reason for characterizing the system as one of antidemocracy." ..."
"... We are tolerated as citizens, Wolin warns, only as long as we participate in the illusion of a participatory democracy. The moment we rebel and refuse to take part in the illusion, the face of inverted totalitarianism will look like the face of past systems of totalitarianism. ..."
"... "The significance of the African-American prison population is political," ..."
...Inverted totalitarianism also "perpetuates politics all the time," Wolin said when we spoke,
"but a politics that is not political." The endless and extravagant election cycles, he said,
are an example of politics without politics.
"Instead of participating in power," he writes, "the virtual citizen is invited to have
'opinions': measurable responses to questions predesigned to elicit them."
Political campaigns rarely discuss substantive issues. They center on manufactured
political personalities, empty rhetoric, sophisticated public relations, slick advertising,
propaganda and the constant use of focus groups and opinion polls to loop back to voters what
they want to hear. Money has effectively replaced the vote. Every current presidential
candidate -- including Bernie Sanders -- understands, to use Wolin's words, that "the subject
of empire is taboo in electoral debates." The citizen is irrelevant. He or she is nothing more
than a spectator, allowed to vote and then forgotten once the carnival of elections ends and
corporations and their lobbyists get back to the business of ruling.
"If the main purpose of elections is to serve up pliant legislators for lobbyists to
shape, such a system deserves to be called 'misrepresentative or clientry government,' " Wolin
writes. "It is, at one and the same time, a powerful contributing factor to the
depoliticization of the citizenry, as well as reason for characterizing the system as one of
antidemocracy."
The result, he writes, is that the public is "denied the use of state power." Wolin deplores
the trivialization of political discourse, a tactic used to leave the public fragmented,
antagonistic and emotionally charged while leaving corporate power and empire unchallenged.
"Cultural wars might seem an indication of strong political involvements," he writes.
"Actually they are a substitute. The notoriety they receive from the media and from politicians
eager to take firm stands on nonsubstantive issues serves to distract attention and contribute
to a cant politics of the inconsequential."
"The ruling groups can now operate on the assumption that they don't need the traditional
notion of something called a public in the broad sense of a coherent whole," he said in our
meeting. "They now have the tools to deal with the very disparities and differences that they
have themselves helped to create. It's a game in which you manage to undermine the cohesiveness
that the public requires if they [the public] are to be politically effective. And at the same
time, you create these different, distinct groups that inevitably find themselves in tension or
at odds or in competition with other groups, so that it becomes more of a melee than it does
become a way of fashioning majorities."
In classical totalitarian regimes, such as those of Nazi fascism or Soviet communism,
economics was subordinate to politics. But "under inverted totalitarianism the reverse is
true," Wolin writes. "Economics dominates politics -- and with that domination comes different
forms of ruthlessness."He continues: "The United States has become the showcase of how
democracy can be managed without appearing to be suppressed."
The corporate state, Wolin told me, is "legitimated by elections it controls." To extinguish
democracy, it rewrites and distorts laws and legislation that once protected democracy. Basic
rights are, in essence, revoked by judicial and legislative fiat. Courts and legislative
bodies, in the service of corporate power, reinterpret laws to strip them of their original
meaning in order to strengthen corporate control and abolish corporate oversight.
He writes: "Why negate a constitution, as the Nazis did, if it is possible simultaneously to
exploit porosity and legitimate power by means of judicial interpretations that declare
huge campaign contributions to be protected speech under the First Amendment, or that treat
heavily financed and organized lobbying by large corporations as a simple application of the
people's right to petition their government?"
Our system of inverted totalitarianism will avoid harsh and violent measures of control "as
long as dissent remains ineffectual," he told me. "The government does not need to stamp out
dissent. The uniformity of imposed public opinion through the corporate media does a very
effective job."
And the elites, especially the intellectual class, have been bought off. "Through a
combination of governmental contracts, corporate and foundation funds, joint projects involving
university and corporate researchers, and wealthy individual donors, universities (especially
so-called research universities), intellectuals, scholars, and researchers have been seamlessly
integrated into the system," Wolin writes. "No books burned, no refugee Einsteins."
But, he warns, should the population -- steadily stripped of its most basic rights,
including the right to privacy, and increasingly impoverished and bereft of hope -- become
restive, inverted totalitarianism will become as brutal and violent as past totalitarian
states. "The war on terrorism, with its accompanying emphasis upon 'homeland security,'
presumes that state power, now inflated by doctrines
of preemptive war and released from treaty obligations and the potential constraints of
international judicial bodies, can turn inwards," he writes, "confident that in its domestic
pursuit of terrorists the powers it claimed, like the powers projected abroad, would be
measured, not by ordinary constitutional standards, but by the shadowy and ubiquitous character
of terrorism as officially defined."
The indiscriminate police violence in poor communities of color is an example of the ability
of the corporate state to "legally" harass and kill citizens with impunity. The cruder forms of
control -- from militarized police to wholesale surveillance, as well as police serving as
judge, jury and executioner, now a reality for the underclass -- will become a reality for all
of us should we begin to resist the continued funneling of power and wealth upward. We are
tolerated as citizens, Wolin warns, only as long as we participate in the illusion of a
participatory democracy. The moment we rebel and refuse to take part in the illusion, the face
of inverted totalitarianism will look like the face of past systems of totalitarianism.
"The significance of the African-American prison population is political," he writes. "What
is notable about the African-American population generally is that it is highly sophisticated
politically and by far the one group that throughout the twentieth century kept alive a spirit
of resistance and rebelliousness. In that context, criminal justice is as much a strategy of
political neutralization as it is a channel of instinctive racism."
"... These mobs of hating, condemning, moralizing, groupthink hypocrites are modern-day Nazis. They don't wear uniforms or have guns, but their weapon of online psychological abuse is proving frighteningly effective. ..."
"... Psychological abuse is one of their classic methods, as they exploit a person's fear of ending up alone against a crowd. Instead of a prison cell or a concentration camp, they put people in social isolation. They can even prevent the victim from being employed – classic state repression of an individual. ..."
"... Without work, the geniuses will fade into obscurity, and the new PC brigade will make them kneel in solidarity. Individually, members of these combat units of political correctness are often smart and sophisticated people, but when they close ranks in the fight for or against something, they turn into an ignorant and aggressive mob. ..."
"... China has been testing a new system in several provinces via which the citizens and their community are encouraged to assess the social behavior of individuals by assigning scores for respecting the rules and values practiced in this society. If you don't achieve a high score, your ranking is low and your prospects are limited. Isn't this just perfect for the new stormtroopers?! It's a modern reincarnation of the Munich gang, when a mediocre, covetous burgher pretends to be a civilized, progressive thinker. ..."
"... They put labels on everyone who disagrees. They love drama and straightforwardness. But they are incapable of engaging in rational argument. It's only natural that they began with declaring lofty values and ended with riots. They have started fires and justified arson. But you can't rein in the freedom to love or hate using a set of rules established by the new ethics committee. Today, being free means being outside this mob of attacking, hating, condemning, moralizing, angry hypocrites. ..."
These mobs of hating, condemning, moralizing, groupthink hypocrites are modern-day Nazis. They don't wear
uniforms or have guns, but their weapon of online psychological abuse is proving frighteningly effective.
Totalitarianism didn't disappear when the Nazis were defeated. It hid, stealthily, only to come back
later. The US and Europe intuitively built a new elaborate type of dictatorship. The state delegated the
functions of surveillance, persecution, isolation and judgment to society. Initially, it looked very
innocent: fighting against intolerance, defending the mistreated and the oppressed. Noble goals.
But
with time, these values turned into idols, while intolerance of evil transformed into intolerance of a
different opinion. And social media is making things worse. Public opinion is now a repressive machine
that gangs up on people, booing and destroying anyone who dares to challenge its value system and moral
compass.
The staff members of this repressive machine do not wear uniforms, they don't carry batons or tasers,
but they have other weapons, such as herd instinct and groupthink, as well as deep insecurities and a
desire to dominate – at least intellectually.
Psychological abuse is one of their classic methods, as they exploit a person's fear of ending up
alone against a crowd. Instead of a prison cell or a concentration camp, they put people in social
isolation. They can even prevent the victim from being employed – classic state repression of an
individual.
In a Nazi state, a creative type such as Lars von Trier could lose his job and life over his
"degenerate art." In the beautiful modern state that people with beautiful faces are building, a Lars von
Trier could lose his job, because he can be a politically incorrect troll who sometimes supports the
wrong value system. And a Robert Lepage won't get funding for his new theatrical production, because all
the parts in the previous one were played by white actors.
You no longer need to take their lives.
Without work, the geniuses will fade into obscurity, and the
new PC brigade will make them kneel in solidarity. Individually, members of these combat units of
political correctness are often smart and sophisticated people, but when they close ranks in the fight
for or against something, they turn into an ignorant and aggressive mob.
And there's no point arguing with them. They have only one criterion: are you with us or not? That's
an ideal tool for the new way of abusing individuals – it's not physical, it's psychological.
China has been testing a new system in several provinces via which the citizens and their community
are encouraged to assess the social behavior of individuals by assigning scores for respecting the rules
and values practiced in this society. If you don't achieve a high score, your ranking is low and your
prospects are limited. Isn't this just perfect for the new stormtroopers?! It's a modern reincarnation of
the Munich gang, when a mediocre, covetous burgher pretends to be a civilized, progressive thinker.
They put labels on everyone who disagrees. They love drama and straightforwardness. But they are
incapable of engaging in rational argument. It's only natural that they began with declaring lofty values
and ended with riots. They have started fires and justified arson. But you can't rein in the freedom to
love or hate using a set of rules established by the new ethics committee. Today, being free means being
outside this mob of attacking, hating, condemning, moralizing, angry hypocrites.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely
those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Konstantin Bogomolov is an award-winning Russian theater director, actor, author and
poet.
And those corporations and CIA financed entity asks readers for donations?
Notable quotes:
"... Amamou briefly served as secretary of state for sport and youth in Tunisia's transitional government, before later resigning. He noted that Maher traveled to the country several times since the Arab Spring protests broke out in 2011, and he found it strange that her affiliations kept changing. ..."
"... Katherine Maher is probably a CIA agent. She's been in Tunisia multiple times since 2011 under multiple affiliations ..."
"... Maher spoke about the libertarian philosophy behind Wikipedia, echoing the Ayn Randian ideology of founder Jimmy Wales. ..."
"... The Grayzone has clearly demonstrated how Wikipedia editors overwhelmingly side with Western governments in these editorial conflicts, echoing the perspectives of interventionists and censoring critical voices. ..."
"... The moderator of the discussion, Mattias Fyrenius, the CEO of the Nobel Prize's media arm, asked Maher: "There is some kind of information war going on – and maybe you can say that there is a war going on between the lies, and the propaganda, and the facts, and maybe truth – do you agree?" ..."
"... "Yes," Maher responded in agreement. She added her own question: "What are the institutions, what is the obligation of institutions to actually think about what the future looks like, if we actually want to pass through this period with our integrity intact?" ..."
"... Like Maher's former employer the National Democratic Institute, the OPT advances US imperial interests in the guise of promoting "internet freedom" and new technologies. It also provides large grants to opposition groups in foreign nations targeted by Washington for regime change. ..."
"... While she serves today as the executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, Katherine Maher remains a fellow at the Truman National Security Project, a Washington, DC think tank that grooms former military and intelligence professionals for careers in Democratic Party politics. ..."
"... As The Grayzone's Max Blumenthal reported, the most prominent fellow of the Truman Project is Pete Buttigieg, the US Naval intelligence veteran who emerged as a presidential frontrunner in the Democratic primary earlier this year. ..."
"... The extensive participation by the head of the Wikimedia Foundation in US government regime-change networks raises serious questions about the organization's commitment to neutrality. ..."
"... Perhaps the unchecked problem of political bias and coordinated smear campaigns by a small coterie of Wikipedia editors is not a bug, but a deliberately conceived feature of the website. ..."
Wikipedia has become a bulletin board for corporate and imperial interests under the watch
of its Randian founder, Jimmy Wales, and the veteran US regime-change operative who heads the
Wikimedia Foundation, Katherine Maher.
Born from seemingly humble beginnings, the Wikimedia Foundation is today swimming in cash
and invested in many of the powerful interests that benefit from its lax editorial policy.
The foundation's largest donors include corporate
tech giants Google, Microsoft, Apple, and Craigslist. With more than $145 million
in assets in 2018, nearly $105 million in annual revenue, and a massive headquarters in San
Francisco, Wikimedia has carved out a space for itself next to these Big Tech oligarchs in the
Silicon Valley bubble.
It is also impossible to separate Wikipedia as a project from the
ideology of its creator. When he co-founded the platform in 2001, Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales was a
conservative
libertarian and devoted disciple of right-wing fanatic
Ayn Rand .
A former futures and options trader, Wales openly preached the gospel of " Objectivism ," Rand's
ultra-capitalist ideology that sees government and society itself as the root of all evil,
heralding individual capitalists as gods.
Wales described his philosophy behind Wikipedia in specifically Randian terms. In a video
clip from a 2008 interview, published by the Atlas Society, an organization dedicated to
evangelizing on behalf of Objectivism, Wales explained that he was influenced by Howard Roark,
the protagonist of Rand's novel The Fountainhead.
Wikipedia's structure was expressly meant to reflect the ideology of its libertarian tech
entrepreneur founder, and Wales openly said as much.
At the same time, however, Wikipedia editors have upheld the diehard Objectivist Jimmy
Wales, as the New York Times put it in 2008, as a "benevolent dictator, constitutional monarch,
digital evangelist and spiritual leader."
Wales has always balanced his libertarian inclinations with old-fashioned American
patriotism. He was summoned before the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government
Operations in 2007 to further explain how Wikipedia and its related technologies could be of
service to Uncle Sam.
Wales began his remarks stating, "I am grateful to be here today to testify about the
potential for the Wikipedia model of collaboration and information sharing which may be helpful
to government operations and homeland security."
"At a time when the United States has been increasingly criticized around the world, I
believe that Wikipedia is an incredible carrier of traditional American values of generosity,
hard work, and freedom of speech," Wales continued, implicitly referencing the George Bush
administration's military occupation of Iraq.
The Wikipedia founder added, "The US government has always been premised on responsiveness
to citizens, and I think we all believe good government comes from broad, open public dialogue.
I therefore also recommend that US agencies consider the use of wikis for public facing
projects to gather information from citizens and to seek new ways of effectively collaborating
with the public to generate solutions to the problem that citizens face."
Wikipedia Jimmy Wales Senate Homeland Security committee Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales
testifying before the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Operations in
2007 In 2012, Wales married Kate Garvey, the former diary secretary of ex-British Prime
Minister Tony Blair. Their wedding, according to the conservative UK Telegraph, was "witnessed
by guests from the world of politics and celebrity."
Wales' status-quo-friendly politics have only grown more pronounced over the years. In 2018,
for instance, he publicly cheered on Israel's bombing of the besieged Gaza strip and portrayed
Britain's leftist former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn as an anti-Semite.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Katherine Maher: US regime-change operative with deep corporate
links Jimmy Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation claim to have little power over the encyclopedia
itself, but it is widely known that this is just PR. Wikimedia blew the lid off this myth in
2015 when it removed a community-elected member of its board of trustees, without
explanation.
At the time of this scandal, the Wikimedia Foundation's board of trustees included a former
corporate executive at Google, Arnnon Geshuri, who was heavily scrutinized for shady hiring
practices. Geshuri, who also worked at billionaire Elon Musk's company Tesla, was eventually
pressured to step down from the board.
But just a year later, Wikimedia appointed another corporate executive to its board of
trustees, Gizmodo Media Group CEO Raju Narisetti.
The figure that deserves the most scrutiny at the Wikimedia Foundation, however, is its
executive director Katherine Maher, who is closely linked to the US regime-change network.
Katherine Maher NDI Atlantic Council Wikimedia Foundation CEO Katherine Maher (right) at a
"Disinformation Forum" sponsored by the US government regime-change entity NDI and the NATO-
and Gulf monarchy-backed Atlantic Council Maher boasts an eyebrow-raising résumé
that would impress the most ardent of cold warriors in Washington.
With a degree in Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies from New York University, Maher studied
Arabic in Egypt and Syria, just a few years before the so-called Arab Spring uprising and
subsequent Western proxy war to overthrow the Syrian government.
Maher then interned at the bank Goldman Sachs, as well as the Council on Foreign Relations
and Eurasia Group, both elite foreign-policy institutions that are deeply embedded in the
Western regime-change machine.
At the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Maher says on her public LinkedIn profile that
she worked in the "US/Middle East Program," oversaw the "CFR Corporate Program," and
"Identified appropriate potential clients, conducted outreach."
At the Eurasia Group, Maher focused on Syria and Lebanon. According to her bio, she
"Developed stability forecasting and scenario modeling, and market and political stability
reports."
Katherine Maher LinkedIn Council on Foreign Relations Eurasia Group
Maher moved on to a job at London's HSBC bank – which would go on to pay a whopping
$1.9 billion fine after it was caught red-handed laundering money for drug traffickers and
Saudi financiers of international jihadism. Her work at HSBC brought her to the UK, Germany,
and Canada.
Next, Maher co-founded a little-known election monitoring project focused on Lebanon's 2008
elections called Sharek961. To create this platform, Maher and her associates partnered with an
influential technology non-profit organization, Meedan, which has received millions of dollars
of funding from Western foundations, large corporations like IBM, and the permanent monarchy of
Qatar.
Meedan also finances the regime-change lobbying website, Bellingcat, which is considering a
reliable source on Wikipedia, while journalism outlets like The Grayzone are formally
blacklisted.
Sharek961 was funded by the Technology for Transparency Network, a platform for
regime-change operations bankrolled by billionaire Pierre Omidyar's Omidyar Network and
billionaire George Soros' Open Society Foundations.
Maher subsequently moved over to a position as an "innovation and communication officer" at
the United Nations Children's Fund, UNICEF. There, she oversaw projects funded by the US Agency
for International Development (USAID), an arm of the US State Department which finances
regime-change operations and covert activities around the globe under the auspices of
humanitarian goodwill.
Soon enough, Maher cut out the middleman and went to work as a program officer in
information and communications technology at the National Democratic Institute (NDI), which was
created and financed directly by the US government. The NDI is a central gear in the
regime-change machine; it bankrolls coup and destabilization efforts across the planet in the
guise of "democracy promotion."
At the NDI, Maher served as a program officer for "internet freedom projects," advancing
Washington's imperial soft power behind the front of boosting global internet access –
pursuing a strategy not unlike the one used to destabilize Cuba.
The Wikimedia Foundation CEO says on her LinkedIn profile that her work at the NDI included
"democracy and human rights support" as well as designing technology programs for "citizen
engagement, open government, independent media, and civil society for transitional, conflict,
and authoritarian countries, including internet freedom programming."
After a year at the NDI, she moved over to the World Bank, another notorious vehicle for
Washington's power projection.
Katherine Maher LinkedIn World Bank NDI
At the World Bank, Maher oversaw the creation of the Open Development Technology Alliance
(ODTA), an initiative that uses new technologies to impose more aggressive neoliberal economic
policies on developing countries.
Maher's LinkedIn page notes that her work entailed designing and implementing "open
government and open data in developing and transitioning nations," especially in the Middle
East and North Africa.
At the time of her employment at the World Bank, the Arab Spring protests were erupting.
In October 2012, in the early stages of the proxy war in Syria, Maher tweeted that she was
planning a trip to Gaziantep, a Turkish city near the Syrian border that became the main hub
for the Western-backed opposition. Gaziantep was at the time crawling with Syrian insurgents
and foreign intelligence operatives plotting to topple the government of President Bashar
al-Assad.
Katherine Maher ✔ @krmaher
Planning to go to Gaziantep in a few days. A timely NYT
report from the Turkish-Syrian border:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/world/middleeast/on-edge-in-turkey-as-syria-war-inches-closer.html?pagewanted=2&smid=tw-share
1 12:25 PM - Oct 13, 2012 Twitter Ads info and privacy
See Katherine Maher's other Tweets
Just two months later, in December, she tweeted that was was on a flight to Libya. Just over a
year before, a NATO regime-change war had destroyed the Libyan government, and foreign-backed
insurgents had killed leader Muammar Qadhafi, unleashing a wave of violence – and
open-air slave markets.
Today, Libya has no unified central government and is still plagued by a grueling civil war.
What Maher was doing in the war-torn country in 2012 is not clear.
Katherine Maher ✔ @krmaher
I'm on the plane to Libya. Holy wow, batman.
View image on Twitter 2 3:21 AM - Dec 9, 2012 Twitter Ads info and privacy
Maher's repeated trips to the Middle East and North Africa right around
the time of these uprisings and Western intervention campaigns raised eyebrows among local
activists.
In 2016, when Maher was named executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, a prominent
Tunisian activist named Slim Amamou spoke out, alleging that "Katherine Maher is probably a CIA
agent."
Amamou briefly served as secretary of state for sport and youth in Tunisia's transitional
government, before later resigning. He noted that Maher traveled to the country several times
since the Arab Spring protests broke out in 2011, and he found it strange that her affiliations
kept changing.
... ... ...
Slim Amamou ✔ @slim404 · Mar 13, 2016
Katherine Maher is probably a CIA agent.
She's been in Tunisia multiple times since 2011 under multiple affiliations
https://twitter.com/Wikimedia/status/708438130626408449
Wikimedia ✔ @Wikimedia
Chief communications officer Katherine Maher (@krmaher) named
interim executive director of Wikimedia Foundation.
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/03/11/katherine-maher-interim-executive-director/
Slim Amamou ✔ @slim404
Wikmedia foundation is changing.. and not in a good way. It's
sad, because rare are organisations that have this reach in developing world
2 11:18 AM - Mar 13, 2016 Twitter Ads info and privacy See Slim Amamou's other Tweets
In
April 2017, in her new capacity as head of the Wikimedia Foundation, Katherine Maher
participated in an event for the US State Department. The talk was a "Washington Foreign Press Center Briefing," entitled "Wikipedia in a
Post-fact World." It was published at the official State Department website.
Maher spoke about the libertarian philosophy behind Wikipedia, echoing the Ayn Randian
ideology of founder Jimmy Wales.
When journalists asked how Wikipedia deals "with highly charged topics," where "some
entities – sometimes countries, sometimes various other entities – are often
engaged in conflict with each other," Maher repeatedly provided a non-answer, recycling vague
platitudes about the Wikipedia community working together.
The Grayzone has clearly demonstrated how Wikipedia editors overwhelmingly side with Western
governments in these editorial conflicts, echoing the perspectives of interventionists and
censoring critical voices.
A few months later, in January 2018, Maher appeared on a panel with Michael Hayden, the
former director of both the CIA and NSA, and a notorious hater of journalists, as well with a
top Indian government official, K. VijayRaghavan.
The talk, entitled "Lies Propaganda and Truth," was held by the organization behind the
Nobel Prize.
The moderator of the discussion, Mattias Fyrenius, the CEO of the Nobel Prize's media arm,
asked Maher: "There is some kind of information war going on – and maybe you can say that
there is a war going on between the lies, and the propaganda, and the facts, and maybe truth
– do you agree?"
"Yes," Maher responded in agreement. She added her own question: "What are the institutions,
what is the obligation of institutions to actually think about what the future looks like, if
we actually want to pass through this period with our integrity intact?"
... ... ...
Wikimedia Foundation CEO Katherine Maher in a
panel discussion with CIA director Michael Hayden Hayden, the former US spy agency chief, then
blamed "the Russians" for waging that information war. He referred to Moscow as "the
adversary," and claimed the "Russian information bubble, information dominance machine, created
so much confusion." Maher laughed in approval, disputing nothing that Hayden said. In the same discussion, Maher
also threw WikiLeaks (which is blacklisted on Wikipedia) under the bus, affirming, "Not
WikiLeaks, I want to be clear, we're not the same organization." The former CIA director next
to her chuckled.
Wikipedia Katherine Maher Open Technology Fund US government Wikimedia Foundation executive
director Katherine Maher is a member of the advisory board of the US government's technology
regime-change arm the Open Technology Fund (OPT)
Today, Maher is a member of the advisory board
of the US government's technology regime-change arm the Open Technology Fund (OPT) – a
fact she proudly boasts on her LinkedIn profile. The OPT was created in 2012 as a project of Radio Free Asia, an information warfare vehicle
that the New York Times once described as a "worldwide propaganda network built by the
CIA." Since disaffiliating from this CIA cutout in 2019, the OPT is now bankrolled by the US
Agency for Global Media, the government's propaganda arm, formerly known as the Broadcasting
Board of Governors.
Like Maher's former employer the National Democratic Institute, the OPT advances US imperial
interests in the guise of promoting "internet freedom" and new technologies. It also provides
large grants to opposition groups in foreign nations targeted by Washington for regime
change.
Katherine Maher Truman National Security Project
While she serves today as the executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, Katherine
Maher remains a fellow at the Truman National Security Project, a Washington, DC think tank
that grooms former military and intelligence professionals for careers in Democratic Party
politics.
The Truman Project website identifies Maher's expertise as "international development."
As The Grayzone's Max Blumenthal reported, the most prominent fellow of the Truman Project
is Pete Buttigieg, the US Naval intelligence veteran who emerged as a presidential frontrunner
in the Democratic primary earlier this year.
The extensive participation by the head of the Wikimedia Foundation in US government
regime-change networks raises serious questions about the organization's commitment to
neutrality.
Perhaps the unchecked problem of political bias and coordinated smear campaigns by a small
coterie of Wikipedia editors is not a bug, but a deliberately conceived feature of the
website.
Ben Norton Ben Norton is a journalist, writer, and filmmaker. He is the assistant editor
of The Grayzone, and the producer of the Moderate Rebels podcast, which he co-hosts with editor
Max Blumenthal. His website is BenNorton.com and he tweets at @BenjaminNorton.
Not coincidentally, many of those who use the Antifa vexillum are enthusiastic supporters of
and even volunteer mercenaries fighting with the YPG/SDF in an 'International Freedom
Battalion' which claims to be the inheritors of the legacy of the International Brigades which
volunteered to defend the Spanish Republic from fascism in the Spanish Civil War.
Unfortunately, these cosplayers forgot that the original International Brigades were set up by
the Communist International, not the Pentagon. Meanwhile, despite their purported
"anti-fascism", there are no such conscripts to be found defending the Donetsk or Luhansk
People's Republics of eastern Ukraine against literal Nazis in the War in Donbass where the
real front line against fascism has been. Instead, they fight alongside a Zionist and imperial
proxy to help establish an ethno-nation state while the U.S. loots Syria's oil.
One can find signs and banners saying 'Antifa is for Israel'. The Antifa leadership is
heavily Jewish, and it is hence no surprise that you find them fighting for causes that
benefit Israel.
I rather suspect the Occupy Wall Street movement quickly grew into a hot potato that the
largely Jewish wall street oligarchs wanted to suppress. Americans were fresh off the great
financial crises and obscene bailouts that allowed the big banks to maintain bonuses while
avoiding any culpability for crashing the economy.
The anger of the street was quickly directed to race and gender issues. Conveniently since
it took the heat off the Jewish oligarchy that runs the USA and placed it squarely on middle
class white Americans. (Jews can magically become 'not white' when they choose). Of course,
the idea that some Deli manager in Duluth has more power than a Jewish B'Nai Brith member and
hedge fund manager in NYC is laughable, but with enough dollars and Jewish control of the
media, it was easy to pump race baiting and to let OWS wither away.
The working hypothesis should be that Antifa is already subverted and externally controlled (often for nefarious purposes)
organization, Not that different in principle from Red brigades.
On May 31 st , President Trump (or his people)
tweeted: "The United
States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization." Attorney General,
William Barr,
said: "The violence instigated and carried out by Antifa and other similar groups in
connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly."
Trump and Barr were referring to the Antifascist collective that has supported the ongoing,
international Black Lives Matter (BLM) demonstrations. Mary McCord, an ex-Department of Justice
official, reminds Trump that "no current legal
authority exists for designating domestic organisations as terrorist[s]." At the time of
writing, Trump has taken no action to officially designate Antifa a terror group.
Antifa is a leaderless, direct action platform, making it unusually easy for police,
intelligence groups, and rival organizations to infiltrate and frame for violence. For example,
on the same day that Trump tweeted his wish to see Antifa banned, a livestreamer was forced to
run away after he
incited a New York BLM group to "flip" over a truck before the crowd called him out.
So, let's see how the federal authorities infiltrate, provoke, and subvert.
ANTI-FASCIST ACTION & THE ANTI-NAZI LEAGUE
In Britain, Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) officers "Colin Clark" and "Paul Gray"
(cyphers HN80 and HN126) infiltrated the Socialist Workers' Party and
the Anti-Nazi League between 1977 and 1982. "Geoff" (HN21) raised money for Rock Against Racism
and the Anti-Nazi League in the 1970s, but was an undercover SDS officer. Anthony Lewis ("Bobby
Lewis" HN78) posed as an anti-racist in the 1990s to gather information about Doreen and
Neville Lawrence, whose son, Stephen, was murdered in a racist attack. The Lawrence family
campaigned against the police cover-up of the institutional racism behind their son's death. In
his undercover
role, Lewis had relationships with at least two anti-racist women, Bea and Jenny.
The British group, Anti-Fascist Action, was infiltrated by
the Metropolitan Police's Mark Jenner, who posed as "Mark Cassidy" (HN15). Jenner worked for
the Special Demonstration Squad. Jenner fathered children with a left-wing activist, Alison,
whom he later dumped.
In the US in 2001, it was alleged that the former Roman Catholic priest and anti-fascist,
Bill Wassmuth, was a de facto double-agent, using his Northwest Coalition Against
Malicious Harassment (NWCAMH) as a front to spy on Antifa. Following attacks against Idaho's
Anti-Racist Action (ACA) by a splinter of the racist Aryan Nations, it was alleged that
Wassmuth, who died in 2002, had used his sympathies with ACA as a pretext to gather information
later shared with the police. Disclosure suggests that Wassmuth passed
faxes, flyers, and letters on to Coeur d'Alene's Police Chief, Dave Scates.
It would also appear that Wassmuth worked wittingly or unwittingly with an FBI informant.
Activist and author Jay Taber writes of the broader left-wing groups with which the NWCAMH was
associated: "planted in the midst of the board of this group of social reformers and opponents
of US foreign policy was an FBI informant," whom the authorities could manipulate because of
her status as an immigrant ( Blind Spots , 2003).
THE GLADIO CONNECTION
After WWII, the US and Britain set up "stay behind" networks to fight the Soviets in case of
an invasion of NATO countries. Broadly known as Gladio, the other objective was to use
far-right and fascist groups in Italy, Spain, and elsewhere as a proxy against the pan-European
left. One alleged Gladio operative, Roberto Fiore, was wanted by the Italian authorities for
questioning over the blowing up of the Bologna railway station, Italy, in 1980: an act of
terrorism which killed 80 people and was blamed on the left. But Fiore was an MI6
asset who went on to mentor British racists, including members of the National Front. The
Thatcher government protected
him from extradition.
Fiore alleges that one Carlo Soracchi ("Carlo Neri" HN104), who was working for the Met
Police's Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), tried to provoke two Antifa activists
into firebombing Fiore's London property. Soracchi was later confirmed to be an SDS spy. In
July 2001, he drove Anti-Nazi League activists to a protest in Bradford, which led to the
infamous riots, as the left clashed with the National Front and the British National Party (led
by Fiore's protégé, Nick Griffin). In 2004, Soracchi attended a protest organized
by the Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers' union, where it was feared that he was passing on
information about activists to industry black-listers. While spying on the Socialist Party,
Soracchi had relationships with at least three lefty women: Andrea, Beth, and Lindsey.
THE BLACK BLOCK
Since the anti-World Trade Organization "Battle of Seattle" in 1999, gangs of young, masked
vandals have descended on international protests, causing divisions between protestors and
police. These are broadly known as the Black Block, in reference to their dress code. Their
leaderless tactics and choice of attire lump them in with Antifa. But time after time, evidence
exposes their followers as agents provocateur .
In 2007, Heiligendamm, Rostock, Germany, hosted the Group of Eight (G8) meeting. Around
80,000 demonstrators protested that month, only to be met with then-unprecedented
state-violence: "pre-crime" raids, arrests, kettling, and eventual prohibition. After the Black
Block caused trouble, the Federal Constitutional Court banned the demonstrations. Weltreports:
"police have admitted the use of black-clad civilian officers during the summit protests."
Witnesses said that the undercover cop "incited to collect stones from the gravel bed of the
Molli Railway." Another said: "he hurled a stone at the fence and called: 'Get on the cops!'".
Statewatch counted at least five black-clad
provocateurs, some of whom were questioned by peaceful protestors about their agendas and
backgrounds, to which they replied in formal German and refused to answer questions.
Also in 2007, the political leaders of the US, Mexico, and Canada
met in the latter country in Montebello, near Ottawa, to discuss the Security and
Prosperity Partnership 2005. Two thousand people gathered at the chateau to protest. Despite
swearing that they were not provocateurs ("[a]t no time did the police of the
Sûreté du Québec act as instigators or commit criminal acts"), the Quebec
provincial police
acknowledged that they had planted at least three, black-clad, masked, undercover officers
among the protestors. Their police-issued boots gave them away. One of the coppers was seen
carrying a rock. Videographer, Paul Manly,
caught one of the undercover cops slapping the face of a riot squad officer.
In 2010, Vancouver hosted the Winter Olympic Games. The Olympic Resistance Network was there
to protest. Constable Lindsey Houghton of the Vancouver Police
described : "people dressed in all black who were encouraging the vandalism." Harsha Walia
described what activists believed was a provocateur: "He was pushing forward and forcing people
into the police."
CONCLUSION: ANTIFA TODAY
After Trump "won" the election in 2016, a young Baja Fresh manager, June Davies ("Tan"),
donned black to join Antifa in Lake Oswego, Portland, Oregon. Within weeks, "Tan" was
working with Portland Sgt., Jeff Niiya, telling him about planned protest routes.
Alberta-based teacher, Kurt Phillips, set up a website, Anti-Racist Canada, to track
far-right groups. But the far-right Rebel Media alleged that Phillips was also an
informant spying on the left. Phillips strenuously denies Rebel Media 's claim that he
was a "member" of Antifa, but in an
interview, Phillips does not deny or even raise the issue of being an informant against
Antifa. The term "member" does not apply to the member-less, leader-less Antifa. It would be
helpful if Phillips could clear this up.
Antifa came out in support of the recent and ongoing Black Lives Matter protests.
Referring to FBI Director, Christopher Wray, the National Security Advisor, Robert O'Brien,
stated: "The president and the attorney general want to know from [Wray] what the FBI has
been doing to track and dismantle and surveil and prosecute Antifa And if that hasn't been
happening, we want to know what the plan is going forward." In early-June, media
reported on "a law enforcement official with access to intelligence" about Antifa.
Also in early-June in Minneapolis, #UmbrellaMan trended on Twitter after a man dressed in
black, carrying an umbrella and wearing a mask, gloves, and boots, was caught by peaceful
protestors breaking AutoZone windows with a hammer shortly before the establishment was set
ablaze. When asked if he is a policeman, Umbrella Man
replied: "Does it matter?" The St. Paul Police Department denies that he's one of their
officers. But it's not just the feds. More recently, @ANTIFA_US
incited violence on Twitter. The fake account was traced to the white supremacist group,
Identity Evropa, and deleted by Twitter.
As usual, the state is the most violent of all the institutions involved. It subverts and
oppresses as methods of its survival. The state typically directs its energy against left-wing
groups while allying with far-right and fascist elements as proxies against progressives. None
of this can be uttered in mainstream media, lest one is accused of conspiracy theorizing.
Grassroots activists, on the other hand, are all-too-aware of these tactics. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: T.J. Coles
It could also be said that not taking the responsibility to ensure who is voted for is not
a type of person who goal is to instill more authority to the government and size really is
more of the problem than voting.
Not voting also does not change the system for in that case the system quickly becomes
filled by those who are hell bent on ensuring the desires of the few become all powerful.
When any country gets to the point where almost more people are employed by the government
than in private sector jobs then you have a problem.
Example which anyone can find.
Nationally, state and local governments employed about 7.4 million full-time equivalent
(FTE) workers in 2014. That's approximately 232 public employees for every 10,000 Americans,
according to Governing calculations of Census survey data.
The only private company that has a large employee base is Walmart at about 1.3 million.
7.4 million people their only way of survival is either from taxes without being done through
a loan or taxes later collected from government taking out a loan.
The plan all along was not just to create competing sides for a vote but also to create a
mass of people who care not to be involved in how government is to become and ran.
The only level needed to be involved is to ensure government doesn't become to big to
eventually stab you in the back while robbing you.
#TermLimitsMatter That is what the people should be on the street protesting for.
The government has already captured without force a part of the population that is willing
to be monitored 24/7 without resistance because of the "Virus Hype". That is the reason the
"Virus" is still being pushed as a threat. It is to ensure those who have been captured
remain so.
Now it appears they are going for the rest of those who might resist such a thing by
allowing violence to flow freely more so than any freedom you think you have.
Eventually both sides will want the "Government" to do something about all forms of
violence. Why do you think there are two forms of violence that is being focused upon? Police
violence and People violence. It is to get both sides to ask for extra government
monitoring.
I always have to go back to the old saying "Be careful what you ask for". It will not be
what you are thinking it's going to be.
Propaganda will tell you the "Truth" and a "Lie" at the same time. It also ushers in a lot
of opinion not only to ensure that the average person can't tell when there are being told
the truth or a lie but also to keep a division going based upon opinions.
It is a "Blood Ritual" and the sides are fighting to see who gets to stab all natural
freedoms in the heart.
I am not trying to tell you how to think. It is your own life and your own choice but damn
it they are trying to kill every form of your choice to believe what freedom really is.
> Peter Dorman is correct about why Trump is in trouble, but there is still
more. Peter Dorman is correct about why Trump is in trouble, but there is still
more.
Won't these riots create a wave of revulsion among the silent majority and consolidate
Trump's support base?
That's what make me wondering: is the faction of the elite driving these BLM riots are
those who support Trump?
Terrify people and threaten the existence of police is a good way to get close to 100%
of elderly voters out of their Covid-19 lockdowns on election day.
Doesn't the fact that pallets of bricks and frozen bottles in large cans were
delivered to the places of protests suggests that Antifa and other groups operating
within the protest movement are actually linked to intelligence agencies?
Is not it easier now for Trump to offload all the destruction of the economy and
Coronavirus recession on Neoliberal Dems which are supporting the rioters?
"... Firstly your definition of 'deep state' is too limited, it includes the bureaucracy, much of the judiciary, banks and other financial institutions, and the major political parties. It is not restricted only to the intelligence agencies. It is not a US-specific issue, but a global one. For the deep state exists everywhere, and is often more powerful in commonwealth countries, such as here in apathetic Australia. ..."
"... When the CIA kills Kennedy you know you've got problems... And whilst agents in the CIA probably did not pull the trigger - their "assets" did... If you don't believe me spare me your tiresome ignorant replies and go and do some research... ..."
"... " We were warned about the Military Industrial Complex, Sadly the Government Media Complex, has done way more damage, and will be much harder to overcome" ~ Dr. Mike Savage 2008 ..."
Sky News Australia In this Special Investigation Sky News speaks to former spies, politicians and investigative journalists to
uncover whether US President Donald Trump is really at war with "unelected Deep State operatives who defy the voters".
George Soros, The clintons, The royal family, The Rothschild's, the Federal reserve as a whole, The modern Democrat, cia, fbi,
nsa, Facebook, Google, not to mention all the faceless unelected bureaucrats who create and push policies that impact our every
day lives. This, my lads, is the deep state. They run our world and get away with whatever they want until someone in their circle
loses their use (Epstein)
The Cabal owns the US intelligence agencies, the media, and Hollywood. That's how all these big name corrupted figure heads
aren't in prison for their crimes. The Clinton email scandal is a prime example. This is much bigger than the USA... it's effects
are world wide.
The Four Stages of Ideological Subversion: 1 - Demoralization 2 - Destabilization 3 - Crisis 4 - Normalization Are you not
entertained? The above is "their" roadmap. Learn what it means and spread this far & wide, as that will be the means by which
to end this.
President JFK on April 17, 1961: "Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared
in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching
troops, no missiles have been fired. If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat
conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of 'clear
and present danger,' then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman
or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies
primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of
elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted
vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic,
intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried,
not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.
It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match." thoughts: by saying,
'conducts the Cold War' did he directly call out the CIA???
Most troubling now it is known about the deep state: is Trump a double agent just another puppet just giving the appearance
of working against the deep state?
Thank you Australians for having rhe courage to speak out for us Patriots!!! We know the Deep State Cabal retaliated with the
fires. We love you guys from 💖💗
Well done Skynews. THE DEEP STATE IS REAL. I woke up 10+ years ago. Turn off the TV for 1-2 years to study and awaken. Make
a start on learning with David ickes Videos and books. WWG1 WGA
Before I go and pass this on to as many as I can get to follow it I just wanted to commend those that produced this and I hope
that it gets fuller dissemination because it is such a rare truth in such a time of utter deceit by most all of the MSM (Main
Stream Media) that this country I reside in uses to supposedly inform the American people ...what a crock! Thank You, Australia
for making this available (but beware, the Five Eyes are always very active in related matters to this) ... This has been welcome
confirmation of what many of us have known and attempted to tell others for about 5 years now. Sadly, I doubt that has or will
help very much, The System is so corrupted from top to bottom ... IMnsHO and E.
Firstly your definition of 'deep state' is too limited, it includes the bureaucracy, much of the judiciary, banks and other
financial institutions, and the major political parties. It is not restricted only to the intelligence agencies. It is not a US-specific
issue, but a global one. For the deep state exists everywhere, and is often more powerful in commonwealth countries, such as here
in apathetic Australia.
When the CIA kills Kennedy you know you've got problems... And whilst agents in the CIA probably did not pull the trigger -
their "assets" did... If you don't believe me spare me your tiresome ignorant replies and go and do some research...
" We were warned about the Military Industrial Complex, Sadly the Government Media Complex, has done way more damage, and will
be much harder to overcome" ~ Dr. Mike Savage 2008
14:20 I met a guy from Canada in the early
2000s, a telephone technician, told me about when he worked at the time for the government telephone company in the early 80s.
He was given a really strange job one day, to go do some work in the USA. Some kind of repair work that required someone with
experience and know-how, but apparently someone from out-of-country, he guesses, because there certainly must have been many people
in the USA who could have done it, he figured. He flew down to oregon, then was driven for hours out into the middle of nowhere
in navada, he said. They came to a small building that was surrounded by fencing etc. Nothing interesting. Nothing else around,
he said, as far as he could see. They went in, and pretty much all that was there was an elevator. They went in, and he said,
he didn't know how many floors down it went, or how fast it was moving, but seemed to take quite sometime, he figured about 8
stories down, was his guess, but he didn't know. He was astounded to see that there was telephone recording stuff in there about
the size of two football-fields. He said they were recording everything. He said, even at that time, it was all digital, but they
didn't have the capacity to record everything, so it was set up to monitor phone calls, and if any key words were spoken, it would
start recording, and of course it would record all phone calls at certain numbers. "So, who knows what they've got in there today,
he said" back in the early 2000s. So, imagine what they've got there today, in the 2020s. I didn't know whether or not to believe
this story, until I saw a doc about all of the telephone recording tapes they have in storage, rotting away, which were used to
record everyone's phone calls onto magnetic tape. Literally tonnes and tonnes of tapes, just sitting there in storage now, from
the 1970s, the pre-digital days. They've always been doing it. They're just much better at it today than ever. Now they can tell
who you are by your voice, your cadence, your intonation, etc. and record not just a call here and there, but everything.
"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled is convincing the world he didnt exist" Credit the --- Usual Suspects ---- That's
the playbook of the "Deep State"
The last guy (denying the deep state's existence) was lying. When someone shakes their head when talking in the affirmative
you can be 100% sure it is a lie (micro expressions 101).
Bitcoin Blockchain
1 day ago
1950–1953: Korean War United States (as part of the United Nations) and South Korea vs. North Korea and Communist China
1960–1975: Vietnam War United States and South Vietnam vs. North Vietnam
1961: Bay of Pigs Invasion United States vs. Cuba
1983: Grenada United States intervention
1989: U.S.Invasion of Panama United States vs. Panama
1990–1991: Persian Gulf War United States and Coalition Forces vs. Iraq
1995–1996: Intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina United States as part of NATO acted as peacekeepers in former Yugoslavia
2001–present: Invasion of Afghanistan United States and Coalition Forces vs. the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to fight terrorism
2003–2011: Invasion of Iraq The United States and Coalition Forces vs. Iraq
2004–present: War in Northwest Pakistan United States vs. Pakistan, mainly drone attacks
2007–present: Somalia and Northeastern Kenya United States and Coalition forces vs. al-Shabaab militants
2009–2016: Operation Ocean Shield (Indian Ocean) NATO allies vs. Somali pirates
2011: Intervention in Libya U.S. and NATO allies vs. Libya
2011–2017: Lord's Resistance Army U.S. and allies against the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda
2014–2017: U.S.-led Intervention in Iraq U.S. and coalition forces against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
2014–present: U.S.-led intervention in Syria U.S. and coalition forces against al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Syria
2015–present: Yemeni Civil War Saudi-led coalition and the U.S., France, and Kingdom against the Houthi rebels, Supreme Political Council in Yemen, and allies
2015–present: U.S. intervention in Libya
Deep State is the "Wealthy Oligarchy", an "International Mafia" who controls the Central Bank (a privacy owned banking system
which controls the worlds currencies). The Wealthy Oligarchy "aka Deep State" controls most all Democratic countries, and controls
the International Media. In the United States, both the Republican and Democrat parties are controlled by the Wealthy Oligarchy
aka Deep State.
A beautifully crafted and delivered discourse, impressive! As a Londoner I have become increasingly interested in Sky News
Australia, you are a breath of fresh air and common sense in this world of ever growing liberal media hysteria!
I have to laugh at the people, including our supposedly unbiased and intelligent media, who said the Russia thing was the truth
when it was nothing but a conspiracy theory. Everything else was a conspiacy theory according to the dems ans the mainstream media..
Wall Street and the banksters control the CIA. One can imagine the ramifications of control of the world via the moneyed interests
backed by James Bond and the Green Berets, the latter, under control of the CIA.
Deep State Powers have been messing with your USA long before your War of Independence . Your Founding Fathers knew , why do
you think they wrote your Constitution that way. Now everyone is always crying about something but fail to realize you gave your
freedoms away over time . The Deep State never left it just disguised itself and continued to regain control under a new face
or ideaology. Follow the money . "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."― Edmund Burke
After the John F. Kennedy assassination the took full power,those who are in power now are the descendants of the criminals
who did it,some of their sons just have a different last name but they are the same family,like George Bush and John Kerry are
cousins but different last name and the list goes and goes.
Council on Foreign Relation is more Deep State than CIA and FBI . The two worked for CFR. CFR tel president whom to appoint
to what positions. Nixon got a list of 22 deep state candidates for top US position and all were hired. Obama appointed 11 from
the list. Kissinger is behind the scenes strings puller also.
Thanks Sky and Peter for bringing this to the mainstream attention, it really is time! Wished you had aired John Kiriakou,s
other claims off child sex trafficking to the elites which has been corroborated by so many other sources now and is the grossest
deformity of this deep state which you can see footage of trump talking about. I am amazed and greatful to see Trump has done
more about this than all other presidents in the last 20 years. Lets end this group. All we need to do is shine the light on them
The CIA are only an intelligence and operations functioning part of the deep state its much more complex and larger than just
the CIA. The British empire controls the deep state they always have it is just a modern version of the old East India Company
controlled by the same families with the same ideology.
https://theduran.com/the-origins-of-the-deep-state-in-north-america/
It's funny how for decades "the people" were crying on their knees about how bad every president was n how corrupt n controlled
they were. Now you've got a president with no special interest groups publicly calling out the deep state n ur still bitching.
U know you've got someone representing the people when the cia n fbi r out to get him. In 50 years trump will be looked back at
with the likes of Washington, Lincoln n jfk. Once the msm smear campaign is out of everyone's brain.
When they start spying on people within the United States and when they used in National Defense authorization act that gave
them a lot of power since after 911 to give them more power now they have Homeland Security which is the next biggest threat to
the United States it can be abused and some of these people have a higher security clearance than the president.... they're not
under control the NSA is one of them you don't mention in here either one is about the more that you don't even know about that
they don't have names are acronyms that we knew about that's why the American people have been blindsided by this overtime they've
been giving all this money to do things... allocation of money they gathered to do this and now Congress itself doesn't know temperature
of Schumer when you caught him saying to see I can get back at you three ways to Sunday I mean he's got some words in this saying
to the president of usa donald trump... basically threatening the President right there.. you can see it's alive and well when
Congress is immune from prosecution from anything or anyone....
"I think in light of all of the things going on, and you know what I mean by that: the fake news, the Comeys of the world,
all of the bad things that went on, it's called the swamp you know what I did," he asked. "A big favor. I caught the swamp. I
caught them all. Let's see what happens. Nobody else could have done that but me. I caught all of this corruption that was going
on and nobody else could have done it."
there is no big secret that CIA is deeply involved in drug smuggling operations...i remember interview with ex marine colonel
who said that he was indirectly involved in such operations in panama...
Attempting to infiltrate News rooms😆😅😂 all those faces you see in the MSM are all working for Cia. In 1967 one of the 3
letter agencys bragged about having a reporter working in 1 of the 3 letter news channel!
Wow this was really good. It's funny you showed a clip from abc of kouriakow and it reminded me how much the news in america
has been propagandized and just fake. I'm 38 and it's sad that these days the news is unpatriotic. Well most . Ty sky news Australia
Why no mention of what facilitates the surveilance? Telecom infrastructure is a nations nerve system and the powergrid its
bloodsystem. Who controls them? That is where you find the head of the deep state!
What people aren't aware of is that Facebook YouTube Twitter Instagram Google maps and Google search are all NSA CIA and DIA
creations and CEO's are only highly paid operatives who are not the creators but the face of a product and what better way to
collect all of your information is by you giving it to them
More please? A subject for another installment regarding the Deep State could be Banking, Federal Reserves and Fiat currencies.
Later, another video could be Russia's success at expelling the Deep State in 2000 after it took them over (for a 2nd time) in
1991. Be cognizant, the Deep State initially had for a short time from 1917 via 'it's' 'Bolshivics,' orchestrated the creation
of the Soviet Union through the Bolshivic take over of Russia from it's independence minded and Soveriegn Czarist led Eastern
Orthodox State. Now, President Trump is preventing a similar Deep State take-over by Intelligence agencies, Corporations and elected
political thugs as bad as Leon Trotsky and V I Lennin were to the Russian Czar. The Soviets soon after their (1917) take-over
went Rogue on the Deep State and therefore the Soviet Union was independent until The Deep State orchestrated it's downfall and
anexation of it's substantial wealth and some territory (1991). More, more, more please Sky News, this video was great!
Amazing, Sky News is the ONLY TV News Service in Australia Trying to deliver true news. Australia's ABC news are CIA Deep State
Shills and propagandists - Sarah Ferguson Especially - see her totally CIA scripted Four Corners Report on the Russia Hoax. John
Gantz IS a Deep State Operative Liar.
Isnt it time to see TERM LIMITS in Co gress and to realign our school education to teach the real history of these unites states?
End the control of Congress and watch the agencies fall in step with OUR Conatitution. No one should ever be allowed in Congress
or any other elected position of trust if they are not a devout Constitutionalist. Anyone who takes the oath to see w the people
and fails to so so should be charged with TREASON and removed immediately. Is there a DEEP STATE? Damn right there is and has
been for many decades. Where is our sovereignty? Where is the wealth of a capitalist nation? Why so much poverty and welfare and
why do communists and socialist get away with damaging our country, state or communities. Yes, there has been a deep state filled
with criminals who all need to be charged, tried and executed for TREASON.
The CIA and Australias Federal police have One main Job/activity to feed their Populations with Propaganda & Lies to give them
their Thoughts & Opinions on Everything using their psyOps through MSM News & Programming...you prolly beLIEve this informative
News Story as well. : (
These people denying a deep state with such straight faces are psychopaths. Unwittingly, or maybe not, Schumer made liars of
them with his comment to Maddow
President Trump is correct. He knows exactly what's going on. The 3 letter agencies are up to no good and work against the
fabric of our nation's founding fathers. It's despicable behavior. Just one example is John Brennan (CIA Director) and Barack
Hussein Obama's Terror Tuesdays. Read all about it on the internet now before it's permanently removed. Thank you for creating
this video.
When was the last time we ever witnessed an American President openly abused continually attacked over manufactured news treated
with absolutely no respect for him or the office his family unfairly attacked and misrepresented etc, etc, that's right never,
which proves he threatens the existence of the deep state as discussed. He should declare Martial Law Hang the consequences and
remove every single deep state player everywhere. Foreign influence? read Israel.
People are so fixated on trumps outspoken Sometimes outrageous demeanor which in my opinion it's just being really honest and
yes he can Be rude at times but when you look at the facts He's the only one that has gone against the deep state! those are the
real devils dressed up in sheep's clothing! Wake up!
You are missing the point. It goes further then intelligence agency working against the people. It's the ultra rich literally
trillionaires like the rothchilds that control the cia etc. That is who trump is fighting. The globalists line gates soros etc.
Frank Speaker Jun 13, 2020 12:53 PM Sweden was once fiercely neutral and social democrat. It
was the pinnacle of human civilisation, a template to copy and aspire too, albeit imperfect as
we humans are.
Sweden has shifted to the right since Palme's assassination, is now on the verge of joining
NATO, increasingly Russophobic, has opened its doors to unchecked migration which is decimating
its culture, politics and safety of its indigenous people. These changes all point very clearly
towards the cuplrit of Palme's murder. Antonym Jun 13, 2020 3:16 AM The murder of a PM without
anyone considering his protection & a strong motive?
Highly suspect: his own Swedish security top might be implicit. If he tells his security detail
to go home, some of them should have hung back a dozen meters. Biggest motive: the CIA. Biggest
interest not to find out the killer: the Swedish deep state. Harvey Jun 12, 2020 9:00 PM The
CIA's war against socialism, or anything that serves the peoples interest has lasted 60 years
now, and we see the results in the USA, the homelessness, the poverty and the desperation of a
vast numbers of the population, and they haven't finished yet, there are more people to fleece
at home and overseas.
The USA is an empire that wants to reverse 500 years of popular emancipation and progress,
and take the people back to squalor, slavery and feudalism. When history is written, not by
them and their liars in Hollywood, it will remembered as one of the worst, most evil empires in
history. tonyopmoc Jun 12, 2020 7:38 PM I have read a lot about Olof Palme in the past. So far
as I remember he was Assassinated by evil people – probably British or American –
MI6? CIA? but I can't remember all the details, but he was probably a nice bloke or they
wouldn't have killed him. I doubt the Swedish did it. They are not like that. A bit of
operation Gladio was it? It seems its back on. Who's next? Dr NG Maroudas Jun 13, 2020 12:24 PM
Reply to
tonyopmoc @Tony Opmoc: "I doubt the Swedish did it. They are not like that".
Julian Assange might disagree: Carl Bildt, a PM who succeded Palme then cooked up the Case
for the Persecution against Assange, is definitely "like that". Many Iraqi, Libyan and Syrian
victims attest to Sweden's complicity in mass murder under such nauseatingly hypocritical
pretexts such as "Liberal Interventions" and "Right to Protect". Sweden is part of a
potentially nuclear Scandiwegia playing anti-Russian NW-passage-suprematist power games in the
Baltic.
"From fire, pestilence and Norsemen may the good Lord protect us" -- prayer by British in
the dark ages and Middle Easterners in the 21st century. John A Jun 14, 2020 11:59 AM Reply to
Dr NG Maroudas Carl Bildt is high up in the Atlantic Council and proven to have been a CIA
informant. gordon Jun 12, 2020 6:35 PM ashkanazi good
goy nazi bad
DID MOSSAD ASSASSINATE ANNA LINDH?
Sweden's popular foreign minister Anna Lindh is the third high-ranking Swedish political
opponent of Zionism to have been murdered since 1948, which raises the question: Was Lindh
assassinated because of her outspoken opposition to Israel's occupation of Palestine?
The late Swedish Social Democrat Prime Minister Olof Palme – murdered in 1986 –
was a pioneer of anti-Israel incitement. He accused Israel of Nazi practices
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/16413
17 0 Reply John A Jun 14, 2020 8:29 AM Reply to
gordon The guy who murdered Anna Lindh sounds exactly like Sirhan Sirhan who 'assassinated'
Robert Kennedy. He was mind controlled and has no recollection of the murder or why he did it.
0 0 Reply snuffleupagus Jun 12, 2020 5:41 PM of related interest:
Ron Unz -- Mossad Assassinations Jen
Jun 12, 2020 9:31 PM Reply to
pasha The point of the article is that the Swedish authorities are uninterested in
investigating the death of a Prime Minister – supposedly the most powerful and most
important person in Sweden – who actually took very seriously for himself the moral role
of being a social crusader and seeker of social justice that Sweden always claims to have.
The reality, as the link to the Elisabeth Asbrink article demonstrates, is that Sweden has a
iong (still ongoing) obsession and love affair with conformism and social repression, evidenced
in having had the world's longest eugenics policy targeting tens of thousands of people, most
of them young women, for "mental disabilities", resulting in their sterilisation from the 1930s
to 1975. Most of these victims were reported to authorities by their families, neighbours and
in some cases by pastors in their local church parishes.
Behind the Social Justice Warrior mask is a nation that has been a de facto police state for
at least 100 years.
There is a counter-insurgence operation ongoing to demonize and hijack the original genuine
leaderless protests sparked by the murdering of Floyd in broad day-light by a gang of
policemen.
In this, the US is an expert, having mastered its expertise through the past Cold War
through its Gladio operations.
If you followed the videos linked by the people and independent journalists through social
media, there were lots of young, and not so, white and black people of various ways of life
demonstrating against policial violence and race hatred instigated to unknown heights in
decades by the current occupant of the WH.
After the first peaceful protests, riots started, riots which we witnessed being started
by police plants and infiltrators, and then followed by usual neighborhood gangs who always
fish in chaos.
The counter-insurgence operation started just after first days of protests, as the
authorities saw this was not a passing phenomena, but merely the drop which filled the glass
of US citizenry stamina to cop with Trump´s presidency´s ravage of the
country.
After some days of riots, some figures, impersonating BLM or Black Panthers started
appearing heading the demonstrations which, by their modeling look, suggested all the way an
intent on hijacking the protests for the political benefit of the Democratic Party, that is
the US establishment. The obvious fake support to the protests by Democrat politicians who
have never done anything for equality and to put an end to policial violence, only comes in
benefit of Trump, whose election was in danger after his disastrous management of the
Covid-19 pandemic in the US left his polls acceptance in thel owest marks. The only way to
save Trump´s reelection was to push the people´s rage to the limit,by the public
summary execution of Floyd, to then push chaos and violence, by the riots started by the
police and infiltrators, so that Trump can appear, since the Democrats appear supporting the
protests, as the only one who could bring "law and order" again, the only way he could win
the election after having proved inept for anything else, except applying fascist methods
needed to counter with the awareness by the people which will take place around September on
that they have been robbed of anything thye had left, this time at armed hand.
US "Antifa" movement, is probably to the real international antifascist movement as the
Democratic Party is to the real international left, a fake built by TPTB to deprestigiate,
demonize and disband the left and genuine protests by justified causes.
"Antifa" allied with the YPG kurds supported by the US in the Syrian war against the
legitimate government of Syria.
No antifascist will ally ever with an Imperialist fascist nation like the US is today
anywhere by whatever reason....As a proof, you could find real antifascists fighting along
the Donbass people which was in the way of being exterminated by the fascist junta unleashed
on them by the US through "color revolution" so called Maidan...
With this, I do not want to say there could not be genuine antifascist people who, by
ignorance or naivety join "Antifa" in the US. With this may happen as with the NGOs, of which
many of us have fallen victims out of lack of information and naivety proper of our youth
days.
Today's false flag operations are generally carried out by intelligence agencies and
non-government actors including terrorist groups, but [unlike in the past] they are only
considered successful if the true attribution of an action remains secret. There is nothing
honorable about them as their intention is to blame an innocent party for something that it
did not do.
Heck US aircraft carriers used to visit HK quite often until recently, even after the hand
over. They anchored in the harbor while thousands of sailors headed to the Wanchai bars,
although after the hand over they anchored in a less visible part of the harbor. China didn't
have a problem.
I doubt China sweats a couple of aircraft carriers when we have large bases in Japan and
South Korea, not to mention Guam.
False conflicts with China, North Korea, Russia and Iran are needed to keep support for
MIC and Security State which cost 1.2 trillion a year.
If the US were serious about confronting China there would be sanctions and not tariffs.
China and US are partners. We sell them chips that they put in our electronics and sell to
us, so we can spy on our people, and they test out our social control technology on their own
people. They clothe us, sell cheap API's for drugs and they invest in treasuries and other US
assets and we educate their young talent and give them access to our research and technology
and fund some of their own research and share numerous patents
U.S. Attorney General William Barr has
blamed Antifa -- a militant "anti-fascist" movement -- for the violence that has erupted at
George Floyd protests across the United States. "The violence instigated and carried out by
Antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will
be treated accordingly," he said.
Barr also
said that the federal government has evidence that Antifa "hijacked" legitimate protests
around the country to "engage in lawlessness, violent rioting, arson, looting of businesses,
and public property assaults on law enforcement officers and innocent people, and even the
murder of a federal agent." Earlier, U.S. President Donald J. Trump had instructed the U.S.
Justice Department to designate Antifa as a terrorist organization.
Academics and media outlets sympathetic to Antifa have argued that the group cannot be
classified as a terrorist organization because, they
claim , it is a vaguely-defined protest movement that lacks a centralized structure. Mark
Bray, a vocal apologist for Antifa in America and author of the book "Antifa: The Anti-Fascist
Handbook," asserts
that Antifa "is not an overarching organization with a chain of command."
Empirical and anecdotal evidence shows that Antifa is, in fact, highly networked,
well-funded and has a global presence. It has a flat organizational structure with dozens and
possibly hundreds of local groups. Not surprisingly, the U.S. Department of Justice is
currently
investigating individuals linked to Antifa as a step to unmasking the broader
organization.
In the United States, Antifa's ideology, tactics and goals, far from being novel, are
borrowed almost entirely from Antifa groups in Europe, where so-called anti-fascist groups, in
one form or another, have been active, almost without interruption, for a century.
What
is Antifa?
Antifa can be described as a transnational insurgency movement that endeavors, often with
extreme violence, to subvert liberal democracy, with the aim of replacing global capitalism
with communism. Antifa's stated long-term objective, both in America and abroad, is to
establish a communist world order. In the United States, Antifa's immediate aim is to bring
about the demise of the Trump administration.
Antifa's nemeses include law enforcement, which is viewed as enforcing the established
order. A common tactic used by Antifa in the United States and Europe is to employ extreme
violence and destruction of public and private property to goad the police into a reaction,
which then "proves" Antifa's claim that the government is "fascist."
Antifa claims to oppose "fascism," a term it often uses as a broad-brush pejorative to
discredit those who hold opposing political beliefs. The traditional meaning of "fascism" as
defined by Webster's Dictionary is "a totalitarian governmental system led by a dictator and
emphasizing an aggressive nationalism, militarism, and often racism."
Antifa holds the Marxist-Leninist definition of fascism which equates it with capitalism.
"The fight against fascism is only won when the capitalist system has been shattered and a
classless society has been achieved," according to the German Antifa group, Antifaschistischer
Aufbau München .
Germany's BfV domestic intelligence agency, in a special report on left-wing extremism,
noted
:
"Antifa's fight against right-wing extremists is a smokescreen. The real goal remains the
'bourgeois-democratic state,' which, in the reading of left-wing extremists, accepts and
promotes 'fascism' as a possible form of rule and therefore does not fight it sufficiently.
Ultimately, it is argued, 'fascism' is rooted in the social and political structures of
'capitalism.' Accordingly, left-wing extremists, in their 'antifascist' activities, focus
above all on the elimination of the 'capitalist system.'"
Matthew Knouff, author of An Outsider's Guide to Antifa: Volume II , explained Antifa's ideology
this way:
"The basic philosophy of Antifa focuses on the battle between three basic forces: fascism,
racism and capitalism -- all three of which are interrelated according to Antifa.... with
fascism being considered the final expression or stage of capitalism, capitalism being a
means to oppress, and racism being an oppressive mechanism related to fascism."
In an essay, "What Antifa and the Original Fascists Have In Common," Antony Mueller, a
German professor of economics who currently teaches in Brazil, described how Antifa's
militant anti-capitalism masquerading as anti-fascism reveals its own fascism:
"After the left has pocketed the concept of liberalism and turned the word into the
opposite of its original meaning, the Antifa-movement uses a false terminology to hide its
true agenda. While calling themselves 'antifascist' and declaring fascism the enemy, the
Antifa itself is a foremost fascist movement.
"The members of Antifa are not opponents to fascism but themselves its genuine
representatives. Communism, Socialism and Fascism are united by the common band of
anti-capitalism and anti-liberalism.
"The Antifa movement is a fascist movement. The enemy of this movement is not fascism but
liberty, peace and prosperity."
Antifa's Ideological Origins
The ideological origins of Antifa can be traced back to the Soviet Union roughly a century
ago. In 1921 and 1922, the Communist International (Comintern) developed
the so-called united front tactic to "unify the working masses through agitation and
organization" ... "at the international level and in each individual country" against
"capitalism" and "fascism" -- two terms that often were used interchangeably.
The world's first anti-fascist group, Arditi del Popolo (People's Courageous Militia), was
founded in Italy in June 1921 to resist the rise of Benito Mussolini's National Fascist Party,
which itself was
established to prevent the possibility of a Bolshevik revolution on the Italian Peninsula.
Many of the group's 20,000 members, consisting of communists and anarchists, later joined the
International Brigades during the Spanish Civil War (1936–39).
In Germany, the Communist Party of Germany established the paramilitary group Roter
Frontkämpferbund (Red Front Fighters League) in July 1924. The group was banned due to its
extreme violence. Many of its 130,000 members continued their activities underground or in
local successor organizations such as the Kampfbund gegen den Faschismus (Fighting-Alliance
Against Fascism).
In Slovenia, the militant anti-fascist movement TIGR was established in 1927 to oppose the
Italianization of Slovene ethnic areas after the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The
group, which was disbanded in 1941, specialized in assassinating Italian police and military
personnel.
In Spain, the Communist Party established the Milicias Antifascistas Obreras y Campesinas
(Antifascist Worker and Peasant Militias), which were active in the 1930s.
The modern Antifa movement derives its name from a group called Antifaschistische Aktion ,
founded in May 1932 by Stalinist leaders of the Communist Party of Germany. The group was
established to fight fascists, a term the party used to describe all of the other
pro-capitalist political parties in Germany. The primary objective of Antifaschistische Aktion
was to abolish capitalism, according to a detailed history of the group. The group, which had
more than 1,500 founding members, went underground after Nazis seized power in 1933.
A German-language pamphlet -- "80 Years of Anti-Fascist Actions" ( 80 Jahre
Antifaschistische Aktion )" -- describes
in minute detail the continuous historical thread of the Antifa movement from its ideological
origins in the 1920s to the present day. The document states
:
"Antifascism has always fundamentally been an anti-capitalist strategy. This is why the
symbol of the Antifaschistische Aktion has never lost its inspirational power....
Anti-fascism is more of a strategy than an ideology."
During the post-war period, Germany's Antifa movement reappeared in various manifestations,
including the radical student protest movement of the 1960s, and the leftist insurgency groups
that were active throughout the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.
The Red Army Faction (RAF), also known as the Baader-Meinhof Gang, was a Marxist urban
guerrilla group that carried out assassinations, bombings and kidnappings aimed at bringing
revolution to West Germany, which the group characterized as a fascist holdover of the Nazi
era. Over the course of three decades, the RAF murdered more than 30 people and injured over
200.
After the collapse of the communist government in East Germany in 1989-90, it was discovered
that the RAF had been given training, shelter, and supplies by the Stasi, the secret police of
the former communist regime.
John Philip Jenkins, Distinguished Professor of History at Baylor University, described the group's
tactics, which are similar to those used by Antifa today:
"The goal of their terrorist campaign was to trigger an aggressive response from the
government, which group members believed would spark a broader revolutionary movement."
RAF founder Ulrike Meinhof explained the relationship between
violent left-wing extremism and the police: "The guy in uniform is a pig, not a human being.
That means we don't have to talk to him and it is wrong to talk to these people at all. And of
course, you can shoot."
Bettina Röhl, a German journalist and daughter of Meinhof, argues that the modern
Antifa movement is a continuation of the Red Army Faction. The main difference is that, unlike
the RAF, Antifa's members are afraid to reveal their identities. In a June 2020 essay published
by the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung , Röhl also drew attention
to the fact that Antifa is not only officially tolerated, but is being paid by the German
government to fight the far right:
"The RAF idolized the communist dictatorships in China, North Korea, North Vietnam, in
Cuba, which were transfigured by the New Left as better countries on the right path to the
best communism....
"The flourishing left-wing radicalism in the West, which brutally strikes at the opening
of the European Central Bank headquarters in Frankfurt, at every G-20 summit or every year on
May 1 in Berlin, has achieved the highest level of establishment in the state, not least
thanks to the support by quite a few MPs from political parties, journalists and relevant
experts.
"Compared to the RAF, the militant Antifa only lacks prominent faces. Out of cowardice,
its members cover their faces and keep their names secret. Antifa constantly threatens
violence and attacks against politicians and police officers. It promotes senseless damage to
property amounting to vast sums. Nevertheless, MP Renate Künast (Greens) recently
complained in the Bundestag that Antifa groups had not been adequately funded by the state in
recent decades. She was concerned that 'NGOs and Antifa groups do not always have to struggle
to raise money and can only conclude short-term employment contracts from year to year.'
There was applause for this from Alliance 90 / The Greens, from the left and from SPD
deputies.
"One may ask the question of whether Antifa is something like an official RAF, a terrorist
group with money from the state under the guise of 'fighting against the right.'"
Germany's BfV domestic intelligence agency explains
Antifa's glorification of violence:
"For left-wing extremists, 'Capitalism' is interpreted as triggering wars, racism,
ecological disasters, social inequality and gentrification. 'Capitalism' is therefore more
than just a mere economic order. In left-wing extremist discourse, it determines the social
and political form as well as the vision of a radical social and political reorganization.
Whether anarchist or communist: Parliamentary democracy as a so-called bourgeois form of rule
should be 'overcome' in any case.
"For this reason, left-wing extremists usually ignore or legitimize human rights
violations in socialist or communist dictatorships or in states that they allegedly see
threatened by the 'West.' To this day, both orthodox communists and autonomous activists
justify, praise and celebrate the left-wing terrorist Red Army Faction or foreign left-wing
terrorists as alleged 'liberation movements' or even 'resistance fighters.'"
Meanwhile, in Britain, Anti-Fascist Action (AFA), a militant anti-fascist group founded in
1985, gave birth to the Antifa movement in the United States. In Germany, the Antifaschistische
Aktion-Bundesweite Organisation (AABO) was founded in 1992
to combine the efforts of smaller Antifa groups scattered around the country.
In Sweden, Antifascistisk Aktion (AFA), a militant Antifa group founded in 1993, established
a three-decade track record for using extreme violence against its opponents. In France, the
Antifa group L'Action antifasciste , is known
for its fierce opposition to the State of Israel.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of communism in 1990, the Antifa
movement opened a new front against neoliberal globalization.
Attac, established in France in 1989 to promote a global tax on financial transactions, now
leads the so-called alter-globalization movement, which, like the Global Justice Movement, is
opposed to
capitalism. In 1999, Attac was present in Seattle during violent demonstrations that led to the
failure of WTO negotiations. Attac also participated in anti-capitalist demonstrations against
the G7, the G20, the WTO, and the war in Iraq. Today, the association is active in 40
countries, with more than a thousand local groups and hundreds of organizations supporting the
network. Attac's decentralized and non-hierarchical organizational structure appears to be the
model being used by Antifa.
In February 2016, the International Committee of the Fourth International advanced the political
foundations of the global anti-war movement, which, like Antifa, blames capitalism and
neoliberal globalism for the existence of military conflict:
"The new anti-war movement must be anti-capitalist and socialist, since there can be no
serious struggle against war except in the fight to end the dictatorship of finance capital
and the economic system that is the fundamental cause of militarism and war."
In July 2017, more than 100,000 anti-globalization and Antifa protesters converged on the
German city of Hamburg to protest the G20 summit. Leftist mobs
laid waste to the city center. An Antifa group called "G20 Welcome to Hell" bragged about how it
was able to mobilize Antifa groups from across the world:
"The summit mobilizations have been precious moments of meeting and co-operation of
left-wing and anti-capitalist groups and networks from all over Europe and world-wide. We
have been sharing experiences and fighting together, attending international meetings, being
attacked by cops supported by the military, re-organizing our forces and fighting back.
Anti-globalization movement has changed, but our networks endure. We are active locally in
our regions, cities, villages and forests. But we are also fighting trans-nationally."
Germany's domestic security service, in an annual report, added :
"Left-wing extremist structures tried to shift the public debate about the violent G20
summit protests in their favor. With the distribution of photos and reports of allegedly
disproportionate police measures during the summit protests, they promoted an image of a
state that denounced legitimate protests and put them down with police violence. Against such
a state, they said, 'militant resistance' is not only legitimate, but also necessary."
Part II of this series will examine the activities of Antifa in Germany and the United
States.
Coram Justice , 34 minutes ago
One can see why Antifa comrades conceal their identities. If in the coming dog days of
summer, the rule: "Nine meals to anarchy," is exceeded, and Civil War-2 breaks out, the
Antifa instigators of violence could be in grave trouble.
Maltheus , 49 minutes ago
Any right-wing group, attempting to do what antifa has done, would have been broken up
long ago. The fact that they've been able to engage in violence, with little to no
accountability, tells me that this is a state-sponsored group.
LightBeamCowboy , 1 hour ago
I had a chance to talk once with a young 82nd Airborne army officer who was fresh back
from a posting in intelligence in Eastern Europe where he had to interface regularly with his
CIA counterparts. He described them thusly: "To a man, they were boneheads."
Iconoclast27 , 59 minutes ago
Operation Gladio would prove otherwise, they use these groups on the left and right for
political purposes, namely to maintain the existing gov't structure.
Operation Gladio - BBC documentary from 1992, they even interview the CIA director at the
time (I believe William Colby? It has been awhile) about their role in these groups
activities.
Drop-Hammer , 1 hour ago
Of course these Antifa rabble are organized and supported by outside benefactors. A young
person with no visible means of support can not travel cross-country or to other countries to
'protest' without money. Same holds true for all terrorism. Money is the life-blood. We know
that in the past, it was countries such as the Soviet Union, East Germany, Cuba, et al that
provided money to leftists/terrorists to destabilize western nations and governments. Today,
it is NGO's and individuals with king-pins such as the demonic *** vampire (((George Soros)))
who fund this chaos/mayhem.
LightBeamCowboy , 1 hour ago
...remember that the entire push to take down Trump has been tax-funded. From the FBI and
DOJ, to the Mueller Report, to the Obama White House, to Congress itself, hundreds of
millions of tax dollars have now been spent to obstruct or remove a duly elected president
based on nothing but lies. But when the arrests begin for all the lies, subversion, and
sedition, wait for the Dems to claim that it's all "political", not hard evidence of crimes
these people can be prosecuted for "by the book" as Obama would say.
Iskiab , 1 hour ago
What's most troubling is the widespread democrat acceptance of these tactics. Try and get
a Democrat to say someone's a looter and not a demonstrator, it's next to impossible.
It was also pretty genius to recruit so hard amongst rich white kids. If these autonom
zones or looters were black or poor kids there'd have been a crackdown by now. Instead we
have the police being asked to de-escalate.
It's no wonder police are so confused. They've been trained to control a situation at all
costs for the last 20 years, now it's white kids so they're being told to use different
rules.
Sandmann , 1 hour ago
When the two Brooklyn lawyers get to meet their future in the US penal system it might
create some reality check
Aquamaster , 1 hour ago
Because Democrats are totalitarians as well. They have always had their military wing.
First it was the KKK, who, in fact, killed whites as well as blacks. Now it is Antifa. They
have no problem with radical left wing groups terrorizing the population as long as it will
translate into more votes. They will buy your vote, steal your vote, change your vote, or
coerce your vote by any means necessary.
silverwolf888 , 2 hours ago
It was established in the 80's that Meinhof was Gladio, A creation and asset of German
Intelligence. The goal was to discredit the Ostpolitik movement.
This is an established fact, yet the article attempts to deceive you by ignoring it. The
Red Brigades in Italy were the same, part of Operation Gladio.
Antifa in America has been untouchable since 1986, when Reagan gave the Jews control of
American policy.
Many believe a new kind of Gladio has been in play since that time. Certainly the feds
have worked hand in glove with Antifa for decades.
Now Trump says he wants to designate them a terrorist group. But he only has a few months
left, and cannot get any orders obeyed, and his administration is stocked to the gills with
Globalists.
Perhaps the FBI wants to sever that relationship. It is true that since Comey was fired
the mass shootings that had been happening for decades have stopped. So there is hope.
But this article is deliberate disinformation. Antifa was a Soviet creation to begin
with.
Sandmann , 1 hour ago
Red Brigades were CIA directed to kill Aldo Moro so he would not bring Communists into
Coalition in Rome
Operation Gladio BBC documentary from 1992, all sides are clearly subverted.
TheOutlander , 2 hours ago
Antifa is Zionist *** sponsored fascist organization, period. Their sponsor, Soros, should
be executed first, prosecuted later.
Jacksons Ghost , 2 hours ago
The Feds are not going to do squat. Trump has done nothing to stand up to his enemies in
his whole term. Build Wall=Nope Drain Swamp=Nope indict Hillary=Nope Take on Globalist= Nope
He talked a great game and in the end did nothing. Now granted, he has been hamstrung by
impeachment and his enemies, but at what point does he say "**** it" and lay waste. He has
failed us. I will vote for him again, because the alternative is insane. Still, I am
disappointed.
LightBeamCowboy , 1 hour ago
Even in the above article it talks of these "anti-fascist" groups using the tactic of
goading the police/government into an over-reaction that will turn the public against them.
Trump has wisely left responding to these riots to the local governors and mayors so that
they own the results, not him. There is already evidence that this tactic is turning people
against their Dem elected officials and towards Trump. Q has repeatedly said that sometimes
you have to let people see exactly who these people are before you can win the silent
majority to your side. Antifa and BLM were just handed enough rope to hang themselves -- no
sane American could support them now.
Vernon_Dent , 2 hours ago
There's still slavery in Africa . Now. In the 21st. Century. And it has NOTHING to do with
whitey.
What do all the jive *** BLM hypocrite assholes and cuck boy Antifags have the say about
it?--absolutely nothing.
All those little SJW black and white *** boys should just stick to fellating each
other.
Time to get huge' , 2 hours ago
That's a lot to write when you could have just said CIA/DHS/FBI....It's another ISIS
creation....Originally from:
SoDamnMad , 3 hours ago
Given that our FBI 's main goal is to protect and defend the United States, to uphold and
enforce the criminal laws of the United States but couldn't overthrow the duly elected
President of the United State using their international contacts in the UK, Australia and
Ukraine, how about they find and break antifa before the Republic is destroyed. If the FBI
now finds that supporting Antifa will destroy Trump then they have to ask themselves who in
this broken Republic will pay their salaries and pensions. It will all be gone.
hootowl , 2 hours ago
The FBI is/and probably always has been a broken/unconstitutional national policing
agency, which our founders assiduously avoided providing in the U.S. Constitution, has run
amok ever since the early days of homosexual J. Edgar Hoovers leadership. It will certainly
NEVER become a lawful, trustworthy, agency under Christopher Wray and his cadre of
ne'er'do'wells in the Hoover Building coven of operatives + 17 Deep State
fauxjew/Edomite/Khazarian/Mossad/dominated alleged intelligence agencies.........That is
absolutely preposterous!!!
Antifa exists because elements in government allow it.
recent events should prove that. the mayor of DC all but handed out arms to encourage an
attack on the white house. the mayor of seattle refused to act, and even vowed to protect
protesters if Trump intervenes. in city after city, governments have refused to do more than
observe the violence. search, and there are entire web sites with hundreds of accounts filled
with coordination efforts. there are hundreds of groups and hundreds of millions of dollars
sloshing about.
all of this with a security state that monitors internet chatter, emails, cell calls, and
bank transfers?
antifa, and by extension, the current turmoil, can only be operating with the tacit
approval of certain elements of the establishment.
it is literally impossible for the government to not know what is going on.
Max21c , 3 hours ago
Sorry but Baader-Meinhof does not control the New York City Mayor's office.
This is entirely on a faction of radical screwball left wing Liberal Elites atop and
inside the Democrat Party.
tangent , 4 hours ago
What part of fascism are they supposed to be against? Certainly they enjoy censorship,
randomly beating the **** out of people who have different opinions than they do, and their
headquarters in Seattle shows strong border controls against unwanted classes of people by
warlord Raz who you can only defeat by rap battle.
OTMPut , 4 hours ago
Academics and media outlets sympathetic to Antifa have argued that the group cannot be
classified as a terrorist organization because, they
claim , it is a vaguely-defined protest movement that lacks a centralized
structure.
Ain't Al Qaeda like that? We have developed a a large body of laws and "special judiciary"
procedures to deal with them. We just need to apply them! Who is in favour of a Guantanamo
bay in Portland?
Le Baron , 3 hours ago
Having viewed and studied the Anarchist movement in Europe over several decades, and long
before Antifa showed up as a force in U.S. politics, I have concluded that Antifa is one and
the same as the European Anarchist movement. The Anarchists have a long history in Europe.
Other than chaos and destruction used to promote social unrest, they have no agenda beyond
destruction of whatever government is in power in the areas where they operate. History shows
that, in the few cases where they have successfully grabbed power on a limited basis, the
result is the same as Seattle is now experiencing: creation of a power vacuum into which the
most thuggish and brutal step. The fact that Anarchists/Antifa supporters do not operate in
Communist counties or true Dictatorships is that these power structures do not tolerate
dissent, brutally suppress it and the Anarchist/Antifa supporters know it. To summarize:
unlike true freedom fighters (e.g.: Thomas Payne, Martin Luther King, etc.) Anarchists/Antifa
supporters are cowardly thugs who offer nothing to overall society
nodhannum , 4 hours ago
KKK = democrats with white masks that burn crosses
Antifa = democrats with black masks that burn black businesses
What they both have in common is they are racist and totalitarian. The KKK goes for overt
racism. Antifa goes for the soft sneaky kind of racism of low expectations and the
development of dependency in the group to be subjugated.
Summers Eve , 4 hours ago
Downvoter doesn't like you leaking the truth
Oboneterm , 3 hours ago
How many Black owned businesses around the county were burned to the ground by antifa?
Answer.......All of them.
Commodore 1488 , 3 hours ago
This concept of comparing the Democratic ideology of 1850's to the anarchists/Democrats of
today is FLAGRANTLY false! First off the
Republicans ever since 1865 have empirically controlled America. The Democrats immediately
following 1865 couldn't even hold office. The KKK was a civil defense group when the average
Southerners had no voice after their defeat. The KKK helped to prevent northern extortion
plans, lawlessness, and in general was trying to protect against overreaching aggression in a
post apocalyptic war torn zone.
These anarchists on the otherhand are doing the exact opposite. They are tearing down an
established order with MAYBE a future order in mind. But even if they have a future order in
mind it seems that implementing it against the will of the majority is ok.
Caliphate Connie and the Headbangers , 1 hour ago
The KKK was formed by the southerners who were completely disillusioned by both the
confederates and the Union. Neither one offered anything before or after the war. The wealthy
owned the slaves, 95% of southerners did not own slaves, and after the war now they had even
more competition just to survive. They originally formed the Klan because they wanted to
reimplement the CLAN system, as in the Scottish Clans. Remember the Scots Clans were opposed
to the Union, meaning the United Kingdom and it was only 100 years earlier that the British
destroyed the Clans in Scotland. Most were rounded up and deported to the Americas as slaves
by the Union of the Crowns, The United Kingdom. As kids these Southerners would have heard of
all of it as children from their parents and grandparents. The Clan systems worked for 1000's
of years and provided security and a certain standard of living. We don't have a country
anymore, we just are diverse peoples being controlled and manipulated by
Internationalists.
IvannaHumpalot , 4 hours ago
Dangerous and violent
daily Mail group sent out an email to staff saying they would donate to black lives
matter
Ted Baker , 4 hours ago
another way to sell news..i think they should close the newspaper down or do an
independent enquiry.
Infinite QE , 4 hours ago
E. Michael Jones `The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit'. Can't understand any of this without
that book's wisdom.
Along with many other books the ADL has censored for inordinate truthiness.
Arch_Stanton , 3 hours ago
Jews have served our owners as tax farmers for centuries. "Revolution" is another product
they supply to our owners.
Sparehead , 4 hours ago
"decentralized and non-hierarchical organizational structure appears to be the model being
used by Antifa."
Arch_Stanton , 3 hours ago
BS.
Sparehead , 2 hours ago
I'm not denying that these are well-organized and well-funded largely criminal political
organizations. Just that it's structured in a way to allow its supporters the denial of
support.
Arch_Stanton , 1 hour ago
Yes. They are compartmentalized. Like the Masons, for example.
IvannaHumpalot , 3 hours ago
Thrr Er y have a structure of cells similar to multilevel marketing or Hizb ut tahrir
no official leader or member list For safety
a cell of 5 will have one recruiter / head who reports up to the next cell of five
nobody not in the cell knows the names of that cell and everyone uses fake names
anyway
Just a guess
847328_3527 , 5 hours ago
Anteefer (white kids dressed in black) and BLM burned down a significant portion of the
Bronx in NYC. 83% of the businesses destroyed in the Bronx by these white kids were black
owned.
"Yes we can!"
The black people be played. Keep voting Demorat liberals and that's what you get.
truthalwayswinsout , 6 hours ago
Antifa is the easiest thing in the world to end.
Why?
Because they are spoiled wanna be white brats who live in a dream world created by
activist left of left professors at universities and funded by the Soros crowd.
How do you end them? It can all be done in about 6 months max.
#1 Long term: Create an online university that is very hard and free. All you do is pay
for your exams. From $100 to $400 per exam. Have corporations sponsor special degrees that
are harder than the already difficult base degree. Those corporations would have to hire at
least 200 interns in their 3rd and 4th year of school and for the summer. All students must
work a part time job of at least 10 hours per week. A degree would cost $4000 to $16000 and
no student loans and no debt. Students can live at home or live in dorms for a monthly fee to
experience the social and connection aspect of college. This will bankrupt 95% of the current
private colleges and universities and get 100,000 radical left of left professors without a
job.
#2 Short Term: Cut the amount of funding for college loans by 50%. Almost overnight 1/2
the radical faculty at every school will be fired and 70% of the administrators will be gone
as well.
#3 Put the leaders in jail. The leaders are Hillary and the Half-Breed Muslim ****** along
with Soros and all the rest of the funders. Trump's worst mistake was in not putting Hillary
in jail from the very start of his presidency. As a result, she threw the first brick and now
you have 100's coming at us. Put her in jail where she belongs along with the coup
conspirators and the ****** and freeze all of Soros' money and watch how fast it all
ends.
#4 Take the most vocal of all the Antifa local groups and infiltrate and arrest them and
put them in jail for 30-40-50 years making sure they go to isolated prisons and are locked
down 23 hours per day. 10 or so in jail should do the trick.
What is important is the order you do things. To set the right tone announce the school
first so you can tell all the Woke that school will now be free. Then a month or two later
right before the start of the next school year cut the loan amounts, and then target the
people.
Oh and target just one violent Antifa demonstration and make sure you surround them with
1000's of law enforcement and arrest them all and kill any who violently resist. Then charge
them all with terrorism and try them all with no plea deals and make them and their parents
pay money to defend them. The sucker deal is whoever helps fund their legal defense is now on
the radar for elimination.
Let them go on go fund me and then seize the money raised.
The Atlantic and NYT just announced that Antifa is a grass-roots organization, and
(literally) that anyone who opposes their agenda is by definition a "white supremacist".
So that pretty much clears up the funding source.
Fireman , 7 hours ago
Aunty *** fascists are thugs and murderers. So if Agent Orange is serious about fighting
terrorism in Slumville (he isn't) then why doesn't he outlaw and arrest the filth on the
street and the Soros slash Rothschild filth financing these controlled whore punks?
The answer should be obvious to all who know who financed Orange's white House
sojourn.
Like BLM (Bowel Movements Matter) and the rest of the unwashed masses running riot across
Slumville....it's all part of the Hegelian con to take US all down to the next level of
outright tyranny. But try explaining that to the black shirted mobs and useful braindead
white assed idiots prostrating themselves on the streets in front of skateboard losers and
meth addled clowns.
As Shlomo Gatestein proves over and over again......If it's good for the juice...it's good
enough for everyone else by default.
We are looking at South Africa 2.0 and if the white community does not stop this, the
white community is going to be toast. Going after the attackers is not going to be
productive. Instead, we have to go after the manipulators.
We know where they are
They are over at Channel 3, or wherever your local news and radio stations are. They are on
CNN, and running Twitter, Facebook, Google and all the rest -
They are your city council, raping you for exorbitant taxes, working in secure areas,
leaving secure parking garages and then going home to gated communities.
IvannaHumpalot , 3 hours ago
Daily mail newspaper group is now funding BLM
hugin-o-munin , 8 hours ago
I want to apologize for calling you an idiot, that was uncalled for.
The reason I get upset is because I see the agenda being played out here. There was
recently a report about someone within the Seattle CHAZ area that wielded a machete and that
follows the script perfectly. If the government (in this case Trump) doesn't take the bait
they will switch tactic and start using operatives/patsies like this to force some kind of
resolution. The Soros clan use these types of tactics all the time, it's what they've done
for decades. I just want people to be awake to see it for what it is.
Southerly Buster , 8 hours ago
Gatestone Institute = didn't bother reading.
My theory from the froth and bubble generated by ANTIFA chatter is that they are obvious a
boogeyman for the right or fifth column organisation for the left. Either way they are an
irrelevance.
Keep your eye on those that have the real power.
supermaxedout , 9 hours ago
The article is complete ******** except for the fact that the modern Antifa was created in
Germany appx 20 or 25 years ago. But one can be assured that such a movement would have never
gathered any importance if it would have not been backed up by the Secret Services of the US
and the UK.
You can not let even a political fart go unnoticed by the powers still occupying Germany.
They controll Germany. That is a fact. So the logical conclusion is the US and the UK are
behind Antifa otherwise it would have been eradicated already longtime ago.
The actual conclusion regarding the US is that we see already the start of a Civil War in
the US. Antifa backers in the administration against Trump backers. Its that simple.
hugin-o-munin , 8 hours ago
Antifa is part of a spectrum of movements directly sponsored and funded through NATO and
it's Gladio network. This has always been the case and this article is full of propaganda
bullsh!t. It is well known that the Baader-Meinhof terrorists were directly led and funded by
western intelligence groups. Some people, especially clueless Americans may wonder why and it
is quite straight forward. Europe has since the end of ww2 developed a strong
social-democratic form of political movements which the US is quite afraid of.
Just look at my country Sweden which during the early 60's started very large scale plans
to allow organized labor unions, state funded programs to provide housing, education and
healthcare to everyone. A very socialist sounding program that relied on private capitalist
industries to work. The model proved successful and even profitable overall and this is what
US and UK powers absolutely did not want to see. Germany, France, Italy and many other
countries had similar trends and this is what sparked the Gladio operations to perpetrate
terror inside these countries and provide a reason for the governments to clamp down on these
'communists'.
A big part of the overarching agenda here is to keep in place the separation between
Europe and Russia. Russia today has many faults but it is hardly a communist dictatorship
like China and this is a problem for the mind controllers. It's all about economic power in
the end and all these politically flavored games are all meant to keep people fighting with
themselves. The US very often goes full throttle into things without even thinking and that's
the case right now with the American Antifa movement. They are exposing themselves for the
simple tools they are and I suspect they will get absolutely decimated soon.
webmatex , 8 hours ago
Merkel allows/uses them as push against the new right in Germany which is what her and her
party are afraid of.
They both share Stasi roots.
hugin-o-munin , 8 hours ago
I agree with your point on Merkel but I disagree with the notion that this is/was a Stasi
operation, it was orchestrated and funded by western intelligence. Merkel is now way behind
the curve and what may have worked in the past no longer does. What Antifa is doing in
Germany is actually bolstering AfD who are gaining ground in many Länder. The problem is
that the CDU/CSU are becoming stale and lack ideas. They still have a large portion of the
older generations but younger generations view them as rudderless and clueless. It is the
same in many European countries right now.
hootowl , 5 hours ago
Just another manipulative academic/Deep State/fauxjew dual state/Mossad/ israhell-American
Deep State/intelligence horror for the American people to have to deal with.
Egao , 9 hours ago
Current ANTIFA has nothing to do with pre-WW2 anti-Fascists. Those people were fighting
Fascism and Nazism risking their lives, and not all of them were Communists or even Left. And
history has proven that they were right.
As we move towards next economical and political crisis there will be drift towards
Fascism but modern ANTIFA are just bunch of fight clubs for people looking for thrill.
donkey_shot , 9 hours ago
much as we all should deeply abhor antifa, the gatestone institute is probably even worse:
this is like modern-day nazis criticising modern-day nazis for being modern-day nazis: the
gatestone institute is a far-right, neo-con "think tank" aka propaganda outlet and a known
zionist mouthpiece that has included the likes of john bolton (an architect of the iraq war
and as such a mass murderer) amongst its directors. please, boycott the gatestone institute!
please, don`t print their tripe on zerohedge.
One should point out Capitalists are the ones who came up with Communism and Fascism in
the first place.
All the systems are tools of the elite.
B52Minot , 9 hours ago
In the LEAST it is a GLOBAL TERROR NETWORK no different than ISIS...and any other terror
group that needs not just outlawing but a full disclosure of all of its donors and inner
workings....How about it DOJ/FBI and CIA...and the CONGRESS....Why are you Congress spending
your time on the items related to the Durham Prob when we the people want to know this group
and its relationship to BLM....How about NOW Congress??? Get off your asses and START your
investigation NOW.....and until we see who is/is not being indicted then we can always go
back to the 3+ yr ago issues with the Coup.
Meatballs , 9 hours ago
The stench is pretty thick around Gatestone.
Nina
Rosenwald , President
Naomi H. Perlman, Vice President
Just sayin'
*But wait! There's more! Nina- " She is a member of the Council on Foreign
Relations".Prolly AIPAC too. GTFO with this ****.
Lazy, Tylers. WTF?
webmatex , 8 hours ago
I read these articles purely to keep an eye on neo-con policy making.
Their policies are much more dangerous than Antifa can smoke up.
These articles serve a purpose.
Most of us see thru their stale propaganda.
debunker1 , 10 hours ago
That's funny, a bunch of young unemployed loser/vandal/cowards that live in their parents
basement have become the latest "terrorist organization".
ANTIFA is what you get with massive youth unemployment. Keep letting corporations employ
cheap compliant third world labor, keep pushing young people out of work and ANTIFA is what
you get.
captain-nemo , 11 hours ago
We know they are labeled a terrorist organisation, yet nobody is arrested for it.
We know they uses campuses in schools to recruit people. Yet nothing is done to prevent
and put a stop to it.
we know that they are funded nationally by hundreds of big businesses and also large
political organizations to the left (Democrats), clinton foundation etc. and also
international groups , like Soros and others. Yet nothing is done to stop it (even when they
openly know they are funding a terrorist organization)
we know they have support among mayors, police, governors, senators, congress members of
all parties. Yet nobody is arrested or prosecuted for it.
There are 18 intelligence agencies in America , and they all seems to do nothing. We also
have BARR who is only talking and doing nothing. He recently sais this:
"The violence instigated and carried out by Antifa and other similar groups in connection
with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly,
Still, nothing is happening. Isn't silence the same as compliance??????
notppcperson , 11 hours ago
They want this whole thing to go out of control. They setup the beer virus **** to start
things off. Didn't go as plan. So BLM/Antifa ********.
It's set up either Orange Monkey to declare martial law or someone else to declare marital
law.
WorkingClassMan , 10 hours ago
Hopefully investigations are ongoing behind the scenes. I used to have some measure of
faith in the FBI and DoJ to act least act against low-level groups (if not their child raping
buddies), but even that seems beyond them now.
quanttech , 10 hours ago
faith in the FBI and DoJ??????? loolololololololololololoololoolololo .... Antifa is
likely run by the ******* FBI ffs.
Even J. Edgar's corpse got a laugh out of that one.
WorkingClassMan , 10 hours ago
Hey, I was naive once. I believed in Santa Claus too.
Victor999 , 9 hours ago
They could stop this if they wanted to. So it is much more than 'compliance', it is
complicity: it is control - to create chaos from which their New World Order will arise.
desertboy , 7 hours ago
"There are 18 intelligence agencies in America , and they all seems to do nothing."
Are you f'ing kidding me?
Who TF did you think was passing talking points to the MSM and Hollywood since before the
Church commission?
quanttech , 11 hours ago
...After 1968, the government determined that ONE OUT OF SIX rioters in Chicago 1968 was a
cop or a fed. Who the **** do you think "Antifa" is??? Suckers.
captain-nemo , 10 hours ago
How many people are working in the NSA? Doesn't the NSA have access to pretty much
everything there is that exist electronically? If i were given the job, It would take me a
few days to roll up the entire network and a week to destroy them.
quanttech , 10 hours ago
Exactly.
And yet it doesn't happen.
So who's Antifa again?
Joe A , 11 hours ago
If they are against capitalism, why don't they go after Wall Street, banks, big
corporations, etc. but instead go after small businesses downtown? Small businesses are
easier targets I guess and crimes against them more likely to go unpunished. I guess they
learned from the RAF in Germany: if you go after big businesses and important business people
then you get the full weight of the state on you, as happened with the RAF. But with their
actions of targeting small businesses they only alienate the average citizen.
By no means I want to say they should go after Wall Street, big corporations and business
people. But by destroying Main Street they show what they have in store for everybody should
they ever get into power (God forbid).
Real capitalism btw. is about small businesses, not the rogue capitalism of Wall Street
and big corporations.
G. Wally , 11 hours ago
Hmmmmm...so Germany's political parties seemingly aligned with the US Democratic party
fund Antifa?
"Bettina Röhl, a German journalist and daughter of Meinhof, argues that the modern
Antifa movement is a continuation of the Red Army Faction. The main difference is that,
unlike the RAF, Antifa's members are afraid to reveal their identities. In a June 2020 essay
published by the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Röhl also drew
attention to the fact that Antifa is not only officially tolerated, but is being paid by
the German government to fight the far right :
"The RAF idolized the communist dictatorships in China, North Korea, North Vietnam, in
Cuba, which were transfigured by the New Left as better countries on the right path to the
best communism....
"The flourishing left-wing radicalism in the West, which brutally strikes at the opening
of the European Central Bank headquarters in Frankfurt, at every G-20 summit or every year on
May 1 in Berlin, has achieved the highest level of establishment in the state, not least
thanks to the support by quite a few MPs from political parties, journalists and relevant
experts.
"Compared to the RAF, the militant Antifa only lacks prominent faces. Out of cowardice,
its members cover their faces and keep their names secret. Antifa constantly threatens
violence and attacks against politicians and police officers. It promotes senseless damage to
property amounting to vast sums. Nevertheless, MP Renate Künast (Greens) recently
complained in the Bundestag that Antifa groups had not been adequately funded by the state in
recent decades. She was concerned that 'NGOs and Antifa groups do not always have to struggle
to raise money and can only conclude short-term employment contracts from year to year.'
There was applause for this from Alliance 90 / The Greens, from the left and from SPD
deputies.
"One may ask the question of whether Antifa is something like an official RAF, a terrorist
group with money from the state under the guise of 'fighting against the right.'"
Isn't curious, then, that with all the videotaped violence... who does the FBI (the org
that tried to frame the sitting president and his staff) arrest? Let's LOOK:
The FBI arrested three suspected white supremacists on firearms charges on Tuesday, the
Justice Department announced Thursday. Brian Lemley, Jr., and William Garfield Bilbrough IV,
alleged to be ...
Three men connected to a white supremacist organization are facing federal charges related
to plans ... June 4, 2020 @ 8:21 pm. ... FBI arrests 3 connected to white supremacist group
who were ..."
So these "White Supremacists " had plans " to commit violence...anyone here think the FBI
weren't tracking them, infiltrating them...yet "for some reason" the FBI "could not find"
anyone actually COMMITTING VIOLENCE during this looting and pillaging???
Defund and eliminate the FBI.
How many US MSM journalists called for assassinating the sitting president? How many got
arrested?
Now, we learn donating to BLM means it is transferred to the DNC to elect Democrats! The DNC
was party to TREASON, with the FBI, CIA and NSA as willing accomplices...and what is Barr
doing about it?
"... As author Jim Keith explains, "Create violence through economic pressures, the media, mind control, agent provocateurs: thesis. Counter it with totalitarian measures, more mind control, police crackdowns, surveillance, drugging of the population: antithesis. What ensues is Orwell's vision of 1984 , a society of total control: synthesis." ..."
"... This isn't about racism in America. ..."
"... This is about profit-driven militarism packaged in the guise of law and order, waged by greedy profiteers who have transformed the American homeland into a battlefield with militarized police, military weapons and tactics better suited to a war zone. This is systemic corruption predicated on the police state's insatiable appetite for money, power and control. ..."
The Deep State, the powers-that-be, want us to turn this into a race war, but this is about
so much more than systemic racism. This is the oldest con game in the books, the magician's
sleight of hand that keeps you focused on the shell game in front of you while your wallet is
being picked clean by ruffians in your midst.
It was February 1933, a month before national elections in Germany, and the Nazis weren't
expected to win. So they engineered a way to win: they began by infiltrating the police and
granting police powers to their allies; then Hitler brought in stormtroopers to act as
auxiliary police; by the time an arsonist (who claimed to be working for the Communists in the
hopes of starting an armed revolt) set fire to the Reichstag, the German parliamentary
building, the people were eager for a return to law and order.
Fast forward to the present day, and what do we have? The nation in turmoil after months of
pandemic fear-mongering and regional lockdowns, a national election looming, a president with
falling poll numbers, and a police state that wants to stay in power at all costs.
Then again, it's also equally possible that the architects of the police state have every
intention of manipulating this outrage for their own purposes.
It works the same in every age.
As author Jim Keith explains, "Create violence through economic pressures, the media, mind
control, agent provocateurs: thesis. Counter it with totalitarian measures, more mind control,
police crackdowns, surveillance, drugging of the population: antithesis. What ensues is
Orwell's vision of 1984 , a society of total control: synthesis."
Here's what is going to happen: the police state is going to stand down and allow these
protests, riots and looting to devolve into a situation where enough of the voting populace is
so desperate for a return to law and order that they will gladly relinquish some of their
freedoms to achieve it. And that's how the police state will win, no matter which candidate
gets elected to the White House.
You know who will lose? Every last one of us.
Listen, people should be outraged over what happened to George Floyd, but let's get one
thing straight: Floyd didn't die
merely because he was black and the cop who killed him is white. Floyd died because America
is being overrun with warrior cops -- vigilantes with a badge -- who are part of a
government-run standing army that is waging war on the American people in the so-called name of
law and order.
Not all cops are warrior cops, trained to
act as judge, jury and executioner in their interactions with the populace. Unfortunately,
the good cops -- the ones who take seriously their oath of office to serve and protect their
fellow citizens, uphold the Constitution, and maintain the peace -- are increasingly being
outnumbered by those who believe the lives -- and rights -- of police should be valued more
than citizens.
These warrior cops may get paid by the citizenry, but they don't work for us and they
certainly aren't operating within the limits of the U.S. Constitution.
This isn't about racism in America.
This is about profit-driven militarism packaged in the guise of law and order, waged by
greedy profiteers who have transformed the American homeland into a battlefield with
militarized police, military weapons and tactics better suited to a war zone. This is systemic
corruption predicated on the police state's insatiable appetite for money, power and
control.
This is a military coup waiting to happen.
Why do we have more than a million cops on the taxpayer-funded payroll in this country whose
jobs do not entail protecting our safety, maintaining the peace in our communities, and
upholding our liberties?
This is the new face of war, and America has become the new battlefield.
Militarized police officers, the end product of the government -- federal, local and state
-- and law enforcement agencies having merged, have become a "standing" or permanent army,
composed of full-time professional soldiers who do not disband.
Yet these permanent armies are exactly what those who drafted the U.S. Constitution and Bill
of Rights feared as tools used by despotic governments to wage war against its citizens.
American police forces were never supposed to be a branch of the military, nor were they
meant to be private security forces for the reigning political faction. Instead, they were
intended to be an aggregation of countless local police units, composed of citizens like you
and me that exist for a sole purpose: to serve and protect the citizens of each and every
American community.
As a result of the increasing militarization of the police in recent years, however, the
police now not only look like the military -- with their foreboding uniforms and phalanx of
lethal weapons -- but they function like them, as well.
Thus, no more do we have a civilian force of peace officers entrusted with serving and
protecting the American people. Instead, today's militarized law enforcement officials have
shifted their allegiance from the citizenry to the state, acting preemptively to ward off any
possible challenges to the government's power,
unrestrained by the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment .
For years now, we've been told that cops need military weapons to wage the government's wars
on drugs, crime and terror. We've been told that cops need to be able to crash through doors,
search vehicles, carry out roadside strip searches, shoot anyone they perceive to be a threat,
and generally disregard the law whenever it suits them because they're doing it to protect
their fellow Americans from danger. We've been told that cops need extra legal protections
because of the risks they take.
Militarized police armed with weapons of war who are allowed to operate above the law and
break the laws with impunity are definitely not making America any safer or freer.
Militarism within the nation's police forces is proving to be deadlier than any
pandemic.
This battlefield mindset has gone hand in hand with the rise of militarized SWAT ("special
weapons and tactics") teams.
Frequently justified as vital tools necessary to combat terrorism and deal with rare but
extremely dangerous criminal situations, such as those involving hostages, SWAT teams have
become intrinsic parts of local law enforcement operations, thanks in large part to substantial
federal assistance and the Pentagon's military surplus recycling program, which allows the
transfer of military equipment, weapons and training to local police for free or at sharp
discounts while increasing the profits of its corporate allies.
Where this becomes a problem of life and death for Americans is when these SWAT teams --
outfitted, armed and trained in military tactics -- are assigned to carry out relatively
routine police tasks, such as serving a search warrant. Nationwide, SWAT teams have been
employed to address an astonishingly trivial array of criminal activity or mere community
nuisances: angry dogs, domestic disputes, improper paperwork filed by an orchid farmer, and
misdemeanor marijuana possession, to give a brief sampling.
Remember, SWAT teams originated as specialized units dedicated to defusing extremely
sensitive, dangerous situations. They were never meant to be used for routine police work such
as serving a warrant. Unfortunately, the mere presence of SWAT units has actually injected a
level of danger and violence into police-citizen interactions that was not present as long as
these interactions were handled by traditional civilian officers.
Yet the tension inherent in most civilian-police encounter these days can't be blamed
exclusively on law enforcement's growing reliance on SWAT teams and donated military
equipment.
It goes far deeper, to a transformation in the way police view themselves and their line of
duty.
Specifically, what we're dealing with today is a skewed shoot-to-kill mindset in which
police, trained
to view themselves as warriors or soldiers in a war , whether against drugs, or terror, or
crime, must "get" the bad guys -- i.e., anyone who is a potential target -- before the bad guys
get them. The result is a spike in the number of incidents in which police shoot first, and ask
questions later.
Making matters worse, when these officers, who have long since ceased to be peace officers,
violate their oaths by bullying, beating, tasering, shooting and killing their employers -- the
taxpayers to whom they owe their allegiance -- they are rarely given more than a slap on the
hands before resuming their patrols.
This lawlessness on the part of law enforcement, an unmistakable characteristic of a police
state, is made possible in large part by police unions which routinely oppose civilian review
boards and resist the placement of names and badge numbers on officer uniforms; police agencies
that abide by the Blue Code of Silence, the quiet understanding among police that they should
not implicate their colleagues for their crimes and misconduct; prosecutors who treat police
offenses with greater leniency than civilian offenses; courts that sanction police wrongdoing
in the name of security; and legislatures that enhance the power, reach and arsenal of the
police, and a citizenry that fails to hold its government accountable to the rule of law.
Indeed, not only are cops protected from most charges of wrongdoing -- whether it's shooting
unarmed citizens (including children and old people),
raping and abusing young women, falsifying police reports , trafficking drugs, or
soliciting sex with minors -- but even on the rare occasions when they are fired for
misconduct, it's only a matter of time before they
get re-hired again .
Incredibly, while our own Bill of Rights are torn to shreds, leaving us with few protections
against government abuses, a growing number of states are adopting Law
Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights (LEOBoR), which provide cops accused of a crime with
special due process rights and privileges not afforded to the average citizen.
This, right here, epitomizes everything that is wrong with America today.
As I explain in my book Battlefield
America: The War on the American People , we need civic engagement and citizen activism,
especially at the local level. However, if it ends at the ballot box without achieving any real
reform that holds government officials at all levels accountable to playing by the rules of the
Constitution, then shame on us.
"... You think, should the police go on strike, it will be kumbaya? If the police leave an area who fills the vacuum? This will destroy poor neighbourhoods not make them any better. ..."
Another important excerpt from the liked essay @14 that's highly informative:
"Defining social control as crime control was accomplished by raising the specter of the '
dangerous classes .' The suggestion was that public drunkenness, crime, hooliganism,
political protests and worker 'riots' were the products of a biologically inferior,
morally intemperate, unskilled and uneducated underclass . The consumption of alcohol was
widely seen as the major cause of crime and public disorder. The irony, of course, is that
public drunkenness didn't exist until mercantile and commercial interests created venues for
and encouraged the commercial sale of alcohol in public places. This underclass was easily
identifiable because it consisted primarily of the poor, foreign immigrants and free blacks
(Lundman 1980: 29). This isolation of the 'dangerous classes' as the embodiment of the
crime problem created a focus in crime control that persists to today, the idea that policing
should be directed toward 'bad' individuals, rather than social and economic conditions
that are criminogenic in their social outcomes .
Of course, none of the above is ever related via media when discussing the overall
issue--that it began as a class/immigrant/racial issue is suppressed so the root of the
problem doubly emphasized above is never discussed and is thus another component in the
longstanding Class War. Another input never considered is the many penny press True Crime and
Police Gazette publications that twisted the minds of the gullible during the period from
1880-1930, which today are present in the all too many cop "reality" shows on TV, although
some are now finally being pulled from broadcast.
"Qualified immunity" is clearly unconstitutional as it violates the 4th, 5th, and 7th
Amendments, and has no place in settled law. It will enter the dust bin just as non-majority
verdicts in jury trials did.
vk
, Jun 10 2020 21:30 utc |
34somebody , Jun 10 2020 21:34 utc |
35
Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 10 2020 21:01 utc | 29
I wonder. People usually need the police to feel safe. If the police can feel safe in a
country where everyone may carry a gun or not is another matter.
The manner of the deaths doesn't follow any pattern, said Robyn Small with the National Law
Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. Some officers died responding to robberies or domestic
disturbances. Others were ambushed.
Overall, that's less than last year -- 47 officers were gunned down by the end of 2018,
according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund.
You think, should the police go on strike, it will be kumbaya? If the police leave an
area who fills the vacuum? This will destroy poor neighbourhoods not make them any
better.
Yes, that's a most important point, the WHY behind the formation of police forces.
This multipart
essay details "The History of Policing in the United States" and gives us two key clues:
Policing in the South emerged to enforce slavery, while in the North it evolved much later
primarily as a means of social control :
"In the Southern states the development of American policing followed a different path.
The genesis of the modern police organization in the South is the 'Slave Patrol' (Platt
1982). The first formal slave patrol was created in the Carolina colonies in 1704 (Reichel
1992). Slave patrols had three primary functions: (1) to chase down, apprehend, and return to
their owners, runaway slaves; (2) to provide a form of organized terror to deter slave
revolts; and, (3) to maintain a form of discipline for slave-workers who were subject to
summary justice, outside of the law, if they violated any plantation rules. Following the
Civil War, these vigilante-style organizations evolved in modern Southern police departments
primarily as a means of controlling freed slaves who were now laborers working in an
agricultural caste system, and enforcing 'Jim Crow' segregation laws, designed to deny freed
slaves equal rights and access to the political system....
"More than crime, modern police forces in the United States emerged as a response to
'disorder.' What constitutes social and public order depends largely on who is defining those
terms, and in the cities of 19th century America they were defined by the mercantile
interests, who through taxes and political influence supported the development of
bureaucratic policing institutions. These economic interests had a greater interest in social
control than crime control. Private and for profit policing was too disorganized and too
crime-specific in form to fulfill these needs. The emerging commercial elites needed a
mechanism to insure a stable and orderly work force, a stable and orderly environment for the
conduct of business, and the maintenance of what they referred to as the 'collective good'
(Spitzer and Scull 1977). These mercantile interests also wanted to divest themselves of the
cost of protecting their own enterprises, transferring those costs from the private sector to
the state."
It seems clear the two systems and their rationales merged with the main goal being social
control, not the protections of freedoms and otherwise serving the community as the logo
Protect & Serve implies, unless we look at that logo from the Establishment's POV, for it
then becomes clear who the police protect and serve. When looking at Labor History, it
becomes very clear who police served and protected while totally ignoring the rights of those
they attacked--the Police Riot has a very long and sordid history and certainly attacked
whites more than blacks since the former constituted the greater mass of industrial workers
then and now. However, whites weren't subjected to being hunted down and lynched for sport
and entertainment in ways that evidenced cultural approval for such terroristic acts. Rightly
or wrongly, it's that putrid history that strikes a chord with all people, particularly when
the vastly greater amount of violence used against workers is suppressed and barely studied
in survey US History courses, the curriculum of which is controlled by that same
Establishment wanting to maintain social control.
Sorry, but I must copy/paste another excerpt for this aspect of the Outlaw US Empire's
political history gets very little mention--Tammany Hall usually being the sole example
provided without any details of how it functioned and for whom. New York City wasn't the only
large city where this sort of police-political syndicate arose:
"Early American police departments shared two primary characteristics: they were
notoriously corrupt and flagrantly brutal. This should come as no surprise in that police
were under the control of local politicians. The local political party ward leader in most
cities appointed the police executive in charge of the ward leader's neighborhood. The ward
leader, also, most often was the neighborhood tavern owner, sometimes the neighborhood
purveyor of gambling and prostitution, and usually the controlling influence over
neighborhood youth gangs who were used to get out the vote and intimidate opposition party
voters. In this system of vice, organized violence and political corruption it is
inconceivable that the police could be anything but corrupt (Walker 1996). Police
systematically took payoffs to allow illegal drinking, gambling and prostitution. Police
organized professional criminals, like thieves and pickpockets, trading immunity for bribes
or information. They actively participated in vote-buying and ballot-box-stuffing. Loyal
political operatives became police officers. They had no discernable qualifications for
policing and little if any training in policing. Promotions within the police departments
were sold, not earned. Police drank while on patrol, they protected their patron's vice
operations, and they were quick to use peremptory force. Walker goes so far as to call
municipal police 'delegated vigilantes,' entrusted with the power to use overwhelming force
against the 'dangerous classes' as a means of deterring criminality."
Yes, "organized crime" was developed by the police and their politico allies as further
means of social control and to augment their salaries. Still happens today with the nation's
supposedly most important intelligence agency--CIA--being the most formidable criminal
organization on the planet.
It didn't take very long as an examination of the literature shows the rise of Police came
with the rise of Capitalism and many excellent books exist on the subject, but there doesn't
seem to be much interest in looking beyond one's predilections on the topic. Further proof
cementing that verdict:
"State police agencies emerged for many of the same reasons. The Pennsylvania State Police
were modeled after the Phillipine Constabulary, the occupation force placed in the Philipine
Islands following the Spanish-American War. This all-white, all-'native,' paramilitary force
was created specifically to break strikes in the coal fields of Pennsylvania and to control
local towns composed predominantly of Catholic, Irish, German and Eastern European
immigrants. They were housed in barracks outside the towns so that they would not mingle with
or develop friendships with local residents. In addition to strike-breaking they frequently
engaged in anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic violence, such as attacking community social
events on horseback, under the pretense of enforcing public order laws. Similarly, the Texas
Rangers were originally created as a quasi-official group of vigilantes and guerillas used to
suppress Mexican communities and to drive the Commanche off their lands."
I wonder if those now in control of what's being called the Seattle Commune will form some
type of police or other defense force. According to this
article , the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone will be self-policing. IMO, this development
deserves watching as it's not getting much media attention a la Occupy Wall Street.
Let's not forget the likes of The Baldwin Felts Detective Agency. They are also precursors to
contemporary police. Another excellent movie that speaks to this theme and validates
karloft1's latest post is John Sayles' Matewan . It deals with the Matewan Massacre
which is the precursor to the Battle of Blair Mountain where bombs were dropped from
airplanes on the striking miners. The bombs were left over from World War I. The United
States government supplied aerial surveillance.
Trump has the audacity to pretend he's a friend of the coal miners, or what's left of
them. He's a friend of the owners and The Baldwin Felts Detective Agency or its contemporary
equivalent. You work, Trump doesn't. He's never worked a day in his life. He has no notion of
what work is, but he knows enough to know work is not for him, that it's for you instead as
he and his ilk spit and piss and crap on you.
Last night on the Australian ABC current affairs program "The Drum", the host actually asked
a guest "Is it possible that the USA is becoming a fascist state?".
The guest replied that he thought the USA has been traveling down this path for the last
20 years.
The unusual aspect of this exchange was that a host on an Australian mainstream news
program had the courage to ask such a question at all.
"Is it possible that the USA is becoming a fascist state?".
Not until this happens:
"USURY is the cancer of the world, which only the surgeon's knife of Fascism can cut it
out of the life of the nations." ~ Ezra Pound
If the guest who replied thought the USA has been traveling down this path for the last 20
years, it would follow that the plight of those who are not elites, would be better, not
worse.
The media's Russiagate failures were just a trial-run for the last four months.
June 10, 2020
|
12:01 am
Arthur
Bloom The most effective kind of propaganda is by omission. Walter Duranty didn't cook up
accounts from smiling Ukrainian farmers, he simply said there was no evidence for a famine,
much like the media tells us today that there is no evidence antifa has a role in the current
protests. It is much harder to do this today than it was back then -- there are photographs and
video that show they have been -- which is the proximate cause for greater media concern about
conspiracy theories and disinformation.
For all the hyperventilating over the admittedly creepy 2008 article about "cognitive
infiltration," by Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, it was a serious attempt to deal with the
problem of an informational center being lost in American public life, at a time when the
problem was not nearly as bad as it is today. It proposed a number of strategies to reduce the
credibility of conspiracy theorists, including seeding them with false information. Whether
such strategies have been employed, perhaps with QAnon, which has a remarkable ability to
absorb all other conspiracy theories that came before it, I leave to the reader's
speculation.
Books will one day be written about the many failures of the media during the Trump
presidency, but much of the Russiagate narrative-shaping was related to the broader problem of
decentralization and declining authority of establishment media. One of the more egregious
examples is the Washington Post's
report that relied upon a blacklist created by an anonymous group, PropOrNot, that found
more than 200 sites carried water for the Russians in some way, and not all on the right
either. In fact, if the Bush administration had commissioned a list of news sources that were
carrying water for Saddam Hussein in 2006, it would have looked almost the same as the
PropOrNot list, except here it was, recast as an effort to defend democratic integrity. On the
list was Naked Capitalism, Antiwar.com, and Truthdig.
This should have been a bigger scandal, very good evidence that the war on disinformation
was not that but a campaign against officially unapproved information. But virtually nobody
except Glenn Greenwald objected. There is some evidence that this style of blacklisting went
even further, into the architecture of search engines.
My reporting on Google search last year found that one of the "fringe domain" blacklists
included Robert Parry's Consortium News. In other words, if Google had been around in the
1980s, Parry's exposes on Iran-Contra would have been excluded from Google News results.
The criteria for inclusion on any of these lists are much more amorphous than a more
traditional one: taking money from a foreign power. As of this week, we now have
a figure for how much the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal
have taken from China Daily, a state-run newspaper, since 2016. It's $4.6 million, and $6
million, respectively. This is more than an order of magnitude greater than Russia is thought
to have spent on Facebook advertising prior to the 2016 election.
There are other specific Russiagate disgraces one would be remiss to overlook, like star
reporter Natasha Bertrand, who was hired at MSNBC after several appearances in which she
repeatedly defended the accuracy of the Steele Dossier, which itself was
likely tainted by Russian disinformation. The newspaper that published the Pentagon Papers
defended the outing of a source to the FBI. How David Ignatius, considered America's top
reporter on the intelligence community, can show his face in public after he was allegedly told
by James Clapper to "take the kill shot on Flynn," and then two days later doing just that, is
disturbing (Clapper's spokesman disputes this account, but Ignatius has not). The scoop, that
Flynn, the incoming national security advisor had spoken to the Russian ambassador, is in no
way suspicious, but for weeks was treated as if Flynn was making contact with his handler.
What Russiagate amounts to, as Matt Taibbi among others have written, is the use of federal
investigative resources to criminalize or persecute dissenters from the foreign policy line of
what we here at TAC call the Blob, in the same way that the PropOrNot list amounts to
an attempt to suppress unapproved sources of news.
Many of the same figures involved in prolonging the Russiagate hysteria were also big
cheerleaders for the Bush and Obama wars. Before Russiagate, there was the Pentagon military
analysts scandal, in which it was revealed that dozens of media commentators on military
affairs were doing so without disclosing their connections to the Pentagon or defense
contractors. It implicated Barry McCaffrey, Bill Clinton's drug war czar, who is now an MSNBC
contributor who helped to provide color for the narrative of General Flynn's decline,
suggesting
he was mentally ill after he had initially been supportive of him getting the job.
In a certain sense, Trump provides journalists who have disturbingly cozy relationships with
powerful people a way of looking like they are holding the powerful accountable, without
alienating any of their previous friends. Trump is in fact one of the weakest executives in
presidential history, partly because of the massive resistance to him in the federal workforce,
but also because his White House seems powerless to actually do anything about that. That
people actually think the dark cloud of fascism has descended upon the land when Trump can't
even figure out how to work those levers of power just shows how obsessed with symbolic matters
-- "representation," they call it -- our politics has become.
The subsequent failures of the American information landscape have only served to reinforce
this dynamic. Both the self-inflicted economic catastrophe of the coronavirus shutdowns, and
the recent civil unrest, will serve to concentrate wealth away from the hated red-state
bourgeoise and into the hands of the oligarchs in blue states, including Jeff Bezos, the owner
of the Washington Post . This bears repeating: COVID and the protests will lead to a
large transfer of wealth from a reliably Republican demographic -- small business owners -- to
one that is at best split, which is why you saw Jamie Dimon kneeling in front of a bank vault
this week.
Untangling the question of intent is difficult in the best of circumstances, and the same is
true here. The contrast between news networks ominously reporting on Florida beachgoers a month
ago now cheering on mass gatherings in large cities may not in fact be due to the fact that the
large consortiums that own the networks stand to benefit financially from the continued
shutdown of the country. They may sincerely believe, along with public health
officials , that balancing the risks of institutional racism and getting COVID-19 is worth
discussing in relation to protests, but balancing the same risks when it comes to going to
church or burying a family member is not. Or it may just be studied naivety, like the kind
exhibited a few weeks ago when the whole New York media scene rushed to the defense of the
New Yorker 's Jia Tolentino, who played the victim after people on social media
revealed that her family was involved in what certainly appears to be an exploitative
immigration scam.
The rise of the first-person essay and subjectivity in journalism may turn out to be a
perfectly congenial development for the powerful people in America; Tolentino is great at
writing about herself. For one thing, this is a lot cheaper than reporting; it probably isn't a
coincidence that this development has coincided with a huge decline in newsroom budgets. But at
the same time blaming this on economics feels like it misses the point, because there are many
people who are convinced this trend is good.
But the way it intersects with official corruption has me rather nervous. To give one
example, it seems clear that #MeToo degenerated after the Kavanaugh hearings and Biden's
nomination. And given the apparent loyalties of someone like David Ignatius, he isn't going to
be the one to unravel the intelligence connections involved in the great sexual violence story
of our generation, the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. So we are left with the Netflix version,
slotted right into the typical narrative, in which the Epstein story looks fundamentally the
same as most other stories of sexual coercion, involving a powerful man and less powerful
woman, only with an exceptionally powerful man. And yet there are so many indications it was
not typical.
So it is today with George Floyd as well. It seems like there are perfectly reasonable
questions to be asked about the acquaintance between him and Derek Chauvin, and the fact that
the rather shady bar they both worked at conveniently burned down. But by now most of the media
is now highly invested in not seeing anything other than a statistic, another incident
in a long history of police brutality, and the search for facts has been replaced by
narratives. This is a shame, because it is perfectly possible to think that police have a
history of poor treatment toward black people and there might be corruption involved
in the George Floyd case, which is something Ben Crump, the lawyer for Floyd's family,
seems
to suggest in his interview on Face the Nation this weekend.
Two incidents in the last week, the freakout among young New York Times staffers
over their publication of an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton that has now led to the resignation of
the editorial page editor, and the report by Cockburn that Andrew Sullivan has been barred from
writing about the protests by New York magazine, are a good indication that all of
this is going to get worse. As for the class of people who actually own these media properties,
they will probably find that building a padded room for woke staffers, in the form of whatever
HR and "safety"-related demands they're making, will suit their interests just fine. about
the author Arthur Bloom is managing editor of The American Conservative. He was previously
deputy editor of the Daily Caller and a columnist for the Catholic Herald. He holds masters
degrees in urban planning and American studies from the University of Kansas. His work has
appeared in The Washington Post, The Washington Times, The Spectator (UK), The Guardian,
Quillette, The American Spectator , Modern Age, and Tiny Mix Tapes.
"... Kevin Barrett's political incorrectness recently got him un-invited from a radio program. Here he argues, "The two biggest factors behind the demise of First Amendment America are the rise of identity politics, and the 9/11-launched "war on terror." Identity politics has made political correctness into the monster it has become, but "the dirty little secret" the American public is finally realizing, in spite of mainstream media's deception, is that, "It is not white identity advocates who are instigating the violence at these rallies, but their antifa opponents." ..."
"... The two biggest factors behind the demise of First Amendment America are the rise of identity politics, and the 9/11-launched "war on terror." Identity politics brought political correctness and the fear of offending this or that "disadvantaged" group. 9/11 and the war on terror destroyed America's self-confidence, led to the shredding of constitutional liberties, and created a toxic atmosphere of fear and hysteria. ..."
"... Trump's "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) agenda was in many respects a reaction against America's post-9/11 decline. In reaction to the prevailing leftist identity politics, heterosexual, white, working-class males began asserting themselves, often identifying with Trump and MAGA. Trump's attacks on the U.S. decision to invade Iraq ("the worst decision ever made") and his incoherent but provocative insinuations questioning the official version of 9/11 resonated with a broad segment of the population that vaguely sensed something in America had gone badly wrong. ..."
"... The Chicago Tribune ..."
"... This is the dirty little secret that is slowly leaking out to the American public: It is not white identity advocates who are instigating the violence at these rallies, but their antifa opponents. This was clearly the case at Charlottesville, where the police shut down the pro-Robert E. Lee statue rally, forced ralliers to exit through an antifa mob that had come primed for violence, and then disappeared as the provocateur-driven riot broke out. (For a detailed analysis of the events in Charlottesville, read Political Theater in Charlottesville ..."
Kevin Barrett's political incorrectness recently got him un-invited from a radio
program. Here he argues, "The two biggest factors behind the demise of First Amendment
America are the rise of identity politics, and the 9/11-launched "war on terror." Identity
politics has made political correctness into the monster it has become, but "the dirty little
secret" the American public is finally realizing, in spite of mainstream media's deception,
is that, "It is not white identity advocates who are instigating the violence at these
rallies, but their antifa opponents."
On Thursday, March 8, I was informed that my scheduled appearance the next day on Portland's
KBOO community radio had been cancelled by station management -- over the strong objections of
the host, John Shuck. The reason? Portland's antifa chapter, led by a graduate student named
Alexander Reid Ross, had led a defamation campaign calling me an "anti-Semite," "holocaust
denier," and "conspiracy theorist" who shouldn't be allowed to speak.
Since when could mindless insults shout down free and fair debate based on logic and
evidence? Since when did America become such a fearful place that non-mainstream ideas had to
be silenced rather than refuted?
The two biggest factors behind the demise of First Amendment America are the rise of
identity politics, and the 9/11-launched "war on terror." Identity politics brought political
correctness and the fear of offending this or that "disadvantaged" group. 9/11 and the war on
terror destroyed America's self-confidence, led to the shredding of constitutional liberties,
and created a toxic atmosphere of fear and hysteria.
Trump's "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) agenda was in many respects a reaction against
America's post-9/11 decline. In reaction to the prevailing leftist identity politics,
heterosexual, white, working-class males began asserting themselves, often identifying with
Trump and MAGA. Trump's attacks on the U.S. decision to invade Iraq ("the worst decision ever
made") and his incoherent but provocative insinuations questioning the official version of 9/11
resonated with a broad segment of the population that vaguely sensed something in America had
gone badly wrong.
Many leftists (as well as much of the centrist establishment) view the rise of the
Trump-supporting alt-right as a national emergency. The most extreme among them have joined
antifa.
Antifa shows little interest in critiquing or debating its opponents in order to explain why
they are wrong. It is dedicated to shutting them down, silencing them, making sure they can't
be heard -- using slanderous witch hunts, mindless name-calling, and even violence.
At universities all across America, antifa thugs are physically attacking speakers
identified with the alt-right, and even brutalizing audiences who come out to hear them.
The Chicago Tribune reported on March 14:
"At Michigan State University last week, anti-fascist protesters marched toward the venue
where (Richard) Spencer planned to speak, intent on keeping his supporters out. Fights quickly
broke out, and people were shoved to the ground, punched, and pelted with sticks and dirt. Some
people wanting to attend Spencer's speech were forced back. More than 20 people were arrested,
most of them people protesting Spencer."
This is the dirty little secret that is slowly leaking out to the American public: It is
not white identity advocates who are instigating the violence at these rallies, but their
antifa opponents. This was clearly the case at Charlottesville, where the police shut down the
pro-Robert E. Lee statue rally, forced ralliers to exit through an antifa mob that had come
primed for violence, and then disappeared as the provocateur-driven riot broke out. (For a
detailed analysis of the events in Charlottesville, read Political Theater in
Charlottesville , edited by Jim Fetzer and Mike Palecek, available from Moon Rock
Books.)
How can self-styled anti-fascists be rioting in the street and attacking people to shut down
free speech? Isn't their behavior . . . well, fascist ? After all, fascism is based on
using mob violence to shut down opposition and install a tyranny of one party and one opinion
that tolerates no dissent.
Antifa's violent, authoritarian attack on free speech exemplifies the core essence of
fascism. Other characteristics of historical fascism include: extreme glorification of the race
or nation, scapegoating of internal and external enemies, militarism, and socialism, including
an attempt to replace private bank-issued usury currency with national currency. On all but the
last of these counts, Zionism represents by far the biggest and most dangerous fascist movement
on Earth. Antifa, a subsidiary of Zionism, carries the Zionists' fascist thuggery into the
streets.
As an American loyal to our Constitution, and to our history as a tolerant "melting pot" of
different cultures, religions, and worldviews, I am strongly opposed to most aspects of
fascism. I loathe intolerance, authoritarianism, censorship, racism, extreme nationalism,
militarism, and scapegoating. But I do think some fascists, such as America's greatest 20
th -century poet. Ezra Pound, were right in their critique of usury and their
support for overthrowing the dictatorship of the international bankers. And I think much of the
so-called alt-right consists of patriotic Americans -- not fascists -- who are gradually waking
up to oppose the global Zionist dictatorship in the making sometimes known as the New World
Order.
Oppose fascism; support free speech! I have challenged Alexander Reid Ross to debate me on
the nature and history of fascism. Please urge him to accept my challenge. Email: [email protected]
or Tweet https://twitter.com/areidross.
Kevin Barrett, Ph.D., is an Arabist-Islamologist scholar and one of America's best-known
critics of the War on Terror. From 1991 through 2006, Dr. Barrett taught at colleges and
universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin. In 2006, however, he was attacked by
Republican state legislators who called for him to be fired from his job at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison due to his political opinions. Since 2007, Dr. Barrett has been informally
blacklisted from teaching in American colleges and universities. He currently works as a
nonprofit organizer, public speaker, author, and talk radio host. He lives in rural western
Wisconsin.
Typically, when a black man gets killed he's presented as some kind of angelic hero. I wonder if people knew George Floyd's
criminal history, including breaking into a pregnant woman's home and threatening her unborn child by pointing a gun at her
belly, whether they'd be so willing to abandon their recent hysteria over catching Covid-19 in favour of a virtue-signalling
march.
https://youtu.be/JtPfoEvNJ74
Designate, then decimate Antifa. "The Fascists of the future will call themselves Anti Fascist." Winston Churchill. "Judge a
man not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character." Martin Luthor King Jr. We can see by their actions
that Antifa are Fascists and have no character other than that of psychopathic morons.
AntiFA getting bussed in to burn the city down. Left's narrative : it's white supremacists. Sociopaths use 180 degree lies to
deflect blame And the MSM are complicit.
Don't laugh derisively, as people do these days, but I've always admired the New York Times
. First draft of history. Talent everywhere. Best production values. Even with its ideological
spin, it can be scrupulous about facts. You can usually extract the truth with a decoder ring.
Its outsized influence over the rest of the press makes it essential. I've relied on it for
years. Even given everything, and I mean everything.
Until now. It's just too much. Too much unreality, manipulation, propaganda, and flat out
untruths that are immediately recognizable to anyone. I can't believe they think they can get
away with this with credibility intact. I'm not speaking of the many great reporters,
technicians, editors, production specialists, and the tens of thousands who make it all
possible. I'm speaking of a very small coterie of people who stand guard over the paper's
editorial mission of the moment and enforce it on the whole company, with no dissent
allowed.
Let's get right to the offending passage. It's not from the news or opinion section but the
official editorial section and hence the official voice of the paper. The paragraph from June
2, 2020, reads
as follows.
Healing the wounds ripped open in recent days and months will not be easy. The pandemic
has made Americans fearful of their neighbors, cut them off from their communities of faith,
shut their outlets for exercise and recreation and culture and learning. Worst of all, it has
separated Americans from their own livelihoods.
Can you imagine? The pandemic is the cause!
I would otherwise feel silly to have to point this out but for the utter absurdity of the
claim. The pandemic didn't do this. It caused a temporary and mostly media-fueled panic that
distracted officials from doing what they should have done, which is protect the vulnerable and
otherwise let society function and medical workers deal with disease.
Instead, the CDC and governors around the country, at the urging of bad computer-science
models uninformed by any experience in viruses, shut down schools, churches, events,
restaurants, gyms, theaters, sports, and further instructed people to stay in their homes,
enforced sometimes even by SWAT teams. Jewish funerals were broken up by the police.
It was brutal and egregious and it threw 40 million people out of work and bankrupted
countless businesses. Nothing this terrible was attempted even during the Black Death.
Maximum
economic damage; minimum health advantages . It's not even possible to find evidence that
the lockdowns saved lives at all .
But to hear the New York Times tell the story, it was not the lockdown but the pandemic that
did this. That's a level of ideological subterfuge that is almost impossible for a sane person
to conjure up, simply because it is so obviously unbelievable.
It's lockdown denialism.
Why? From February 2020 and following, the New York Times had a story and they are
continuing to stick to it. The story is that we are all going to die from this pandemic unless
government shuts down society. It was a drum this paper beat every day.
Consider what the top virus reporter Donald J. McNeil (B.A. Rhetoric, University of
California, Berkeley) wrote on
February 28, 2020, weeks before there was any talk of shutdowns in the U.S.:
There are two ways to fight epidemics: the medieval and the modern.
The modern way is to surrender to the power of the pathogens: Acknowledge that they are
unstoppable and to try to soften the blow with 20th-century inventions, including new
vaccines, antibiotics, hospital ventilators and thermal cameras searching for people with
fevers.
The medieval way, inherited from the era of the Black Death, is brutal: Close the borders,
quarantine the ships, pen terrified citizens up inside their poisoned cities.
For the first time in more than a century, the world has chosen to confront a new and
terrifying virus with the iron fist instead of the latex glove.
And yes, he recommends the medieval way. The article continues on to praise China's response
and Cuba's to AIDS and says that this approach is natural to Trump and should be done in the
United States. ( AIER
called him out on this alarming column on March 4, 20202.)
McNeil then went on to greater fame with a series of shocking podcasts for the NYT that put
a voice and even more panic to the failed modeling of Neil Ferguson of the Imperial College
London.
This first
appeared the day before his op-ed calling for global lockdown. The transcript
includes this:
I spend a lot of time thinking about whether I'm being too alarmist or whether I'm being
not alarmist enough. And this is alarmist, but I think right now, it's justified. This one
reminds me of what I have read about the 1918 Spanish influenza.
Reminder: 675,000 Americans died in that pandemic. There were only 103 million people living
in the U.S. at the time.
He continues:
I'm trying to bring a sense that if things don't change, a lot of us might die. If you
have 300 relatively close friends and acquaintances, six of them would die in a 2.5 percent
mortality situation.
That's an astonishing claim that seems to forecast 8.25 million Americans will die. So far
as I know, that is the most extreme claim made by anyone, four times as high as the Imperial
College model.
What should we do to prevent this?
You can't leave. You can't see your families. All the flights are canceled. All the trains
are canceled. All the highways are closed. You're going to stay in there. And you're locked
in with a deadly disease. We can do it.
So because this coronavirus "reminds" him of one he read about, he can say on the air that
four million people could soon die, and therefore life itself should be cancelled. Because a
reporter is "reminded" of something.
This is the same newspaper that in 1957 urged people to stay calm during the Asian flu and
trust medical providers – running all of one editorial on the topic. What a change! This
was an amazing podcast -- amazingly irresponsible.
McNeil was not finished yet. He was
at it again on March 12, 2020, demanding that we not just close big events and schools but
shut down everything and everyone "for months." He went back on the podcast twice more, then
started riding the media circuit, including
NPR . It was also the same. China did it right. We need to lock down or people you know, if
you are one of the lucky survivors, will die.
To say that the New York Times was invested in the scenario of "lock down or we die" is an
understatement. It was as invested in this narrative as it was in the Russia-collaboration
story or the Ukrainian-phone call impeachment, tales to which they dedicated hundreds of
stories and many dozens of reporters. The virus was the third pitch to achieve their
objective.
Once in, there was no turning back, even after it became obvious that for the vast numbers
of people this was hardly a disease at all, and that most of the deaths came from one city and
mostly from nursing homes that were forced by law to take in COVID-19 patients.
That the newspaper, a once venerable institution, has something to answer for is apparent.
But instead of accepting moral culpability for having created a panic to fuel the overthrow of
the American way of life, they turn on a dime to celebrate people who are not socially
distancing in the streets to protest police brutality.
To me, the protests on the streets were a welcome relief from the vicious lockdowns. To the
New York Times , it seems like the lockdowns never happened. Down the Orwellian memory
hole.
In this paper's consistent editorializing, nothing is the fault of the lockdowns.
Everything instead is the fault of Trump, who "tends to see only political opportunity in
public fear and anger, as in his customary manner of contributing heat rather than light to the
confrontations between protesters and authority."
True about Trump but let us remember that the McNeil's first pro-lockdown article praised
Trump as perfectly suited to bring about the lockdown, and the paper urged him to do just that,
while only three months later washing their hands of the whole thing, as if had nothing to do
with current sufferings much less the rage on the streets.
And the rapid turnaround of this paper on street protests was stunning to behold. A month
ago, people protesting lockdowns were written about as vicious disease spreaders who were
denying good science. In the blink of an eye, the protesters against police brutality (the same
police who enforced the lockdown) were transmogrified into bold embracers of First Amendment
rights who posed no threat to public health.
Not even the scary warnings about the coming "second wave" were enough to stop the paper
from throwing out all its concern over "targeted layered containment" and "social distancing"
in order to celebrate protests in the streets that they like.
And they ask themselves why people are incredulous toward mainstream media today.
The lockdowns wrecked the fundamentals of life in America. The New York Times today wants to
pretend they either didn't happen, happened only in a limited way, or were just minor public
health measures that worked beautifully to mitigate disease. And instead of having an editorial
meltdown over these absurdities, preposterous forecasts, and extreme panic mongering that
contributed to vast carnage, we seen an internal
revolt over the publishing of a Tom Cotton editorial, a dispute over politics not
facts.
The record is there: this paper went all in back in February to demand the most
authoritarian possible response to a virus about which we already knew enough back then to
observe that this was nothing like the Spanish flu of 1918. They pretended otherwise, probably
for ideological reasons, most likely.
It was not the pandemic that blew up our lives, commercial networks, and health systems. It
was the response to the virus that did that. The Times needs to learn that it cannot construct
a fake version of reality just to avoid responsibility for what they've done. Are we really
supposed to believe what they write now and in the future? This time, I hope, people will be
smart and learn to consider the source.
I think NemesisCalling nails it here best of all, with keen nuances. I can't hear the sax
without thinking of Bill Clinton, Mr. Mass Incarceration himself, playing on Saturday Night
Live, and seducing black America and its turncoat elite, including Obama, for the next two
decades of neoliberal ruin. The malcontribution to American black society of its
entertainment and sports aristocracy could be fat treatise. So nice to see James Baldwin
getting at the heart of things in his 1965 lecture.
Sorry, Antifa and its KKK tactics – beating people up, trashing the homes of
academics, shutting down discussion on campus – speak for themselves. Goons hardly
better than their sworn opponents.
Anyone familiar with the Church Committee hearings knows that government agencies use
agent provocateurs to corrupt movements from within. Knowing that doesn't prove any of the
claims made herein. Without evidence it's all speculation. Speculation can be fun but when it
gets taken seriously we have idiots shaping the narrative.
many thoughtful observers on the right -- including Ross Douthat ,
Rod Dreher , and
Dan McCarthy -- have pointed out that the current protesting and rioting is likely to help
Donald Trump and the Republicans. That is, the ongoing violence, fomented by leftist elements,
including Black Lives Matter and Antifa, could boomerang against Joe Biden and his
Democrats.
However, the planted assumption here is that the vandals and looters want Joe Biden to win.
And that's not so obvious. Indeed, maybe the truth is just the reverse.
To be sure, the protesters and looters all hate Donald Trump. And yet actions speak louder
than words, and their actions on the street suggest a kind of anti-matter affection for the Bad
Orange Man. That is, each act of violence obscures the memory of George Floyd, who died at the
knee of a Minneapolis policeman, and raises the prospect of a national backlash against both
peaceful protestors and violent looters, offering a ray of hope for Trump.
Indeed, Douthat quotes Princeton political scientist Omar Wasow, whose research shows that
back in the 1960s, peaceful civil rights protests helped the Democrats, while violent
protests (also known as riots) hurt the Democrats. In Wasow's words, "proximity to
black-led nonviolent protests increased white Democratic vote-share whereas proximity to
black-led violent protests caused substantively important declines." And that's how Republican
Richard Nixon defeated Democrat Hubert Humphrey in 1968.
We might add that Humphrey was a lot like Biden. Both were gabby senators turned vice
presidents, regarded as reliable liberals, not as hard-edged leftists.
So now we're starting to see where Biden, a pillar of the smug liberal establishment -- he
once
told a group of donors that if he's elected, "nothing would fundamentally change" -- veers
away from the far-left ideologues amidst the mobs.
Let's let Andy Ngo –who has
shed blood , literally, while chronicling bullyboy leftists -- define the ideology of
Antifa and Black Lives Matter: "At its core, BLM is a revolutionary Marxist ideology. Alicia
Garza, Opal Tometi and Patrisse Cullors, BLM's founders, are self-identified Marxists who make
no secret of their worship of communist terrorists and fugitives, like Assata Shakur. They want
the abolition of law enforcement and capitalism. They want regime change and the end of the
rule of law. Antifa has partnered with Black Lives Matter, for now, to help accelerate the
breakdown of society."
We can observe that by "regime change," these revolutionary leftists don't mean replacing
Trump with Biden -- they mean replacing capitalism and the Constitution. In the meantime, if
one looks at a Twitter feed identified by Ngo as an Antifa hub, It's Going Down , one sees plenty of anti-Trump rhetoric,
along with general hard leftism, but nothing in support of Biden.
However, here's something interesting: The Biden campaign shows no small degree of
support for the street radicals. As Reuters
reported on May 30,
"At least 13 Biden campaign staff members posted on Twitter on
Friday and Saturday that they made donations to the Minnesota Freedom Fund, which opposes the
practice of cash bail, or making people pay to avoid pre-trial imprisonment. The group uses
donations to pay bail fees in Minneapolis."
We might observe that these 13 employees posted their pro-rioter sympathies on Twitter; in
other words, not only did they make no effort to hide their donations, but they also actively
bragged about them.
It could be argued, of course, that these are just 13 vanguard employees out of a campaign
staff that numbers in the hundreds, maybe even thousands. And yet as the Reuters piece adds,
Team Biden is not practicing political distancing from its in-house radicals: "Biden campaign
spokesman Andrew Bates said in a statement to Reuters that the former vice president opposes
the institution of cash bail as a 'modern day debtors prison.'"
When pressed by Reuters -- which is not exactly Fox News in its editorial stance -- the
official spox for Middle Class Joe was unwilling to say more: "The campaign declined to answer
questions on whether the donations were coordinated within the campaign, underscoring the
politically thorny nature of the sometimes violent protests."
So we can see: The Biden campaign is trying to maintain its equipoise between liberals and
mobs, even as the former is bleeding into the latter. Indeed, a look at Biden's Twitter feed
shows the same port-side balancing act. On May 30, for instance, he tweeted , "If we are complacent,
if we are silent, we are complicit in perpetuating these cycles of violence. None of us can
turn away. We all have an obligation to speak out."
There's enough ambiguity here, as well as in his other tweets, to leave everyone parsing,
and guessing, as to what, exactly, Biden is saying -- except, as he
said on June 2, that he opposes the use of chokeholds to restrain violent suspects, and
also opposes more equipment for the police. The only other thing we know for sure is that he
hasn't tweeted an iota of specific sympathy for the people other than George Floyd who have
died in the recent violence. One such is
Patrick Underwood , an African American employee of the Federal Protective Service; he was
shot and killed in Oakland, Calif. on May 29.
Yet while the Biden campaign attempts to keep its relationship with Antifa and its ilk
fuzzy, other Democrats have made themselves clear. For instance, in 2018, then-Congressman
Keith Ellison tweeted
out a photograph of himself holding a copy of a book, Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,
which the radical-chic types at The New Yorkerdescribed as
"A how-to for would-be activists, and a record of advice from anti-Fascist organizers past and
present." Ellison is now the attorney general for the state of Minnesota.
And on May 31, Ellison's son, Jeremiah, a Minneapolis city councilman, tweeted , "I hereby
declare, officially, my support for ANTIFA."
Still, if the Democrats can't quite quit Antifa, most are smart enough to recognize the
danger of being too closely associated with hooligans and radicals. Moreover, they need some
theory of the case they wish to make, which is that they loudly support the protests, even as
they mumble about the violence.
And Democrats have found their favored argument -- the one that conveniently takes them off
the hook. Indeed, it's an argument they increasingly deploy to explain everything bad that
happens: The Russians did it.
Thus on May 31, former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice said on CNN of the
tumult, "In my experience, this is right out of the Russian playbook."
We might allow that it's possible, even probable, that the Russian government has been
taking delight in this spate of violence in America. And it's similarly probable that the
governments of China, Iran, and Venezuela, too, have been pleased, to say nothing of varying
portions of the public in every country. And so sure, more than a few tweets and Facebook posts
have probably resulted -- after all, stories ripping the U.S. were right there, for instance,
on the front
page of China's Global Times .
Still, it's ridiculous to think that hundreds of thousands -- maybe millions -- of Americans
are taking their cues from a foreign power; we've got plenty of home-grown radicalism and
anger.
Yet even so, the Democrats have persisted in their Russia-dunnit narrative, because
it serves their political, and perhaps psychological, need -- the need to externalize criminal
behavior. In other words, don't blame us for the killings and lootings -- blame Moscow.
Okay, so back to Antifa and Black Lives Matter. The left wing of the Democratic Party --
including elements within the Biden campaign -- might like them, but there's no evidence that
they like Democrats back.
Indeed, if the violence keeps up, it will become obvious that the leftist radicals are
not trying to help Biden. To put it another way, the rads would become the objective
allies (a political science term connoting an ironic congruence of interest) of Trump.
To be sure, right now, Trump is running five or six points behind Biden in the
RealClearPolitics
polling average . And yet, just as Dreher, Douthat, and McCarthy suggest, if the violence
continues and Trump goes firm while Biden stays mushy, that could change.
Indeed, as we think of genuine radicalism, we would do well to look beyond the parochial
confines of American politics, Democrat vs. Republican. Instead, we might ponder the epic
panorama of leftist history, which offers radicals so much more inspiration than historically
centrist America.
For instance, we might look to Russia. But not to the Russia of Vladimir Putin , but
rather, to the Russia of Vladimir Lenin .
In the early 20th century, Lenin's Bolsheviks, awaiting their revolutionary moment, operated
according to a simple slogan: "The worse the better." That is, the enemy of Bolshevism was
incremental reform, or progress of any kind; the reds wanted conditions to get so bad as to
"justify" a communist revolution. And that's what Lenin and his comrades got in October 1917,
when they seized power in the midst of the calamities of World War One.
Yes, of course, the communists made conditions worse, not better, for ordinary Russians. And
yet things weren't worse for Lenin and his Bolsheviks -- they were now in power. So today,
that's the sort of dream that inspires Antifa radicals.
To be sure, an America dominated by Antifa and Black Lives Matter is a distant prospect. But
radicals figure that four more years of Trump in the White House will move the nation to even
higher levels of chaos -- and thus move them closer to power.
With all that in prospect for radicals -- that is, the worse, the better -- the
prospect of Joe Biden losing this year is a small price to pay. Actually, for them, it's no
price at all.
In the meantime, for America, there is no better. Only worse.
Antifa can't function without covert support of FBI. That's given.
Notable quotes:
"... According to reporting in a Brooklyn publication from 2013, the "anarchist collective" is run by Elysa Lozano, an assistant professor at LaGuardia Community College who wears her violent extremist views on her sleeve, and Khalid Robinson, a man who according to an interview on an anarchist podcast is the organizer of the Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement in New York City. ..."
"... Robinson, pictured above with Lozano, can be seen wearing an "antifa" t-shirt sold as part of a fundraiser for the "Tinley Park 5," a group of anarchists who were arrested for brutally injuring 10 people in a premeditated hammer attack in the Illinois suburb of Tinley Park in 2012. ..."
"... It is unknown how much criminal activity is planned at this venue, but it is a bug light for left-wing extremists from across the country and abroad. The group uses images of explosions as its logo , and has close ties to the Kurdish terrorist militia in Syria, the YPG, which has provided many American anarchists with military training undoubtedly being used in the riots as we speak. ..."
"... National Justice ..."
"... National Justice ..."
"... National Justice ..."
"... It's obvious from surveillance video that Floyd was dealing drugs out of his parked car on the corner that fateful morning. The cops apprehending him appear nonchalant, quietly going about their business with a routine arrest. Only when Floyd begins physically resisting do things begin to go south. ..."
"... How is Floyd's life worth all this havoc? The guy was a criminal deviant who brought his demise upon himself. He was not a sterling example of a freedom fighter or a high-minded social reformer. He playacted not being able to walk, collapsing on the sidewalk as he was being escorted to the cop car. Went all jelly-legged. Winced when a cop merely steered him by one of his burly arms which, while handcuffed behind his back were obviously not overly constrained. Play acting. Oh, the poor 230 lb. black boy, built like Hercules himself, acting all hurt when an Asian male puts a little directing pressure on his arm. ..."
As American cities burn and people are murdered in the street with impunity by groups
protesting the death of George Floyd, very little reporting has been done on who exactly is
responsible beyond tweets from Donald Trump about the mobs being led by "Antifa" (Anti-Fascist)
-- an umbrella term anarchist organizations use as propaganda when trying to win liberal
support for paramilitary attacks they conduct on nationalist protesters and Trump
supporters.
The mainstream media has played its role in intentionally obfuscating who exactly the groups
inciting the rioting and killing are by claiming "antifa" is not a group, which is a malicious
half-truth. Law enforcement sources, Andy Ngo , and Fox News have identified two organizations as
playing an active role in the carnage: The Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement and The Base
.
These two groups are interlinked, and currently encouraging and organizing the violence in
the New York City area.
Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement and The Base
The Base, whose Facebook page is now explicitly
telling people to commit acts of violence, is an above ground "organizational space"
located at 1286 Myrtle Ave in Bushwick, Brooklyn.
According to reporting in a Brooklyn
publication from 2013, the "anarchist collective" is run by Elysa Lozano, an assistant
professor at LaGuardia Community College who
wears her violent extremist views on her sleeve, and Khalid Robinson, a man who according to an
interview on an anarchist podcast is the organizer of the Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement in New York City.
Robinson, pictured above with Lozano, can be seen wearing an "antifa" t-shirt sold as part
of a
fundraiser for the "Tinley Park 5," a group of anarchists who were arrested for brutally
injuring 10 people in a
premeditated hammer attack in the Illinois suburb of Tinley Park in 2012.
According to Robinson's interview on the "Solecast," he helped start The Base as "a place
for anarchists to meet."
It is unknown how much criminal activity is planned at this venue, but it is a bug light for
left-wing extremists from across the country and abroad. The group uses images of explosions as
its logo , and has
close ties to the Kurdish terrorist militia in Syria, the YPG, which has provided many American
anarchists with military training undoubtedly being used in the riots as we speak.
The front is also an operating space for groups like the NYC Anarchist Black Cross, which is
composed of "antifa" members and used as an above ground way to raise money and write prisoners
letters.
A photograph obtained by open source intelligence shows masked "antifa" members the media
claims don't exist posing in front of The Base.
As for Khalid Robinson's Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement, they do not hide what they are
about. As Fox News' Lara Logan has reported , they believe in engaging in racial violence
against white people and random police officers in the name of overthrowing "white
supremacy."
The group has two flags, one featuring a red AK-47 on a black banner, and another showing a
red star with the acronym "RAM."
An image of masked RAM members posing with shotguns, AK-47s, machetes and an "antifa" flag
was obtained by National Justice .
This group has been operating for years, spreading violent propaganda with the help of
social media companies, all while the FBI devotes all of its resources to chasing around
imaginary "white supremacist terrorists."
The extent of their terrorist activities is unknown, but they have been very active in the George Floyd riots -- calling it a
"black liberation revolt" -- and have
chapters across the country.
Related "Antifa" Extremists In Brooklyn
Christian Erazo is another important figure in organizing anarchist violence in New York
City.
Erazo, pictured above on the far right in the red and green bandana filming a video
announcing plans to disrupt public transportation, was profiled
for his activities by National Justice last January for his part in planning the
J31 subway riots . In spite of this reporting, the NYPD and the FBI took no action either
against the people who planned this chaos, or the Synagogue who allowed them to host their
planning sessions.
Erazo, the lead singer of punk band (A) Truth pictured above clutching the "antifa" flag,
helps lead multiple violent anarchist projects, such as Brigada 71 (a left-wing soccer hooligan group associated
with the New York Cosmos) and NYC Antifa
. Brigada 71 spends a lot of time at the East River Bar, a popular hangout for left-wing soccer
hooligans, on 97 South 6th Street in Brooklyn,
Both groups are also currently encouraging the violence on social media and are close to the
owners of The Base, who let them use the venue for their activities. Meet up spots like The
Base play an important role in providing fresh recruits due to its storefront visibility, which
invites curious and bored hipsters and radicalizes them in the rapidly gentrifying
neighborhood.
For years, Erazo used a warehouse on 258 Johnson Ave in East Williamsburg nicknamed "The
Swamp" to host punk rock shows that would serve to recruit new anarchists. While Erazo and his
friends did their best to keep the spot a secret, a Brooklyn hipster publication listed "The Swamp" as a cool place to see music as
recently as 2015. Erazo is specifically named as its "founder."
According to a source familiar with the anarchist community, when music wasn't playing, the
building had a gym and was used to conduct paramilitary training. While there doesn't seem to
be any more concerts happening at The Swamp, it is unknown if these anarchist groups are still
utilizing the space for other activities.
The Real Reason Its Difficult to Prosecute "Antifa"
Many Americans have complained that neither the police nor the FBI appear interested in
investigating or prosecuting anarchist paramilitary groups, even when they are leading the
worst and most deadly riots in modern history.
This isn't because it is hard to find out who these people are. It is due to state
corruption and privilege. A large number of anarchists are the sons and daughters of
politicians, bankers, judges, and other connected elite figures, thus immunizing from the
consequences of their crimes.
Recently, New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio's
own daughter was arrested among the rioters in the city he governs. Vice presidential
contender and Virginia Senator Tim Kaine's
son is another example. An "antifa" organizer was exposed
by National Justice as the grandson of a judge and nephew of a Congressman who is also
now a judge.
Ken Klippenstein, a digital blogger who is a fan of the anarchist groups dubbed "antifa,"
was leaked documents by FBI agents about with details about an ongoing investigation into the
activities of these violent extremists.
With virtually every institution in America expressing support for these terrorist groups,
along with their connections to powerful officials, Donald Trump's bluster about labeling them
a terrorist group appears to be nothing but a gust of hot air.
It's obvious from surveillance video that Floyd was dealing drugs out of his parked car
on the corner that fateful morning. The cops apprehending him appear nonchalant, quietly
going about their business with a routine arrest. Only when Floyd begins physically resisting
do things begin to go south.
So this is the hill that liberals choose to take a stand and die on. Defending a low-life,
street drug dealer, who has three cocaine priors on his rap sheet. And when legitimate,
unrelated businesses burn, they say, "Good. That's justice for Floyd."
And they can't see how insane this is? How is Floyd's life worth all this havoc? The
guy was a criminal deviant who brought his demise upon himself. He was not a sterling example
of a freedom fighter or a high-minded social reformer. He playacted not being able to walk,
collapsing on the sidewalk as he was being escorted to the cop car. Went all jelly-legged.
Winced when a cop merely steered him by one of his burly arms which, while handcuffed behind
his back were obviously not overly constrained. Play acting. Oh, the poor 230 lb. black boy,
built like Hercules himself, acting all hurt when an Asian male puts a little directing
pressure on his arm.
What a despicable farce. There's no hope for a nation in which different sides play by
different Rules. The Left obeys no Laws. Acknowledges no limits to their behavior. Acts
according to what will best advance their cause. Has no compunction about lying, about
destroying their enemies by any means, fair or foul, possible.
If factions within a Nation will not and do not agree on basic Rules of the Contest, then
no governance is possible. That Nation will, indeed, degenerate into anarchy. This just
is . For some reason, someone wants America to fracture into smaller units.
@ThreeCranes I mean, he did five years in Prison for bursting into a woman's house with 5
other thugs and jamming a gun into her gut during an attempted robbery. (I heard she was
pregnant, but I'm not sure.) She was battered, though. This is their great Saint.
" the NYPD and the FBI took no action either against the people who planned this chaos, or
the Synagogue who allowed them to host their planning sessions."
Well, surprise surprise. Violent left wing groups hold planning sessions in
Synagogues.
The 'Russian' revolution and others in Eastern Europe followed the same pattern.
It's all political theatre. Antifa, supported by Jewish money, rails against 'white
privilege', never daring to point out that most of the powerbrokers and influencers (eg,
bankers, Hollywood studio owners, blackface performers, publishing house owners) are
Jews.
Leftist revolutionary radicals enjoy the support and protection of the establishment which
appoints them 'the good guys'.
If you are a conservative, you have no overt support from professors, journalists,
politicians, or trend-setting celebrities. You're labeled 'the bad guys'.
If given an informed choice, the Silent Majority of Americans would side with young
conservatives over young anarchists. The problem is that the other side is ahead in a culture
war, and the right is only just getting on its feet to fight it.
"... In recent weeks, a totally disoriented left has been widely exhorted to unify around a masked vanguard calling itself Antifa, for anti-fascist. Hooded and dressed in black, Antifa is essentially a variation of the Black Bloc, familiar for introducing violence into peaceful demonstrations in many countries. Imported from Europe, the label Antifa sounds more political. It also serves the purpose of stigmatizing those it attacks as "fascists". ..."
"... Bray's "enlightening contribution" is to a tell a flattering version of the Antifa story to a generation whose dualistic, Holocaust-centered view of history has largely deprived them of both the factual and the analytical tools to judge multidimensional events such as the growth of fascism. Bray presents today's Antifa as though it were the glorious legitimate heir to every noble cause since abolitionism. But there were no anti-fascists before fascism, and the label "Antifa" by no means applies to all the many adversaries of fascism. ..."
"... The implicit claim to carry on the tradition of the International Brigades who fought in Spain against Franco is nothing other than a form of innocence by association. Since we must revere the heroes of the Spanish Civil War, some of that esteem is supposed to rub off on their self-designated heirs. Unfortunately, there are no veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade still alive to point to the difference between a vast organized defense against invading fascist armies and skirmishes on the Berkeley campus. As for the Anarchists of Catalonia, the patent on anarchism ran out a long time ago, and anyone is free to market his own generic. ..."
"... Since historic fascism no longer exists, Bray's Antifa have broadened their notion of "fascism" to include anything that violates the current Identity Politics canon: from "patriarchy" (a pre-fascist attitude to put it mildly) to "transphobia" (decidedly a post-fascist problem). ..."
"... The masked militants of Antifa seem to be more inspired by Batman than by Marx or even by Bakunin. ..."
"... The main technique is guilt by association. High on the list of mortal sins is criticism of the European Union, which is associated with "nationalism" which is associated with "fascism" which is associated with "anti-Semitism", hinting at a penchant for genocide. This coincides perfectly with the official policy of the EU and EU governments, but Antifa uses much harsher language. ..."
"... The moral of this story is simple. Self-appointed radical revolutionaries can be the most useful thought police for the neoliberal war party. ..."
"... In reality, immigration is a complex subject, with many aspects that can lead to reasonable compromise. But to polarize the issue misses the chances for compromise. By making mass immigration the litmus test of whether or not one is fascist, Antifa intimidation impedes reasonable discussion. Without discussion, without readiness to listen to all viewpoints, the issue will simply divide the population into two camps, for and against. And who will win such a confrontation? ..."
"... The idea that the way to shut someone up is to punch him in the jaw is as American as Hollywood movies. It is also typical of the gang war that prevails in certain parts of Los Angeles. Banding together with others "like us" to fight against gangs of "them" for control of turf is characteristic of young men in uncertain circumstances. The search for a cause can involve endowing such conduct with a political purpose: either fascist or antifascist. For disoriented youth, this is an alternative to joining the U.S. Marines. ..."
"... American Antifa looks very much like a middle class wedding between Identity Politics and gang warfare. Mark Bray (page 175) quotes his DC Antifa source as implying that the motive of would-be fascists is to side with "the most powerful kid in the block" and will retreat if scared. Our gang is tougher than your gang. ..."
"... In the United States, the worst thing about Antifa is the effort to lead the disoriented American left into a wild goose chase, tracking down imaginary "fascists" instead of getting together openly to work out a coherent positive program. The United States has more than its share of weird individuals, of gratuitous aggression, of crazy ideas, and tracking down these marginal characters, whether alone or in groups, is a huge distraction. The truly dangerous people in the United States are safely ensconced in Wall Street, in Washington Think Tanks, in the executive suites of the sprawling military industry, not to mention the editorial offices of some of the mainstream media currently adopting a benevolent attitude toward "anti-fascists" simply because they are useful in focusing on the maverick Trump instead of themselves. ..."
"... Antifa USA, by defining "resistance to fascism" as resistance to lost causes – the Confederacy, white supremacists and for that matter Donald Trump – is actually distracting from resistance to the ruling neoliberal establishment, which is also opposed to the Confederacy and white supremacists and has already largely managed to capture Trump by its implacable campaign of denigration. That ruling establishment, which in its insatiable foreign wars and introduction of police state methods, has successfully used popular "resistance to Trump" to make him even worse than he already was. ..."
– Ennio Flaiano, Italian writer and co-author of Federico Fellini's greatest film scripts.
In recent weeks, a totally disoriented left has been widely exhorted to unify around a masked
vanguard calling itself Antifa, for anti-fascist. Hooded and dressed in black, Antifa is essentially
a variation of the Black Bloc, familiar for introducing violence into peaceful demonstrations in
many countries. Imported from Europe, the label Antifa sounds more political. It also serves the
purpose of stigmatizing those it attacks as "fascists".
Despite its imported European name, Antifa is basically just another example of America's steady
descent into violence.
Historical Pretensions
Antifa first came to prominence from its role in reversing Berkeley's proud "free speech" tradition
by preventing right wing personalities from speaking there. But its moment of glory was its clash
with rightwingers in Charlottesville on August 12, largely because Trump commented that there were
"good people on both sides". With exuberant Schadenfreude, commentators grabbed the opportunity to
condemn the despised President for his "moral equivalence", thereby bestowing a moral blessing on
Antifa.
Charlottesville served as a successful book launching for
Antifa: the Antifascist Handbook , whose author, young academic Mark Bray, is an Antifa
in both theory and practice. The book is "really taking off very fast", rejoiced the publisher, Melville
House. It instantly won acclaim from leading mainstream media such as the New York Times
, The Guardian and NBC, not hitherto known for rushing to review leftwing books, least of
all those by revolutionary anarchists.
The Washington Post welcomed Bray as spokesman for "insurgent activist movements" and
observed that: "The book's most enlightening contribution is on the history of anti-fascist efforts
over the past century, but its most relevant for today is its justification for stifling speech and
clobbering white supremacists."
Bray's "enlightening contribution" is to a tell a flattering version of the Antifa story to a
generation whose dualistic, Holocaust-centered view of history has largely deprived them of both
the factual and the analytical tools to judge multidimensional events such as the growth of fascism.
Bray presents today's Antifa as though it were the glorious legitimate heir to every noble cause
since abolitionism. But there were no anti-fascists before fascism, and the label "Antifa" by no
means applies to all the many adversaries of fascism.
The implicit claim to carry on the tradition of the International Brigades who fought in Spain
against Franco is nothing other than a form of innocence by association. Since we must revere the
heroes of the Spanish Civil War, some of that esteem is supposed to rub off on their self-designated
heirs. Unfortunately, there are no veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade still alive to point to
the difference between a vast organized defense against invading fascist armies and skirmishes on
the Berkeley campus. As for the Anarchists of Catalonia, the patent on anarchism ran out a long time
ago, and anyone is free to market his own generic.
The original Antifascist movement was an effort by the Communist International to cease hostilities
with Europe's Socialist Parties in order to build a common front against the triumphant movements
led by Mussolini and Hitler.
Since Fascism thrived, and Antifa was never a serious adversary, its apologists thrive on the
"nipped in the bud" claim: "if only" Antifascists had beat up the fascist movements early enough,
the latter would have been nipped in the bud. Since reason and debate failed to stop the rise of
fascism, they argue, we must use street violence – which, by the way, failed even more decisively.
This is totally ahistorical. Fascism exalted violence, and violence was its preferred testing
ground. Both Communists and Fascists were fighting in the streets and the atmosphere of violence
helped fascism thrive as a bulwark against Bolshevism, gaining the crucial support of leading capitalists
and militarists in their countries, which brought them to power.
Since historic fascism no longer exists, Bray's Antifa have broadened their notion of "fascism"
to include anything that violates the current Identity Politics canon: from "patriarchy" (a pre-fascist
attitude to put it mildly) to "transphobia" (decidedly a post-fascist problem).
The masked militants of Antifa seem to be more inspired by Batman than by Marx or even by Bakunin.
Storm Troopers of the Neoliberal War Party
Since Mark Bray offers European credentials for current U.S. Antifa, it is appropriate to observe
what Antifa amounts to in Europe today.
In Europe, the tendency takes two forms. Black Bloc activists regularly invade various leftist
demonstrations in order to smash windows and fight the police. These testosterone exhibits are of
minor political significance, other than provoking public calls to strengthen police forces. They
are widely suspected of being influenced by police infiltration.
As an example, last September 23, several dozen black-clad masked ruffians, tearing down posters
and throwing stones, attempted to storm the platform where the flamboyant Jean-Luc Mélenchon was
to address the mass meeting of La France Insoumise , today the leading leftist party in
France. Their unspoken message seemed to be that nobody is revolutionary enough for them. Occasionally,
they do actually spot a random skinhead to beat up. This establishes their credentials as "anti-fascist".
They use these credentials to arrogate to themselves the right to slander others in a sort of
informal self-appointed inquisition.
As prime example, in late 2010, a young woman named Ornella Guyet appeared in Paris seeking work
as a journalist in various leftist periodicals and blogs. She "tried to infiltrate everywhere", according
to the former director of Le Monde diplomatique , Maurice Lemoine, who "always intuitively
distrusted her "when he hired her as an intern.
Viktor Dedaj, who manages one of the main leftist sites in France, Le Grand Soir , was
among those who tried to help her, only to experience an unpleasant surprise a few months later.
Ornella had become a self-appointed inquisitor dedicated to denouncing "conspirationism, confusionism,
anti-Semitism and red-brown" on Internet. This took the form of personal attacks on individuals whom
she judged to be guilty of those sins. What is significant is that all her targets were opposed to
U.S. and NATO aggressive wars in the Middle East.
Indeed, the timing of her crusade coincided with the "regime change" wars that destroyed Libya
and tore apart Syria. The attacks singled out leading critics of those wars.
Viktor Dedaj was on her hit list. So was Michel Collon, close to the Belgian Workers Party, author,
activist and manager of the bilingual site Investig'action. So was François Ruffin, film-maker, editor
of the leftist journal Fakir elected recently to the National Assembly on the list of Mélenchon's
party La France Insoumise . And so on. The list is long.
The targeted personalities are diverse, but all have one thing in common: opposition to aggressive
wars. What's more, so far as I can tell, just about everyone opposed to those wars is on her list.
The main technique is guilt by association. High on the list of mortal sins is criticism of the
European Union, which is associated with "nationalism" which is associated with "fascism" which is
associated with "anti-Semitism", hinting at a penchant for genocide. This coincides perfectly with
the official policy of the EU and EU governments, but Antifa uses much harsher language.
In mid-June 2011, the anti-EU party Union Populaire Républicaine led by François Asselineau
was the object of slanderous insinuations on Antifa internet sites signed by "Marie-Anne Boutoleau"
(a pseudonym for Ornella Guyet). Fearing violence, owners cancelled scheduled UPR meeting places
in Lyon. UPR did a little investigation, discovering that Ornella Guyet was on the speakers list
at a March 2009 Seminar on International Media organized in Paris by the Center for the Study of
International Communications and the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University.
A surprising association for such a zealous crusader against "red-brown".
In case anyone has doubts, "red-brown" is a term used to smear anyone with generally leftist views
– that is, "red" – with the fascist color "brown". This smear can be based on having the same opinion
as someone on the right, speaking on the same platform with someone on the right, being published
alongside someone on the right, being seen at an anti-war demonstration also attended by someone
on the right, and so on. This is particularly useful for the War Party, since these days, many conservatives
are more opposed to war than leftists who have bought into the "humanitarian war" mantra.
The government doesn't need to repress anti-war gatherings. Antifa does the job.
The Franco-African comedien Dieudonné M'Bala M'Bala, stigmatized for anti-Semitism since 2002
for his TV sketch lampooning an Israeli settler as part of George W. Bush's "Axis of Good", is not
only a target, but serves as a guilty association for anyone who defends his right to free speech
– such as Belgian professor Jean Bricmont, virtually blacklisted in France for trying to get in a
word in favor of free speech during a TV talk show. Dieudonné has been banned from the media, sued
and fined countless times, even sentenced to jail in Belgium, but continues to enjoy a full house
of enthusiastic supporters at his one-man shows, where the main political message is opposition to
war.
Still, accusations of being soft on Dieudonné can have serious effects on individuals in more
precarious positions, since the mere hint of "anti-Semitism" can be a career killer in France. Invitations
are cancelled, publications refused, messages go unanswered.
In April 2016, Ornella Guyet dropped out of sight, amid strong suspicions about her own peculiar
associations.
The moral of this story is simple. Self-appointed radical revolutionaries can be the most useful
thought police for the neoliberal war party.
I am not suggesting that all, or most, Antifa are agents of the establishment. But they can be
manipulated, infiltrated or impersonated precisely because they are self-anointed and usually more
or less disguised.
Silencing Necessary Debate
One who is certainly sincere is Mark Bray, author of The Intifa Handbook . It is clear
where Mark Bray is coming from when he writes (p.36-7): " Hitler's 'final solution' murdered six
million Jews in gas chambers, with firing squads, through hunger an lack of medical treatment in
squalid camps and ghettoes, with beatings, by working them to death, and through suicidal despair.
Approximately two out of every three Jews on the continent were killed, including some of my relatives."
This personal history explains why Mark Bray feels passionately about "fascism". This is perfectly
understandable in one who is haunted by fear that "it can happen again".
However, even the most justifiable emotional concerns do not necessarily contribute to wise counsel.
Violent reactions to fear may seem to be strong and effective when in reality they are morally weak
and practically ineffectual.
We are in a period of great political confusion. Labeling every manifestation of "political incorrectness"
as fascism impedes clarification of debate over issues that very much need to be defined and clarified.
The scarcity of fascists has been compensated by identifying criticism of immigration as fascism.
This identification, in connection with rejection of national borders, derives much of its emotional
force above all from the ancestral fear in the Jewish community of being excluded from the nations
in which they find themselves.
The issue of immigration has different aspects in different places. It is not the same in European
countries as in the United States. There is a basic distinction between immigrants and immigration.
Immigrants are people who deserve consideration. Immigration is a policy that needs to be evaluated.
It should be possible to discuss the policy without being accused of persecuting the people. After
all, trade union leaders have traditionally opposed mass immigration, not out of racism, but because
it can be a deliberate capitalist strategy to bring down wages.
In reality, immigration is a complex subject, with many aspects that can lead to reasonable compromise.
But to polarize the issue misses the chances for compromise. By making mass immigration the litmus
test of whether or not one is fascist, Antifa intimidation impedes reasonable discussion. Without
discussion, without readiness to listen to all viewpoints, the issue will simply divide the population
into two camps, for and against. And who will win such a confrontation?
A recent survey* shows that mass immigration is increasingly unpopular in all European countries.
The complexity of the issue is shown by the fact that in the vast majority of European countries,
most people believe they have a duty to welcome refugees, but disapprove of continued mass immigration.
The official argument that immigration is a good thing is accepted by only 40%, compared to 60% of
all Europeans who believe that "immigration is bad for our country". A left whose principal cause
is open borders will become increasingly unpopular.
Childish Violence
The idea that the way to shut someone up is to punch him in the jaw is as American as Hollywood
movies. It is also typical of the gang war that prevails in certain parts of Los Angeles. Banding
together with others "like us" to fight against gangs of "them" for control of turf is characteristic
of young men in uncertain circumstances. The search for a cause can involve endowing such conduct
with a political purpose: either fascist or antifascist. For disoriented youth, this is an alternative
to joining the U.S. Marines.
American Antifa looks very much like a middle class wedding between Identity Politics and gang
warfare. Mark Bray (page 175) quotes his DC Antifa source as implying that the motive of would-be
fascists is to side with "the most powerful kid in the block" and will retreat if scared. Our gang
is tougher than your gang.
That is also the logic of U.S. imperialism, which habitually declares of its chosen enemies: "All
they understand is force." Although Antifa claim to be radical revolutionaries, their mindset is
perfectly typical the atmosphere of violence which prevails in militarized America.
In another vein, Antifa follows the trend of current Identity Politics excesses that are squelching
free speech in what should be its citadel, academia. Words are considered so dangerous that "safe
spaces" must be established to protect people from them. This extreme vulnerability to injury from
words is strangely linked to tolerance of real physical violence.
Wild Goose Chase
In the United States, the worst thing about Antifa is the effort to lead the disoriented American
left into a wild goose chase, tracking down imaginary "fascists" instead of getting together openly
to work out a coherent positive program. The United States has more than its share of weird individuals,
of gratuitous aggression, of crazy ideas, and tracking down these marginal characters, whether alone
or in groups, is a huge distraction. The truly dangerous people in the United States are safely ensconced
in Wall Street, in Washington Think Tanks, in the executive suites of the sprawling military industry,
not to mention the editorial offices of some of the mainstream media currently adopting a benevolent
attitude toward "anti-fascists" simply because they are useful in focusing on the maverick Trump
instead of themselves.
Antifa USA, by defining "resistance to fascism" as resistance to lost causes – the Confederacy,
white supremacists and for that matter Donald Trump – is actually distracting from resistance to
the ruling neoliberal establishment, which is also opposed to the Confederacy and white supremacists
and has already largely managed to capture Trump by its implacable campaign of denigration. That
ruling establishment, which in its insatiable foreign wars and introduction of police state methods,
has successfully used popular "resistance to Trump" to make him even worse than he already was.
The facile use of the term "fascist" gets in the way of thoughtful identification and definition
of the real enemy of humanity today. In the contemporary chaos, the greatest and most dangerous upheavals
in the world all stem from the same source, which is hard to name, but which we might give the provisional
simplified label of Globalized Imperialism. This amounts to a multifaceted project to reshape the
world to satisfy the demands of financial capitalism, the military industrial complex, United States
ideological vanity and the megalomania of leaders of lesser "Western" powers, notably Israel. It
could be called simply "imperialism", except that it is much vaster and more destructive than the
historic imperialism of previous centuries. It is also much more disguised. And since it bears no
clear label such as "fascism", it is difficult to denounce in simple terms.
The fixation on preventing a form of tyranny that arose over 80 years ago, under very different
circumstances, obstructs recognition of the monstrous tyranny of today. Fighting the previous war
leads to defeat.
Donald Trump is an outsider who will not be let inside. The election of Donald Trump is above
all a grave symptom of the decadence of the American political system, totally ruled by money, lobbies,
the military-industrial complex and corporate media. Their lies are undermining the very basis of
democracy. Antifa has gone on the offensive against the one weapon still in the hands of the people:
the right to free speech and assembly.
Notes.
* "Oů va la démocratie?", une enquęte de la Fondation pour l'innovation politique sous la direction
de Dominique Reynié, (Plon, Paris, 2017).
In a thoughtful analysis, the Irish journalist O'Toole asserts neoliberalism creates the
conditions for enabling what he calls a trial run for a full-blown state of contemporary
fascism:
To grasp what is going on in the world right now, we need to reflect on two things. One is
that we are in a phase of trial runs. The other is that what is being trialed is fascism -- a
word that should be used carefully but not shirked when it is so clearly on the horizon.
Forget 'post-fascist' -- what we are living with is pre-fascism. Rather than overthrow
democracy in one full swipe, it has to be undermined through rigged elections, the creation
of tribal identities, and legitimated through a 'propaganda machine so effective that it
creates for its followers a universe of "alternative facts" impervious to unwanted
realities.' . Fascism doesn't arise suddenly in an existing democracy. It is not easy to get
people to give up their ideas of freedom and civility. You have to do trial runs that, if
they are done well, serve two purposes. They get people used to something they may initially
recoil from, and they allow you to refine and calibrate. This is what is happening now and we
would be fools not to see it. 40
Ultra-nationalist and contemporary versions of fascism are gaining traction across the globe
in countries such as Greece (Golden Dawn), Hungary (Jobbik), India (Bharatiya Janata Party),
and Italy (the League) and countless others. ...
... ... ...
Trump has elevated himself as the patron saint of a ruthless neoliberalism. This is evident
in the various miracles he has performed for the rich and powerful. He has systemically
deregulated regulations that extend from environmental protections to worker safety rules. He
has enacted a $1.5-trillion tax policy that amounts to a huge gift to the financial elite and
all the while maintaining his "man of the people" posture. He has appointed a range of
neoliberal fundamentalists to head major government posts designed to serve the public. Most,
like Scott Pruitt, the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, and Betsy DeVos, the
secretary of Education, have proved to be either corrupt, incompetent, or often both. Along
with the Republican Congress, Trump has vastly increased the military budget to $717 billion,
creating huge financial profits for the military-industrial-defense complex while instituting
policies that eviscerate the welfare state and further expand a war machine that generates mass
suffering and death.
Trump has reduced food assistance for those who are forced to choose between eating and
taking medicine, and his policies have prevented millions from getting adequate health care.
43 Last but not least, he has become a cheerleader for the gun and
security industries going so far as to call for the arming of teachers as a way to redress mass
shootings in the nation's schools. All of these policies serve to unleash the anti-liberal and
anti-democratic passions, fears, anxieties and anger necessary to mainstream fascism.
... ... ...
The United States is in a dangerous moment in its history, which makes it all the more
crucial to understand how a distinctive form of neoliberal fascism now bears down on the
present and threatens to usher in a period of unprecedented barbarism in the not too distant
future. In an attempt to address this new political conjuncture, I want to suggest that rather
than view fascism simply as a repetition of the past, it is crucial to forge a new vocabulary
and politics to grasp how neoliberal fascism has become a uniquely American model for the
present. One way to address this challenge is to rethink what lessons can be learned by
interrogating how matters of language and memory can be used to illuminate the dark forces
connecting the past and present as part of the new hybridized political nightmare.
The Language of Fascism
Fascism begins not with violence, police assaults or mass killings, but with language. Trump
reminded us of this in 2015 while announcing his candidacy for president. He stated, without
irony or shame, that "when Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best. They're
sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing
drugs, they're bringing crime...
... ... ...
Neoliberal fascism converges with an earlier form of fascism in its commitment to a language
of erasure and a politics of disposability. In the fascist script, historical memory becomes a
liability, even dangerous, when it functions pedagogically to inform our political and social
imagination...
Unsurprisingly, historical memory as a form of enlightenment and demystification is surely
at odds with Trump's abuse of history as a form of social amnesia and political
camouflage,,,
... ... ...
At the same time, the corruption of language is often followed by the corruption of memory,
morality and the eventual disappearance of books, ideas and human beings. Prominent German
historians such as Richard J. Evans and Victor Klemperer have made clear that for fascist
dictators, the dynamics of state censorship and repression had an endpoint in a politics of
disappearance, extermination and the death camps.
...neoliberal fascism has restructured civic life that valorizes ignorance, avarice and
willful forgetting. In the current Trumpian moment, shouting replaces the pedagogical
imperative to listen and reinforces the stories neoliberal fascism tells us about ourselves,
our relations to others and the larger world. Under such circumstances, monstrous deeds are
committed under the increasing normalization of civic and historical modes of illiteracy. One
consequence is that comparisons to the Nazi past can whither in the false belief that
historical events are fixed in time and place and can only be repeated in history books. In an
age marked by a war on terror, a culture of fear and the normalization of uncertainty, social
amnesia has become a power tool for dismantling democracy. Indeed, in this age of
forgetfulness, American society appears to revel in what it should be ashamed of and alarmed
over.
... ... ...
Trump's selective appropriation of history wages war on the past, choosing to celebrate
rather than question fascist horrors. The past in this case is a script that must be followed
rather than interrogated. Trump's view of history is at once "ugly and revealing."....
The production of new narratives accompanied by critical inquiries into the past would help
explain why people participated in the horrors of fascism and what it might take to prevent
such complicity from unfolding again. Comparing Trump's ideology, policies and language to a
fascist past offers the possibility to learn what is old and new in the dark times that have
descended upon the United States. The pressing relevance of the 1930s is crucial to address how
fascist ideas and practices originate and adapt to new conditions, and how people capitulate
and resist them as well.
...Neoliberal fascism insists that everything, including human beings, are to be made over
in the image of the market. Everyone is now subject to a paralyzing language of individual
responsibility and a disciplinary apparatus that revises downward the American dream of social
mobility. Time is now a burden for most people and the lesson to draw from this punishing
neoliberal ideology is that everyone is alone in navigating their own fate.
At work here is a neoliberal project to reduce people to human capital and redefine human
agency beyond the bonds of sociality, equality, belonging and obligation. All problems and
their solutions are now defined exclusively within the purview of the individual. This is a
depoliticizing discourse that champions mythic notions of self-reliance and individual
character to promote the tearing up of social solidarities and the public spheres that support
them.
All aspects of the social and public are now considered suspect, including social space,
social provisions, social protections and social dependency, especially for those who are poor
and vulnerable. According to the philosopher Byung-Chul Han, the subjects in a "neoliberal
economy do not constitute a we that is capable of collective action. The mounting egoization
and atomization of society is shrinking the space for collective action. As such, it blocks the
formation of a counter power that might be able to put the capitalist order in question."
65
At the core of neoliberal fascism is a view of subjectivity that celebrates a narcissistic
hyper-individualism that radiates with a near sociopathic lack of interest in others with whom
it shares a globe on the brink of catastrophe. This project is wedded to a politics that
produces a high threshold of disappearance and serves to disconnect the material moorings and
wreckage of neoliberal fascism from its underlying power relations.
Neoliberal fascism thrives on producing subjects that internalize its values, corroding
their ability to imagine an alternative world. Under such conditions, not only is agency
depoliticized, but the political is emptied of any real substance and unable to challenge
neoliberalism's belief in extreme inequality and social abandonment. This fosters fascism's
deep-rooted investment ultra-nationalism, racial purity and the politics of terminal
exclusion.
We live at a time in which the social is individualized and at odds with a notion of
solidarity once described by Frankfurt School theorist Herbert Marcuse as "the refusal to let
one's happiness coexist with the suffering of others." 66 Marcuse
invokes a forgotten notion of the social in which one is willing not only to make sacrifices
for others but also "to engage in joint struggle against the cause of suffering or against a
common adversary." 67
One step toward fighting and overcoming the criminogenic machinery of terminal exclusion and
social death endemic to neoliberal fascism is to make education central to a politics that
changes the way people think, desire, hope and act. How might language and history adopt modes
of persuasion that anchor democratic life in a commitment to economic equality, social justice
and a broad shared vision? The challenge we face under a fascism buoyed by a savage
neoliberalism is to ask and act on what language, memory and education as the practice of
freedom might mean in a democracy. What work can they perform, how can hope be nourished by
collective action and the ongoing struggle to create a broad-based democratic socialist
movement? What work has to be done to "imagine a politics in which empowerment can grow and
public freedom thrive without violence?" 68 What institutions have to
be defended and fought for if the spirit of a radical democracy is to return to view and
survive?
2016 a Russia-Trump campaign collusion conspiracy was afoot and unfolding right before our eyes, we were told, as during his roll-out
foreign
policy speech at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., then candidate Trump said [ gasp! ]:
" Common sense says this cycle, this horrible cycle of hostility must end and ideally will end soon. Good for both countries.
Some say the Russians won't be reasonable. I intend to find out."
NPR and others had breathlessly
reported at the time, "Sergey Kislyak, then the Russian ambassador to the U.S., was sitting in the front row" [ more gasps! ].
This 'suspicious'
"coincidence or something more?" event and of course the infamous
Steele 'Dodgy Dossier' were
followed by over two more years of the following connect-the-dots mere tiny sampling of unrestrained theorizing and avalanche of
accusations...
2019, Wired: Trump Must Be
A Russian Agent... (where we were told...ahem: " It would be rather embarrassing ... if Robert Mueller were to declare that
the president isn't an agent of Russian intelligence." )
It's especially worth noting that a
July 2018 New York Times
op-ed argued that President Trump -- dubbed a "treasonous traitor" for meeting with Putin in Helsinki -- should "be directing
all resources at his disposal to punish Russia."
Fast-forward to a July 2019 NY Times Editorial Board piece entitled
"What's America's Winning Hand if Russia
Plays the China Card?" How dizzying fast all of the above has been wiped from America's collective memory! Or at least the Times
is engaged in hastily pushing it all down the memory hole Orwell-style in order to cover its own dastardly tracks which contributed
in no small measure to non-stop national Russiagate hype and hysteria, with this astounding line:
That's right, The Times' pundits have already pivoted to the new bogeyman while stating they agree with Trump
on Russian relations :
"Given its economic, military and technological trajectory, together with its authoritarian model, China, not Russia , represents
by far the greater challenge to American objectives over the long term . That means President Trump is correct to try to establish
a sounder relationship with Russia and peel it away from China ."
It's 2019, and we've now come full circle . This is The New York Times editorial board continuing their call for Trump to establish
"sounder" ties and "cooperation" with
Russia :
"Even during the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union often made progress in one facet of their relationship while
they remained in conflict over other aspects. The United States and Russia could expand their cooperation in space . They could
also continue to work closely in the Arctic And they could revive cooperation on arms control."
Could we imagine if a mere six months ago Trump himself had uttered these same words? Now the mainstream media apparently agrees
that peace is better than war with Russia.
With 'Russiagate' now effectively dead, the NY Times' new criticism appears to be that Trump-Kremlin relations are not close enough
, as Trump's "approach has been ham-handed " - the 'paper of record' now tells us.
Or imagine if Trump had called for peaceful existence with Russia almost four years ago? Oh wait...
" Common sense says this cycle, this horrible cycle of hostility must end and ideally will end soon. Good for both countries."
-- Then candidate Trump on
April 27, 2016
...If you bomb Syria, do not admit you did it to install your puppet regime or to lay a
pipeline. Say you did it to save the Aleppo kids gassed by Assad the Butcher. If you occupy
Afghanistan, do not admit you make a handsome profit smuggling heroin; say you came to protect
the women. If you want to put your people under total surveillance, say you did it to prevent
hate groups target the powerless and diverse.
Remember: you do not need to ask children, women or immigrants whether they want your
protection. If pushed, you can always find a few suitable profiles to look at the cameras and
repeat a short text. With all my dislike for R2P (Responsibility to Protect) hypocrisy, I can't
possibly blame the allegedly protected for the disaster caused by the unwanted protectors.
"... People who bravely post about how the U.S. needs to invade some country in the Middle East or Asia or outer space will get a pop-up notice indicating they've been enlisted in the military. A recruiter will then show up at their house and whisk them away to fight in the foreign war they wanted to happen so badly. ..."
U.S. -- A new policy issued by the United States Department of Defense, in conjunction
with online platforms like Twitter and Facebook, will automatically enlist you to fight in a
foreign war if you post your support for attacking another country.
People who bravely post about how the U.S. needs to invade some country in the Middle East
or Asia or outer space will get a pop-up notice indicating they've been enlisted in the
military. A recruiter will then show up at their house and whisk them away to fight in the
foreign war they wanted to happen so badly.
"Frankly, recruitment numbers are down, and we needed some way to find people who are
really enthusiastic about fighting wars," said a DOD official. "Then it hit us like a drone
strike: there are plenty of people who argue vehemently for foreign intervention. It doesn't
matter what war we're trying to create: Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea,
China---these people are always reliable supporters of any invasion abroad. So why not get
them there on the frontlines?"
"After all, we want people who are passionate about occupying foreign lands, not grunts
who are just there for the paycheck," he added.
Strangely, as soon as the policy was implemented, 99% of saber-rattling suddenly
ceased.
Note: The Babylon Bee is the world's best satire site, totally inerrant in all its
truth claims. We write satire about Christian stuff, political stuff, and everyday life.
The Babylon Bee was created ex nihilo on the eighth day of the creation week, exactly
6,000 years ago. We have been the premier news source through every major world event, from
the Tower of Babel and the Exodus to the Reformation and the War of 1812. We focus on just
the facts, leaving spin and bias to other news sites like CNN and Fox News.
If you would like to complain about something on our site, take it up with God.
Unlike other satire sites, everything we post is 100% verified by Snopes.com.
A way to capture this change was thinking in terms of the traditional task of journalists to
interview or consult a variety of sources to determine was is truth or true. The shift
gradually became one of now interviewing or consulting various sources and reporting those
opinions.
Old-school journalism was like being assigned the task of finding out what "1+1 =?" and the
task was to report the answer was "1."
Now the task would be to report that "Some say it is 1, some say it is 2, some say it is
3."
While that talk has many interesting points, it is basically wrong. Fascism is a political
movement centered on political party with far right nationalist political ideology and that use
mobilization of people.
Inverted totalitarism does not use distinct political party and reject mass mobilization for
reaching its goals. That's an important difference.
Notable quotes:
"... ANTIFA defines fascist as, a cult of purity, victimhood, abandonment of liberty, and redemptive violence. Doesn't it sound like they are defining themselves? (Antifa - The Handbook for Antifascists) ..."
Part 1 - Meet the Antifascists - 0:53 Part 2 - Fascism - 8:18 Part 3 - Violence - 20:47 Part 4 - Free Speech -
39:58 Part 5 - There
Is No Peaceful White Nationalism - 53:30
I remember reading in my Abnormal Psychology textbook that in the early 1900s, the
mentally ill in the United States were forcefully sterilized to prevent them from "breeding"
which made me take a step back and realize that I was never once taught this in school and I
was only ever taught that the United States were (almost) always the good guys. Eugenics has
a deep rooted history in America and it's terrifying.
NOT being taught something in school is not automatically insidious and disturbing. BEING
taught something toxic or deflective in school IS automatically insidious and disturbing. In
school I was taught roughly 0.000000000000000001% about things that are and things that have
been.
Hello! I´m from Brazil and your videos have helped me to deal these awful days and,
also, to understand how Bolsonaro supporters think (if this is possible!) Neonazi and
fascists movements were marginal and formed only for small groups in Brazil in last decades,
despite always considered dangerous. Now, these movements have been appeared in pro-bolsonaro
parades and it´s really scare! Much of this video match with it has happened right now
in Brazil!
div> We shouldn't give up on the entire system due to amendable flaws and corruption
(debt-based commercial banks, multinational companies, cheap labor, etc), and attempt to
replace it with a weak and unstable mob rule. People always find a scapegoat, whether it's
another ethnic group, authorities, or smart and prosperous individuals, which escalates the
situation. Class wars are like other wars, and we'd all end up living in tents and flats,
eating powdered crickets and working to death "for the common good" and in order to "end
exploitation". Many countries have a mixed economy regulated and supervised by the state, and
you have a chance to negotiate a proper wage or become an entrepreneur. Social democracies
provide all citizens tax-funded healthcare and university level education, while allowing
competition, and being capable of maintaining peace and order, even if the exact same model
wouldn't work everywhere, and there could be improvements.
> 54:30 fun fact: In 1964 Brazil
suffered a Military Coup backed by the CIA/US. At the time leading to the coup, the
petite-bourgeois that thought themselves "the people" organized some marches. The names of
the marches were something like "March of the Families with God for Liberty", and they
marched bearing several posters accusing the then President Jango of being a communist,
saying that "Brazil wouldn't turn into a Cuba". Brazil was in a decade-long turmoil and the
President at the time decided to take some Nationalization attitudes and whatnot, so he was
obviously accused of being a communist, despite not even being a socialist. So the great fear
of communism was implanted in the Brazilian people's mind via those marches and subsequently,
less then a month later, the Fascist Military Coup was widely accepted as the unfortunate
best solution against communism. Needless to say that TO THE DAY there's a great denial of a
Coup, they created a narrative in which they lead people into believing the Military Junta
really saved Brazil from becoming Cuba. The result of it is that it's 2020 and the Brazilian
President is an Army Captain, his VP is an Army General, and several of his Ministers are
also Generals, during the COVID-19 Pandemic we have an "Operational President" named by the
High Command of the Armed Forces who is a General, and guess what? The President and his
lackeys are AGAIN shouting about the imminent Communist threat, this time forming armed
Paramilitary Groups trained in Ukraine by the Pravyy Sektor. If anyone out there sees this
comment, keep it in mind and save it, for in about 1-2 years we'll be having an unambiguous
Military Dictatorship in Brazil, AGAIN.
cle"> 12:22 "It's important to note
that fascism is not a wholly different government from the one you might know and it did not
end in 1945. For instance, most of these features I described would also, in milder forms,
describe a certain American presidency. That's right. The Reagan administration" *glaces
to date of the video*
So, by the 'textbook definition' of Fascism, pretty much every right-leaning politician in
the U.S and almost every right-wing pundit is a Fascist. Which isn't surprising, considering
how far the overton window has moved rightward and how far right the Democratic party is. You
can probably attribute this shift to how pro-capitalist and pro-imperialist the donor class
is and how that affects the make-up of the political parties.
rticle"> 41:20 just wanted to add
another example that I know a lot about. In France, the only protest that haven't been
repressed by the police are the protests from fascists (La manic pour Tous, Syndicats de
Police, Generation Identitaire). Other protests like the Yellow Vests, Feminist night
marches, strike protests, etc... (we've had a lotta protests in France these past years) are
always repressed. But what I want to talk about is the violence that counter protesters are
facing from the police. We have to be careful not to get hit or hurt by fascists but also be
careful of violence and arrests from the police. The very violent far right organization (and
very very racist) Generation Identitaire got to protest with thousand of policemen to protect
them. My girlfriend and I were asked (forced) to leave because we had a gay flag. The police
in France is extremely violent, and maybe not as much as in other countries such as Chile,
but the violence keeps increasing and it keeps getting more dangerous. As someone who
regularly goes to protests, I consider myself very lucky and very privilege for never getting
badly hurt by a cop. My lungs do suffer the consequence of the constant breathing of lacrymo
gas ahah Anyway, I just wanted to develop an example of another rich European country. (sorry
for English mistakes)
"Every border implies the violence necessary to maintain it..." That's a throw-away line
that had me stopping and thinking like god damn. LeftTube has definitely made me a more
thoughtful person as a whole.
ANTIFA defines fascist as, a cult of purity, victimhood, abandonment of liberty, and
redemptive violence. Doesn't it sound like they are defining themselves? (Antifa - The
Handbook for Antifascists)
I've just started to watch and I'm concerned about that facist checklist. Trump meets
quite a few of the criteria with his response to what's going on at the moment...so it is
somewhat hypocritical that he wants to label antifa as a terrorist organisation when in fact
anti facist movements are not an organisation (as you explained in the beginning). Possibly
another diversion tactic so people don't look at at Trump and his reaction to the
violence.
"... So if you want a recipe for disaster, this is it: Take police cadets, train them in the ways of war, dress and equip them for battle, teach them to see the people they serve not as human beings but as suspects and enemies, and then indoctrinate them into believing that their main priority is to make it home alive at any cost. ..."
"... Republished with permission from the Rutherford Institute . ..."
Police officers are more
likely to be struck by lightning than be held financially accountable for their actions.
-- Law professor Joanna C. Schwartz (paraphrased)
Unfortunately, if you can be kicked, punched, tasered, shot, intimidated, harassed,
stripped, searched, brutalized, terrorized, wrongfully arrested, and even killed by a police
officer, and that officer is never held accountable for violating your rights and his oath of
office to serve and protect, never forced to make amends, never told that what he did was
wrong, and never made to change his modus operandi, then you don't live in a constitutional
republic.
You live in a police state.
It doesn't even matter that "
crime is at historic lows and most cities are safer than they have been in generations, for
residents and officers alike," as the New York Times reports.
What matters is whether you're going to make it through a police confrontation alive and
with your health and freedoms intact. For a growing number of Americans, those confrontations
do not end well.
As David O. Brown, the Dallas chief of police, noted: "Sometimes it seems like our young
officers want to get into an athletic event with people they want to arrest. They have a 'don't
retreat' mentality.
They feel like they're warriors and they can't back down when someone is running from them,
no matter how minor the underlying crime is."
Making matters worse, in the cop culture that is America today, the Bill of Rights doesn't
amount to much. Unless, that is, it's the Law
Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights (LEOBoR), which protects police officers from being
subjected to the kinds of debilitating indignities heaped upon the average citizen.
Most Americans, oblivious about their own rights, aren't even aware that police officers
have their own Bill of Rights. Yet at the same time that our own protections against government
abuses have been reduced to little more than historic window dressing, 14 states have already
adopted LEOBoRs -- written by police unions and being considered by many more states and
Congress -- which provides police officers accused of a crime with special due process rights
and privileges not afforded to the average citizen.
Not only are officers given a 10-day
"cooling-off period" during which they cannot be forced to make any statements about the
incident, but when they are questioned, it must be "for a reasonable length of time, at a
reasonable hour, by only one or two investigators (who must be fellow policemen), and with
plenty of breaks for food and water."
If a department decides to pursue a complaint against an officer, the department must notify
the officer and his union.
The officer must be informed of the complainants, and their
testimony against him, before he is questioned.
During questioning, investigators may not harass, threaten, or promise rewards to the
officer, as interrogators not infrequently do to civilian suspects.
Bathroom breaks are
assured during questioning.
In Maryland, the officer may appeal his case to a "hearing board," whose decision is
binding, before a final decision has been made by his superiors about his discipline. The
hearing board consists of three of the suspected offender's fellow officers.
In some
jurisdictions, the officer may not be disciplined if more than a certain number of days (often
100) have passed since his alleged misconduct, which limits the time for investigation.
Even if the officer is suspended, the department must continue to pay salary and benefits,
as well as the cost of the officer's attorney.
It's a pretty sweet deal if you can get it, I suppose: protection from the courts, immunity
from wrongdoing, paid leave while you're under investigation, and the assurance that you won't
have to spend a dime of your own money in your defense. And yet these LEOBoR epitomize
everything that is wrong with America today.
Once in a while, the system appears to work on the
side of justice , and police officers engaged in wrongdoing are actually charged for
abusing their authority and using excessive force against American citizens.
Yet even in these instances, it's still the American taxpayer who foots the bill.
For example, Baltimore taxpayers have paid roughly
$5.7 million since 2011 over lawsuits stemming from police abuses, with an additional $5.8
million going towards legal fees. If the six Baltimore police officers charged with the
death
of Freddie Gray are convicted, you can rest assured it will be the Baltimore taxpayers who
feel the pinch.
New York taxpayers have shelled out almost $1,130 per year per police officer (there are
34,500 officers in the NYPD) to address charges of misconduct. That translates to
$38 million every year just to clean up after these so-called public servants.
Over a 10-year-period, Oakland, Calif., taxpayers
were made to cough up more than $57 million (curiously enough, the same amount as the
city's deficit back in 2011) in order to settle accounts with alleged victims of police
abuse.
Over 78% of the funds paid out by Denver taxpayers over the course of a decade arose as a
result of alleged abuse or
excessive use of force by the Denver police and sheriff departments. Meanwhile, taxpayers
in Ferguson, Missouri, are being asked to pay
$40 million in compensation -- more than the city's entire budget -- for police officers
treating them "'as if they were war combatants,' using tactics like beating, rubber bullets,
pepper spray, and stun grenades, while the plaintiffs were peacefully protesting, sitting in a
McDonalds, and in one case walking down the street to visit relatives."
That's just a small sampling of the most egregious payouts, but just about every community
-- large and small -- feels the pinch when it comes to compensating victims who have been
subjected to deadly or excessive force by police.
The ones who
rarely ever feel the pinch are the officers accused or convicted of wrongdoing, "even if
they are disciplined or terminated by their department, criminally prosecuted, or even
imprisoned." Indeed, a study published in the NYU Law Review reveals that 99.8% of the monies
paid in settlements and judgments in police misconduct cases never come
out of the officers' own pockets , even when state laws require them to be held liable.
Moreover, these officers rarely ever have to pay for their own legal defense.
For instance, law professor Joanna C. Schwartz references a case in which three Denver
police officers chased and then beat a 16-year-old boy, stomping "on the boy's back while using
a fence for leverage, breaking his ribs and causing him to suffer kidney damage and a lacerated
liver." The cost to Denver taxpayers to settle the lawsuit: $885,000. The amount the
officers contributed: 0 .
Kathryn Johnston, 92 years old, was shot and killed during a SWAT team raid that went awry.
Attempting to cover their backs, the officers falsely claimed Johnston's home was the site of a
cocaine sale and went so far as to plant marijuana in the house to support their claim. The
cost to Atlanta taxpayers to settle the lawsuit: $4.9 million. The amount the
officers contributed: 0 .
Meanwhile, in Albuquerque, a police officer was convicted of raping a woman in his police
car, in addition to sexually assaulting four other women and girls, physically abusing two
additional women, and kidnapping or falsely imprisoning five men and boys. The cost to the
Albuquerque taxpayers to settle the lawsuit: $1,000,000. The amount the
officer contributed: 0 .
Human Rights Watch notes that taxpayers actually pay three times for
officers who repeatedly commit abuses : "once to cover their salaries while they commit
abuses; next to pay settlements or civil jury awards against officers; and a third time through
payments into police 'defense' funds provided by the cities."
Still, the number of times a police officer is actually held accountable for wrongdoing
while on the job is miniscule compared to the number of times cops are allowed to walk away
with little more than a slap on the wrist.
A large part of the problem can be chalked up to influential police unions and laws
providing for qualified immunity , not to mention these Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of
Rights laws, which allow officers to walk away without paying a dime for their wrongdoing.
Another part of the problem is rampant cronyism among government bureaucrats: those deciding
whether a police officer should be immune from having to personally pay for misbehavior on the
job all belong
to the same system , all with a vested interest in protecting the police and their infamous
code of silence: city and county attorneys, police commissioners, city councils and judges.
Most of all, what we're dealing with is systemic corruption that protects wrongdoing and
recasts it in a noble light. However, there is nothing noble about government agents who kick,
punch, shoot and kill defenseless individuals. There is nothing just about police officers
rendered largely immune from prosecution for wrongdoing. There is nothing democratic about the
word of a government agent being given greater weight in court than that of the average
citizen. And no good can come about when the average citizen has no real means of defense
against a system that is weighted in favor of government bureaucrats.
So if you want a recipe for disaster, this is it: Take police cadets, train them in the
ways of war, dress and equip them for battle, teach them to see the people they serve not as
human beings but as suspects and enemies, and then indoctrinate them into believing that their
main priority is to make it home alive at any cost. While you're at it,
spend more time drilling them on how to use a gun (58 hours) and employ defensive tactics
(49 hours) than on how to calm a situation before resorting to force (8 hours).
Then, once they're hyped up on their own authority and the power of the badge and their gun,
throw in a few court rulings suggesting that security takes precedence over individual rights,
set it against a backdrop of endless wars and militarized law enforcement, and then add to the
mix a populace distracted by entertainment, out of touch with the workings of their government,
and more inclined to let a few sorry souls suffer injustice than challenge the status quo or
appear unpatriotic.
That's not to discount the many honorable police officers working thankless jobs across the
country in order to serve and protect their fellow citizens, but there can be no denying that,
as journalist Michael Daly acknowledges, there is a troublesome "
cop culture that tends to dehumanize or at least objectify suspected lawbreakers of
whatever race. The instant you are deemed a candidate for arrest, you become not so much a
person as a 'perp.'"
Older cops are equally troubled by this shift in how police are being trained to view
Americans -- as things, not people. Daly had a veteran police officer join him to review the
video footage of 43-year-old Eric Garner crying out and struggling to breathe as cops held him
in a chokehold. (In yet another example of how the legal system and the police protect their
own, no police officers were charged for Garner's death.) Daly describes the veteran officer's
reaction to the footage, which as Daly points out, "
constitutes a moral indictment not so much of what the police did but of what the police
did not do":
"I don't see anyone in that video saying, 'Look, we got to ease up,'" says the veteran
officer. "Where's the human side of you in that you've got a guy saying, 'I can't breathe?'"
The veteran officer goes on, "Somebody needs to say, 'Stop it!' That's what's missing here
was a voice of reason. The only voice we're hearing is of Eric Garner." The veteran officer
believes Garner might have survived had anybody heeded his pleas. "He could have had a
chance," says the officer, who is black. "But
you got to believe he's a human being first . A human being saying, 'I can't breathe.'"
As I point out in my new book Battlefield
America: The War on the American People , when all is said and done, the various problems
we're facing today -- militarized police, police shootings of unarmed people, the electronic
concentration camp being erected around us, SWAT team raids, etc. -- can be attributed to the
fact that our government and its agents have ceased to see us as humans first.
Then again, perhaps we are just as much to blame for this sorry state of affairs. After all,
if we want to be treated like human beings -- with dignity and worth -- then we need to start
treating those around us in the same manner. As Martin Luther King Jr. warned in a speech given
exactly one year to the day before he was killed: "We must rapidly begin the shift from a
'thing-oriented'
society to a 'person-oriented' society. When machines and computers, profit motives and
property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism,
materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered."
"... "Instead of participating in power," he writes, "the virtual citizen is invited to have 'opinions': measurable responses to questions predesigned to elicit them." ..."
"... Political campaigns rarely discuss substantive issues. They center on manufactured political personalities, empty rhetoric, sophisticated public relations, slick advertising, propaganda and the constant use of focus groups and opinion polls to loop back to voters what they want to hear. Money has effectively replaced the vote. Every current presidential candidate -- including Bernie Sanders -- understands, to use Wolin's words, that "the subject of empire is taboo in electoral debates." The citizen is irrelevant. He or she is nothing more than a spectator, allowed to vote and then forgotten once the carnival of elections ends and corporations and their lobbyists get back to the business of ruling. ..."
"... "If the main purpose of elections is to serve up pliant legislators for lobbyists to shape, such a system deserves to be called 'misrepresentative or clientry government,' " Wolin writes. "It is, at one and the same time, a powerful contributing factor to the depoliticization of the citizenry, as well as reason for characterizing the system as one of antidemocracy." ..."
Sheldon Wolin, our most important contemporary political theorist, died Oct. 21 at the age
of 93. In his books " Democracy
Incorporated : Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism" and "
Politics and
Vision ," a massive survey of Western political thought that his former student Cornel West
calls "magisterial," Wolin lays bare the realities of our bankrupt democracy, the causes behind
the decline of American empire and the rise of a new and terrifying configuration of corporate
power he calls "inverted totalitarianism."
Wendy
Brown , a political science professor at UC Berkeley and another former student of Wolin's,
said in an email to me: "Resisting the monopolies on left theory by Marxism and on democratic
theory by liberalism, Wolin developed a distinctive -- even distinctively American -- analysis
of the political present and of radical democratic possibilities. He was especially prescient
in theorizing the heavy statism forging what we now call neoliberalism , and in
revealing the novel fusions of economic with political power that he took to be poisoning
democracy at its root."
Wolin throughout his scholarship charted the devolution of American democracy and in his
last book, "Democracy Incorporated," details our
peculiar form of corporate totalitarianism. "One cannot point to any national
institution[s] that can accurately be described as democratic," he writes in that book, "surely
not in the highly managed, money-saturated elections, the lobby-infested Congress, the imperial
presidency, the class-biased judicial and penal system, or, least of all, the media."
Inverted totalitarianism is different from classical forms of totalitarianism. It does not
find its expression in a demagogue or charismatic leader but in the faceless anonymity of the
corporate state. Our inverted totalitarianism pays outward fealty to the facade of electoral
politics, the Constitution, civil liberties, freedom of the press, the independence of the
judiciary, and the iconography, traditions and language of American patriotism, but it has
effectively seized all of the mechanisms of power to render the citizen impotent.
"Unlike the Nazis, who made life uncertain for the wealthy and privileged while providing
social programs for the working class and poor, inverted totalitarianism exploits the poor,
reducing or weakening health programs and social services, regimenting mass education for an
insecure workforce threatened by the importation of low-wage workers," Wolin writes.
"Employment in a high-tech, volatile, and globalized economy is normally as precarious as
during an old-fashioned depression. The result is that citizenship, or what remains of it, is
practiced amidst a continuing state of worry. Hobbes had it right: when citizens are insecure and
at the same time driven by competitive aspirations, they yearn for political stability rather
than civic engagement, protection rather than political involvement." Inverted totalitarianism,
Wolin said when we met at his home in Salem, Ore., in 2014 to film a nearly three-hour interview , constantly
"projects power upwards." It is "the antithesis of constitutional power." It is designed to
create instability to keep a citizenry off balance and passive.
He writes, "Downsizing, reorganization, bubbles bursting, unions busted, quickly outdated
skills, and transfer of jobs abroad create not just fear but an economy of fear, a system of
control whose power feeds on uncertainty, yet a system that, according to its analysts, is
eminently rational."
Inverted totalitarianism also "perpetuates politics all the time," Wolin said when we spoke,
"but a politics that is not political." The endless and extravagant election cycles, he said,
are an example of politics without politics.
"Instead of participating in power," he writes, "the virtual citizen is invited to have
'opinions': measurable responses to questions predesigned to elicit them."
Political campaigns rarely discuss substantive issues. They center on manufactured political
personalities, empty rhetoric, sophisticated public relations, slick advertising, propaganda
and the constant use of focus groups and opinion polls to loop back to voters what they want to
hear. Money has effectively replaced the vote. Every current presidential candidate --
including Bernie Sanders -- understands, to use Wolin's words, that "the subject of empire is
taboo in electoral debates." The citizen is irrelevant. He or she is nothing more than a
spectator, allowed to vote and then forgotten once the carnival of elections ends and
corporations and their lobbyists get back to the business of ruling.
"If the main purpose of elections is to serve up pliant legislators for lobbyists to shape,
such a system deserves to be called 'misrepresentative or clientry government,' " Wolin writes.
"It is, at one and the same time, a powerful contributing factor to the depoliticization of the
citizenry, as well as reason for characterizing the system as one of antidemocracy."
The result, he writes, is that the public is "denied the use of state power." Wolin deplores
the trivialization of political discourse, a tactic used to leave the public fragmented,
antagonistic and emotionally charged while leaving corporate power and empire unchallenged.
"Cultural wars might seem an indication of strong political involvements," he writes.
"Actually they are a substitute. The notoriety they receive from the media and from politicians
eager to take firm stands on nonsubstantive issues serves to distract attention and contribute
to a cant politics of the inconsequential."
"The ruling groups can now operate on the assumption that they don't need the traditional
notion of something called a public in the broad sense of a coherent whole," he said in our
meeting. "They now have the tools to deal with the very disparities and differences that they
have themselves helped to create. It's a game in which you manage to undermine the cohesiveness
that the public requires if they [the public] are to be politically effective. And at the same
time, you create these different, distinct groups that inevitably find themselves in tension or
at odds or in competition with other groups, so that it becomes more of a melee than it does
become a way of fashioning majorities."
In classical totalitarian regimes, such as those of Nazi fascism or Soviet communism,
economics was subordinate to politics. But "under inverted totalitarianism the reverse is
true," Wolin writes. "Economics dominates politics -- and with that domination comes different
forms of ruthlessness."He continues: "The United States has become the showcase of how
democracy can be managed without appearing to be suppressed."
The corporate state, Wolin told me, is "legitimated by elections it controls." To extinguish
democracy, it rewrites and distorts laws and legislation that once protected democracy. Basic
rights are, in essence, revoked by judicial and legislative fiat. Courts and legislative
bodies, in the service of corporate power, reinterpret laws to strip them of their original
meaning in order to strengthen corporate control and abolish corporate oversight.
He writes: "Why negate a constitution, as the Nazis did, if it is possible simultaneously to
exploit porosity and legitimate power by means of judicial interpretations that declare
huge campaign contributions to be protected speech under the First Amendment, or that treat
heavily financed and organized lobbying by large corporations as a simple application of the
people's right to petition their government?"
Our system of inverted totalitarianism will avoid harsh and violent measures of control "as
long as dissent remains ineffectual," he told me. "The government does not need to stamp out
dissent. The uniformity of imposed public opinion through the corporate media does a very
effective job."
And the elites, especially the intellectual class, have been bought off. "Through a
combination of governmental contracts, corporate and foundation funds, joint projects involving
university and corporate researchers, and wealthy individual donors, universities (especially
so-called research universities), intellectuals, scholars, and researchers have been seamlessly
integrated into the system," Wolin writes. "No books burned, no refugee Einsteins."
But, he warns, should the population -- steadily stripped of its most basic rights,
including the right to privacy, and increasingly impoverished and bereft of hope -- become
restive, inverted totalitarianism will become as brutal and violent as past totalitarian
states. "The war on terrorism, with its accompanying emphasis upon 'homeland security,'
presumes that state power, now inflated by doctrines
of preemptive war and released from treaty obligations and the potential constraints of
international judicial bodies, can turn inwards," he writes, "confident that in its domestic
pursuit of terrorists the powers it claimed, like the powers projected abroad, would be
measured, not by ordinary constitutional standards, but by the shadowy and ubiquitous character
of terrorism as officially defined."
The indiscriminate police violence in poor communities of color is an example of the ability
of the corporate state to "legally" harass and kill citizens with impunity. The cruder forms of
control -- from militarized police to wholesale surveillance, as well as police serving as
judge, jury and executioner, now a reality for the underclass -- will become a reality for all
of us should we begin to resist the continued funneling of power and wealth upward. We are
tolerated as citizens, Wolin warns, only as long as we participate in the illusion of a
participatory democracy. The moment we rebel and refuse to take part in the illusion, the face
of inverted totalitarianism will look like the face of past systems of totalitarianism.
"The significance of the African-American prison population is political," he writes. "What
is notable about the African-American population generally is that it is highly sophisticated
politically and by far the one group that throughout the twentieth century kept alive a spirit
of resistance and rebelliousness. In that context, criminal justice is as much a strategy of
political neutralization as it is a channel of instinctive racism."
In his writings, Wolin expresses consternation for a population severed from print and the
nuanced world of ideas. He sees cinema, like television, as "tyrannical" because of its ability
to "block out, eliminate whatever might introduce qualification, ambiguity, or dialogue." He
rails against what he calls a "monochromatic media" with corporate-approved pundits used to
identify "the problem and its parameters, creating a box that dissenters struggle vainly to
elude. The critic who insists on changing the context is dismissed as irrelevant, extremist,
'the Left' -- or ignored altogether."
The constant dissemination of illusions permits myth rather than reality to dominate the
decisions of the power elites. And when myth dominates, disaster descends upon the empire, as
14 years of futile war in the Middle East and our failure to react to climate change
illustrate. Wolin writes:
When myth begins to govern decision-makers in a world where ambiguity and stubborn facts
abound, the result is a disconnect between the actors and the reality. They convince
themselves that the forces of darkness possess weapons of mass destruction and nuclear
capabilities: that their own nation is privileged by a god who inspired the Founding Fathers
and the writing of the nation's constitution; and that a class structure of great and
stubborn inequalities does not exist. A grim but joyous few see portents of a world that is
living out "the last days."
Wolin was a bombardier and a navigator on a B-24 Liberator heavy bomber in the South Pacific
in World War II. He flew 51 combat missions. The planes had crews of up to 10. From
Guadalcanal, he advanced with American forces as they captured islands in the Pacific. During
the campaign the military high command decided to direct the B-24 bombers -- which were huge
and difficult to fly in addition to having little maneuverability -- against Japanese ships, a
tactic that saw tremendous losses of planes and American lives. The use of the B-24, nicknamed
"the flying boxcar" and "the flying coffin," to attack warships bristling with antiaircraft
guns exposed for Wolin the callousness of military commanders who blithely sacrificed their air
crews and war machines in schemes that offered little chance of success.
"It was terrible," he said of the orders to bomb ships. "We received awful losses from that,
because these big, lumbering aircraft, particularly flying low trying to hit the Japanese navy
-- and we lost countless people in it, countless."
"We had quite a few psychological casualties men, boys, who just couldn't take it anymore,"
he said, "just couldn't stand the strain of getting up at 5 in the morning and proceeding to
get into these aircraft and go and getting shot at for a while and coming back to rest for
another day."Wolin saw the militarists and the corporatists, who formed an unholy coalition to
orchestrate the rise of a global American empire after the war, as the forces that extinguished
American democracy. He called inverted totalitarianism "the true face of Superpower." These war
profiteers and militarists, advocating the doctrine of total war during the Cold War, bled the
country of resources. They also worked in tandem to dismantle popular institutions and
organizations such as labor unions to politically disempower and impoverish workers. They
"normalized" war. And Wolin warns that, as in all empires, they eventually will be "eviscerated
by their own expansionism." There will never be a return to democracy, he cautions, until the
unchecked power of the militarists and corporatists is dramatically curtailed. A war state
cannot be a democratic state.
Wolin writes:
National defense was declared inseparable from a strong economy. The fixation upon
mobilization and rearmament inspired the gradual disappearance from the national political
agenda of the regulation and control of corporations. The defender of the free world needed
the power of the globalizing, expanding corporation, not an economy hampered by "trust
busting." Moreover, since the enemy was rabidly anticapitalist, every measure that
strengthened capitalism was a blow against the enemy. Once the battle lines between communism
and the "free society" were drawn, the economy became untouchable for purposes other than
"strengthening" capitalism. The ultimate merger would be between capitalism and democracy.
Once the identity and security of democracy were successfully identified with the Cold War
and with the methods for waging it, the stage was set for the intimidation of most politics
left or right.
The result is a nation dedicated almost exclusively to waging war.
"When a constitutionally limited government utilizes weapons of horrendous destructive
power, subsidizes their development, and becomes the world's largest arms dealer," Wolin
writes, "the Constitution is conscripted to serve as power's apprentice rather than its
conscience."
He goes on:
That the patriotic citizen unswervingly supports the military and its huge budget means
that conservatives have succeeded in persuading the public that the military is distinct from
government. Thus the most substantial element of state power is removed from public debate.
Similarly in his/her new status as imperial citizen the believer remains contemptuous of
bureaucracy yet does not hesitate to obey the directives issued by the Department of Homeland
Security, the largest and most intrusive governmental department in the history of the
nation. Identification with militarism and patriotism, along with the images of American
might projected by the media, serves to make the individual citizen feel stronger, thereby
compensating for the feelings of weakness visited by the economy upon an overworked,
exhausted, and insecure labor force. For its antipolitics inverted totalitarianism requires
believers, patriots, and nonunion "guest workers."
Sheldon Wolin was often considered an outcast among contemporary political theorists whose
concentration on quantitative analysis and behaviorialism led them to eschew the examination of
broad political theory and ideas. Wolin insisted that philosophy, even that written by the
ancient Greeks, was not a dead relic but a vital tool to examine and challenge the assumptions
and ideologies of contemporary systems of power and political thought. Political theory, he
argued, was "primarily a civic and secondarily an academic activity." It had a role "not just
as an historical discipline that dealt with the critical examination of idea systems," he told
me, but as a force "in helping to fashion public policies and governmental directions, and
above all civic education, in a way that would further the goals of a more democratic, more
egalitarian, more educated society." His 1969 essay "Political Theory as a Vocation" argued for
this imperative and chastised fellow academics who focused their work on data collection and
academic minutiae. He writes, with his usual lucidity and literary flourishes, in that
essay:
In a fundamental sense, our world has become as perhaps no previous world has, the product
of design, the product of theories about human structures deliberately created rather than
historically articulated. But in another sense, the embodiment of theory in the world has
resulted in a world impervious to theory. The giant, routinized structures defy fundamental
alteration and, at the same time, display an unchallengeable legitimacy, for the rational,
scientific, and technological principles on which they are based seem in perfect accord with
an age committed to science, rationalism and technology. Above all, it is a world which
appears to have rendered epic theory superfluous. Theory, as Hegel had foreseen, must take
the form of "explanation." Truly, it seems to be the age when Minerva's owl has taken flight.
Wolin's 1960 masterpiece "Politics and Vision," subtitled "Continuity and Innovation in
Western Political Thought," drew on a vast array of political theorists and philosophers
including Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Immanuel Kant, John Locke, John Calvin, Martin Luther,
Thomas Hobbes, Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx, Max Weber, John Dewey and Hannah Arendt to
reflect back to us our political and cultural reality. His task, he stated at the end of the
book, was, "in the era of Superpower," to "nurture the civic consciousness of the society." The
imperative to amplify and protect democratic traditions from the contemporary forces that
sought to destroy them permeated all of his work, including his books " Hobbes
and the Epic Tradition of Political Theory " and " Tocqueville Between Two Worlds : The
Making of a Political and Theoretical Life."
Wolin's magnificence as a scholar was matched by his magnificence as a human being. He stood
with students at UC Berkeley, where he taught, to support the Free Speech Movement and wrote
passionately in its defense. Many of these essays were published in "The Berkeley Rebellion and
Beyond: Essays on Politics and Education in the Technological Society." Later, as a professor
at Princeton University, he was one of a handful of faculty members who joined students to call
for divestment of investments in apartheid South Africa. He once accompanied students to
present the case to Princeton alumni. "I've never been jeered quite so roundly," he said. "Some
of them called me [a] 50-year-old sophomore and that kind of thing."
From 1981 to 1983, Wolin published Democracy: A Journal of Political Renewal and Radical
Change. In its pages he and other writers called out the con game of neoliberalism, the danger
of empire, the rise of unchecked corporate power and the erosion of democratic institutions and
ideals. The journal swiftly made him a pariah within the politics department at Princeton."I
remember once when I was up editing that journal, I left a copy of it on the table in the
faculty room hoping that somebody would read it and comment," he said. "I never heard a word.
And during all the time I was there and doing Democracy, I never had one colleague come up to
me and either say something positive or even negative about it. Just absolute silence."
Max Weber , whom
Wolin called "the greatest of all sociologists," argues in his essay "Politics as a Vocation"
that those who dedicate their lives to striving for justice in the modern political arena are
like the classical heroes who can never overcome what the ancient Greeks called fortuna.
These heroes, Wolin writes in "Politics and Vision," rise up nevertheless "to heights of moral
passion and grandeur, harried by a deep sense of responsibility." Yet, Wolin goes on, "at
bottom, [the contemporary hero] is a figure as futile and pathetic as his classical
counterpart. The fate of the classical hero was that he could never overcome contingency or
fortuna ; the special irony of the modern hero is that he struggles in a world where
contingency has been routed by bureaucratized procedures and nothing remains for the hero to
contend against. Weber's political leader is rendered superfluous by the very bureaucratic
world that Weber discovered: even charisma has been bureaucratized. We are left with the
ambiguity of the political man fired by deep passion -- 'to be passionate, ira et
studium , is the element of the political leader' -- but facing the impersonal world of
bureaucracy which lives by the passionless principle that Weber frequently cited, sine ira
et studio , 'without scorn or bias.' "
Wolin writes that even when faced with certain defeat, all of us are called to the "awful
responsibility" of the fight for justice, equality and liberty.
"You don't win," Wolin said at the end of our talk. "Or you win rarely. And if you win, it's
often for a very short time. That's why politics is a vocation for Weber. It's not an
occasional undertaking that we assume every two years or every four years when there's an
election. It's a constant occupation and preoccupation. And the problem, as Weber saw it, was
to understand it not as a partisan kind of education in the politicians or political party
sense, but as in the broad understanding of what political life should be and what is required
to make it sustainable. He's calling for a certain kind of understanding that's very different
from what we think about when we associate political understanding with how do you vote or what
party do you support or what cause do you support. Weber's asking us to step back and say what
kind of political order, and the values associated with it that it promotes, are we willing to
really give a lot for, including sacrifice."
Wolin embodied the qualities Weber ascribes to the hero. He struggled against forces he knew
he could not vanquish. He never wavered in the fight as an intellectual and, more important, in
the fight as a citizen. He was one of the first to explain to us the transformation of our
capitalist democracy into a new species of totalitarianism. He warned us of the consequences of
unbridled empire or superpower. He called on us to rise up and resist. His "Democracy
Incorporated" was ignored by every major newspaper and journal in the country. This did not
surprise him. He knew his power. So did his enemies. All his fears for the nation have come to
pass. A corporate monstrosity rules us. If we held up a scorecard we would have to say Wolin
lost, but we would also have to acknowledge the integrity, brilliance, courage and nobility of
his life.
Trump's threat to deploy the military here
is an excessive and dangerous one. Mark Perry reports on the reaction from military officers to
the president's threat:
Senior military officer on Trump statement: "So we're going to tell our soldiers that we're
redeploying them from the Middle East to the midwest? What do we think they're going to say,
'yeah, sure, no problem?' Guess again."
According to the standards set by the Trump administration when the Guaido coup first launched,
the video footage of these protests is full justification for a foreign nation to directly
intervene and remove Trump from office by force right now.
Looks like antifa members is Maoists not Fascists.
Notable quotes:
"... Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook ..."
"... These people are self-defeating morons, yes, but they still have the potential to do great damage ..."
"... Last night, here in Washington, the unrest they helped fuel saw a church lit on fire, LaFayette Park near the White House set ablaze, the AFL-CIO building attacked, and the Lincoln Memorial defaced. ..."
Back in 2018, my friend Zachary Yost suffered his way through Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook , a primer on the group
written by (but of course!) Dartmouth lecturer Mark Bray. What he found was a chillingly lucid call to revolution that subordinated
all else to the goal of overthrowing capitalism and the "Far Right." So free speech, for example, is dispensable, valuable only to
the extent that it enables the coming flames.
Yost writes:
By the time he's finished, Bray has thrown everything and the kitchen sink into the category of fascist ideologies that must
be targeted, ranging from whiteness to "ableism, heteronormativity, patriarchy, nationalism, transphobia, class rule, and many
others." Though cloaked in calls to stop oppression, Bray's book at its core makes the case for the exercise of raw, unbridled
power. Under this revolutionary ideology, no dissent can be tolerated. There can be no live and let live -- it is all or nothing.
In fairness, Antifa is a wide and somewhat amorphous umbrella, some of whose members may not subscribe to everything Bray says.
But what the more committed among them seem to understand is that, come lawlessness, power will flow naturally to he who has the
most muscle, he who's most willing to pick up a brick and throw it, at the expense of the poor and vulnerable. Remember that tonight
when we inevitably see more violence in the streets. Senselessness is the point. Preying on the innocent is the goal.
Remember after Charlottesville when some on social media compared these guys to the American soldiers who fought the Nazis at
Normandy? I don't want to hear another word about that. Antifa may stand for antifascist, but Yost's piece makes it clear that they're
fascist to their marrow. And as with many latter-day fascists and extremists, Antifa are simultaneously cogent at the manifesto level
and utterly delusional as to likely outcomes. They aren't going to overthrow capitalism or Donald Trump. They may, however, affect
the election in five months, with the most likely beneficiary the president they so despise.
These people are self-defeating morons, yes, but they still have the potential to do great damage.
Last night, here in Washington, the unrest they helped fuel saw a church lit on fire, LaFayette Park near the White House
set ablaze, the AFL-CIO building attacked, and the Lincoln Memorial defaced.
This is how a Franco ends up in power: because even churches are being targeted, even the moderate leftists aren't safe. Bully
people long enough and they long for a bully of their own. That Antifa has desecrated the protests over George Floyd's death this
way is appalling and I wish them nothing but the worst.
Matt Purple is a senior editor at The American Conservative .
I can picture anarchists setting fire to Minneapolis, but I was always under the clear impression that ANTIFA was really, really,
focused on outing neo-nazis, punching marchers in the face, and deplatforming the ALT-RIGHT. God's work! Why in the world would
they torch Popeyes?
One of the Fox news affiliate stations had reported looking at the paper work for people arrested in their city and said that
80% of the people arrested were from in state. That was after both Trump and Barr had claimed they were almost all from out of
state. If they lied about that what reason is there to believe that the rest of their claims are true? What evidence is there
other than a report of a pallet of brick (how do you unload it with out a forklift?) being left some where what evidence is there
that all of this is co-ordinated and not just random thugs? Why is the assumption that they are left leaning or tied to the Democratic
party? At least one of the people caught breaking windows, carrying an umbrella and masked was an off duty police officer which
generally lean to the right. I know a 25 year old man was arrested for burning a court house. The young tend to lean left but
also tend to act irrationally with out a cause. Is there any actual evidence to point to this being Antifa or are we just supposed
to take POTUS's word for it?
Trump and Barr merely picked up on claims from the governor of MN and mayor of Minneapolis. They did not originate the claim that
the rioters were from out-of-state.
Uh, the assumption that they are left-leaning comes from the fact that they spray-paint left-leaning things, and shout left-leaning
things.
I haven't heard anyone claim that they are tied to the Democratic Party, but many Democratic Party politicians have avoided
condemning them, and many Democratic Party-backing commentators/journalists have openly defended them.
The NYC Police Dept. reports that they have in their possession communications among Antifa units making detailed plans for
riots in places like NYC days before the riots occurred.
Something like a thousand people have been arrested now in these riots. How many of them have been identified as right-wing
or right-leaning? I don't know of a single one. You don't think these lefty Dem mayors and the MSM would be parading any evidence
they had of right-leaning rioters?
The Minnesota Freedom Fund is also being funded by politically correct Hollywood leftists. If Minneapolis really is a right-wing
insurrection highly disguised, it's fooled the woke crowd unmercifully.
"The destruction of businesses we're witnessing across the US is not mere
opportunism by looters. It plays a critical role in antifa and BLM
ideology"
Grouping Black Lives Matter together with Anti-Fa is a good propaganda effort, but those groups have different focuses. Anti-Fa
is a reaction to the neo-Nazis, but it is also home to a lot of anarchists.
Black Lives Matter is focused on African American rights and an opposition to police brutality. If you look at their web site,
it is all about civil rights both in the U.S. and internationally. They also have a stated agenda of supporting LGBTQ rights.
It's hard to find any ideology in favor of looting. In fact, they are on-record in support of minority-owned (capitalist) businesses
and economic development.
Trump's threat
to deploy the military here is an excessive and dangerous one. Mark Perry reports on the reaction
from military officers to the president's threat:
Senior military officer on Trump statement: "So we're going to tell our soldiers that we're
redeploying them from the Middle East to the midwest? What do we think they're going to say,
'yeah, sure, no problem?' Guess again."
Earlier in the day yesterday, audio has leaked in which the Secretary of Defense
referred to U.S. cities as the "battlespace." Separately, Sen. Tom Cotton was
making vile remarks about using the military to give "no quarter" to looters. This is the
language of militarism.
It is a consequence of decades of endless war and the government's
tendency to rely on militarized options as their answer for every problem. Endless war has had a
deeply corrosive effect on this country's political system: presidential overreach, the
normalization of illegal uses of force, a lack of legal accountability for crimes committed in
the wars, and a lack of political accountability for the leaders that continue to wage pointless
and illegal wars. Now we see new abuses committed and encouraged by a lawless president, but this
time it is Americans that are on the receiving end. Trump hasn't ended any of the foreign wars he
inherited, and now it seems that he will use the military in an llegal mission here at home.
The military is the only American institution that young people still have any real degree of
faith in, it will be interesting to see the polls when this is all over with.
Fascism is an ideology that presuppose mass mobilization (often of the base of previous
humiliation and current difficulties) by an ultranationalist party with populist program. Just
being ultranationalist is not enough. If element of mass mobilization is absent this is also not
a fascism.
Notable quotes:
"... The same administration provoked similar ill-conceived and unhelpful monographs on Fascism from Cass Sunstein ( Can it Happen Here? ), Madeleine Albright ( Fascism: A Warning ), and Harvard duo Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt ( How Democracies Die ). All of these individuals are Jews, and this is not a coincidence. In fact, since the production of Leon Trotsky's Fascism: What it is and How to Fight It (compiled between 1922 and 1933) and the Frankfurt School's project on the "Authoritarian Personality," Jews have been at the forefront of paving the cultural, as well as political, path to Antifa activity. ..."
"... They do so by bastardising public understanding of the nature of Fascist politics, thereby shaping "anti-Fascism" as a vehicle for the undermining of the White nation. When it comes to Fascism, "Jews know it when they see it," a pronouncement we are all encouraged to accept without question. ..."
"... His lack of education and reading in the subject is therefore apparently more than compensated for in the fact he is emotionally distressed by it. Right. ..."
"... Stanley, Sunstein, Levitsky, Ziblatt, and Albright have produced quite typical examples of Jewish propaganda disguised as "anti-Fascist" literature. The key features of such works are invariably a vague definition of Fascism, an attempt to relate "warnings" to some aspect of contemporary politics, melodramatic admonitions about a putative future violent catastrophe that must be avoided, and maudlin appeals to personal family history and "emotional baggage." ..."
"... The family, the acknowledgement of heterosexuality as culturally and biologically normative and preferential, the desirability of mono-ethnic cultures, and the acknowledgement of inequality among human beings are reframed in this kind of "warning literature" as inherently Fascistic. ..."
"... Fascism's unforgivable sin was its spot-on critique of the failure of liberal democracy, which, it argued, was the inevitable result of its corruption by capitalism. ..."
"... In this way, fascism is the thinking person's version of Marxism, stripped of the latter's absurd mismeasures of human nature. Fascism restored the traditional fabric of society, placing the needs of the national community above the selfish whims of the individual. In so doing it gave to otherwise alienated individuals the sense of common purpose and connection to others that are so vital to mental health. ..."
"... And only a strong authoritarian state can claim and effectively wield the power necessary to undo the damage that capitalism does ..."
"... No wonder the mortal adversaries, western imperialism and Soviet communism, were so terrified of this existential challenge to their oppressive systems that they made temporary common cause of ruthlessly annihilating Germany in history's most destructive war. ..."
"... Fascism is the cry of the lower middle class who do not understand how things work or where they came from. It is an urban tryharder phenomenon. Very short attention spans. ..."
"... George Orwell understood this: he was tolerant but realistic, and "conservative" in a natural way, all the time grasping the nature of Capitalism, that man needs to be set free not governed by others. Liberal Democracy is just a means to stablise government instead of civil wars. ..."
"... Vulture Capitalism and Marxist Socialism have the same elite masters and revolting against it in the interest of the people. ..."
"... Paul Gottfried's Fascism: the Career of a Concept. Although Jewish, Prof Gottfried is a paleoconservative and his books are always carefully written. His work on Fascism is probably the best recent work on the subject. I don't know why Dr Joyce didn't mention it. ..."
"... Interesting (and alarming) essay by Dr.. Joyce. Alarming because the sheer relentlessness and vindictiveness of these people is matched only by the vacuity, shallowness and spite of their ostensible "intellectual" product. ..."
Concluding one of America's more infamous obscenity trials in 1964, Justice Potter Stewart
absolved a controversial French motion picture with an opinion that has since passed into
common parlance: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I
understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed
in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it , and the motion picture
involved in this case is not that."
The opinion was celebrated at the time as a victory for
freedom of expression, and paved the way for a later deluge of Western cultural degradation. Of
greater significance, however, is the fact that almost 60 years later "I know it when I see it"
has become a political philosophy in its own right, adopted and pursued by a radical Left
intent on curtailing that very same freedom by claiming an exclusive and unaccountable ability
to define Fascism. This was the starkest message from TheBurkean 's
unprecedented recent Irish
Antifa Project , which was designed to infiltrate and expose self-styled Antifa networks in
mainstream Irish academia and politics.
In my view, the most predictable revelation from the Irish Antifa Project was the extent of
historical and cultural ignorance among the profiled activists. None of the intellectually and
professionally mediocre individuals exposed by The Burkean appeared capable of
articulating what Fascism was, or is alleged to be today. Fascism instead seems to have been
adopted by these non-entities as a vague catch-all for anything touching upon capitalism,
conservatism, religion, or tradition. Equally vague are the proposed activist methodologies of
these individuals, which range from the compiling of databases with the names of those deemed
to be Fascists, to tentative but deniable support for violence. With the exception of a small
number of fanatical Jews like Trinity College student Jacob
Woolf , "anti-Fascism" has evidently been adopted by the majority of those concerned as a
kind of half-hearted virtue signaling hobby or political side gig, albeit one with sinister
potential.
Unfortunately, the problems posed by an uninformed, unaccountable, and unhinged
"anti-Fascist" radical Left aren't helped by the fact confusion about the nature of Fascism is
endemic in society as a whole. There are essentially three traditions when it comes to
explaining Fascism. One can be found within Fascism itself, and demonstrates how self-defined
Fascists see themselves. This material is overwhelmingly historical. Another tradition can be
found in contemporary mainstream academia and, although biased, it is at least academic in
style, serious, and relatively comprehensive. The work of the late Roger Griffin is perhaps the best available
in the English language in terms of this tradition, and is also largely concerned with
history.
The third tradition, on the other hand, is popular, highly politicised, always concerned
with contemporary politics, and is abridged to the point of being a pop-Left caricature of
serious studies of Fascism. It is particularly problematic because it has tremendous traction
among the masses and, despite being propaganda for extremist politics of its own sort, always
presents itself as objective and neutral.
The individuals profiled by The Burkean are unquestionably disciples of the latter
tradition, a recent example of which is Jason Stanley's How Fascism Works: The Politics of
Us and Them (2018). Stanley, a Jewish professor at Yale whose background is in language
and epistemology and not history or politics, hasn't published any peer-reviewed material on
Fascism or anti-Fascism, but his 2018 book proved a moderate publishing sensation because it
represented a thinly veiled attack on the Trump administration.
The same administration
provoked similar ill-conceived and unhelpful monographs on Fascism from Cass Sunstein ( Can
it Happen Here? ), Madeleine Albright ( Fascism: A Warning ), and Harvard duo
Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt ( How Democracies Die ). All of these individuals
are Jews, and this is not a coincidence. In fact, since the production of Leon Trotsky's
Fascism: What it is and How to Fight It (compiled between 1922 and 1933) and the
Frankfurt School's project on the "Authoritarian Personality," Jews have been at the forefront
of paving the cultural, as well as political, path to Antifa activity.
They do so by bastardising public understanding of the nature of Fascist politics, thereby shaping
"anti-Fascism" as a vehicle for the undermining of the White nation. When it comes to Fascism,
"Jews know it when they see it," a pronouncement we are all encouraged to accept without
question.
Jewish Definitions of Fascism
A common theme in influential books like Stanley's, destined for a modicum of success in the
paperback mass market thanks to dramatic titles and relentless marketing, is their incredibly
-- and deliberately -- vague definition of Fascism. These Jewish activists know this, of
course, but they push ahead regardless. Stanley, for example, excuses the gaps and logical
leaps inherent in his dubious study by arguing that "generalization is necessary in the current
moment." But if he is defining the "current moment" as Fascist under his generalized
definition, isn't he simply using generalization to excuse the same generalization? Isn't this
tantamount to saying to his readers: "The present moment is so obviously Fascist that we really
don't need to define Fascism"?
Such considerations don't slow Stanley down for a second, and this celebrated Yale professor
slips off the hook to pronounce, even more unhelpfully, "I have chosen the label "Fascism" for
ultranationalism of some variety." What variety? What's his definition of
"ultranationalism"?
It doesn't matter. What is clear in texts like Stanley's is that you aren't here to be
encouraged to think or ask questions, but to absorb a discourse and accept a dogma. The
authority behind such demands stems predominantly from emotional blackmail -- Stanley cashes in
his card as the son of "Holocaust survivors," and explains that "My family background has
saddled me with difficult emotional baggage. But it also, crucially, prepared me to write this
book."
His lack of education and reading in the subject is therefore apparently more than
compensated for in the fact he is emotionally distressed by it. Right.
... ... ...
Conclusion
Stanley, Sunstein, Levitsky, Ziblatt, and Albright have produced quite typical examples of
Jewish propaganda disguised as "anti-Fascist" literature. The key features of such works are
invariably a vague definition of Fascism, an attempt to relate "warnings" to some aspect of
contemporary politics, melodramatic admonitions about a putative future violent catastrophe
that must be avoided, and maudlin appeals to personal family history and "emotional baggage."
Underlying the surface veneer, these works are highly focussed efforts to pathologise aspects
of White culture and politics deemed oppositional to Jewish interests. These efforts, and their
framing, are quite obviously derived from Cultural Marxism, especially Adorno's work with the
Frankfurt School on The Authoritarian Personality , and from earlier forms of Jewish
activism witnessed from the end of the 19th century and culminating in Weimar Germany (e.g. the
work of Magnus Hirschfeld).
The family, the acknowledgement of heterosexuality as culturally
and biologically normative and preferential, the desirability of mono-ethnic cultures, and the
acknowledgement of inequality among human beings are reframed in this kind of "warning
literature" as inherently Fascistic.
It is very worrying that our culture has bequeathed a great deal of respect and legitimacy
to Jewish intellectuals, especially in relation to the subject of Fascism. We have allowed them
to assert that "they know it when they see it." The fundamental crisis of our civilization is
that they see it everywhere, and they won't rest until this phantom of their paranoia, and us
with it, are abolished.
Notes
[1] J. Whittam, Fascist Italy , (New York: Manchester University Press, 1995), 81-2.
[2] See, for example,
S. Chakotin, The Rape of the Masses: The Psychology of Totalitarian Political
Propaganda (1940).
Fascism's unforgivable sin was its spot-on critique of the failure of liberal democracy,
which, it argued, was the inevitable result of its corruption by capitalism. Eighteenth
century liberalism broke the power of absolutism but in time it devolved into a reactionary
movement, redirected specifically to defuse the popular revolutionary socialism of the
nineteenth century, which Germany revived.
The elephant in the liberal living room is the embarrassing reality that capitalist
society is organized on the exploitation of one class by another. Fascism spoke the
inconvenient truth that the ideals of the Enlightenment – equality, individuality,
democracy – must collapse into institutionalized injustice under the all-pervasive
directive of the primacy of the private accumulation of capital over all other concerns.
In this way, fascism is the thinking person's version of Marxism, stripped of the latter's
absurd mismeasures of human nature. Fascism restored the traditional fabric of society,
placing the needs of the national community above the selfish whims of the individual. In so
doing it gave to otherwise alienated individuals the sense of common purpose and connection
to others that are so vital to mental health.
And only a strong authoritarian state can claim and effectively wield the power necessary to undo the damage that
capitalism does and to contend with the many domestic and foreign adversaries which a truly class-free social revolution
inevitable creates.
No wonder the mortal adversaries, western imperialism and Soviet communism, were so
terrified of this existential challenge to their oppressive systems that they made temporary
common cause of ruthlessly annihilating Germany in history's most destructive war.
This is one of the best written, most informative and useful articles ever published here.
But the photograph of Madelaine Albright in particular should have been accompanied by some
sort of warning. "Hideous crone" understates the horror.
@Observator You
lost me at "strong authoritarian State". Which human monkeys were those? How is the already
strong authoritarian State bad but if only a new set of talking human monkeys is
"recognized", that will make everything better and different?
Fascism is the cry of the lower middle class who do not understand how things work or
where they came from. It is an urban tryharder phenomenon. Very short attention
spans.
George Orwell understood this: he was tolerant but realistic, and "conservative" in a
natural way, all the time grasping the nature of Capitalism, that man needs to be set free
not governed by others. Liberal Democracy is just a means to stablise government instead of
civil wars.
Personal liberty and private order are much more important and effective than grasping
schemes.
@obvious "Hitler"
is realizing that Vulture Capitalism and Marxist Socialism have the same elite masters and
revolting against it in the interest of the people.
@Pheasant True,
and he makes no mention of Paul Gottfried's Fascism: the Career of a Concept. Although
Jewish, Prof Gottfried is a paleoconservative and his books are always carefully written. His
work on Fascism is probably the best recent work on the subject. I don't know why Dr Joyce
didn't mention it.
Interesting (and alarming) essay by Dr.. Joyce. Alarming because the sheer relentlessness and
vindictiveness of these people is matched only by the vacuity, shallowness and spite of their
ostensible "intellectual" product.
A few thoughts
1. Actual real Fascism is of course dead as a doornail, and has been since the 1950s at
the absolute latest. The word "fascist" is simply a bogeyman, used by Jews and their
playthings to frighten the public, to sell books, and to denote whatever naughty thing they
don't happen to like at the moment -- as Dr. Joyce shows. (So-called "Islamo-fascism" is, if
possible, even funnier as a name-calling stunt, and more mistaken, than calling Trump a
fascist.)
2. In macro-historical terms, the only reason we pay any attention at all to real fascism
is that it ended in a massive train-wreck, as so many things do (who fusses over the far more
impact-laden bloodbaths of Timur the Lame these days?). But unluckily, since the Jews' ox got
gored as well in the general wreckage, the Owners Of All Megaphones will never ever shut up
about it. That's all this really ever is, innit.
3. Again in macro-historical terms, what Fascism really was, in the broadest sense, was
simply one among several rather crude and clumsy attempts made in the early Twentieth Century
to make some sort of sense out of the confusing, and very very recent, transformation of
economic, political and industrial terms brought about by the sudden onset of the Machine
Age. In the same way that it was the unknown effects of the Machine Age which made the Great
War such a vaster cataclysm than previous wars, the Machine Age rattled every single bar in
every single cage of the European order. Fascism was only one of the rather brutish attempts
to navigate the new terrain. (to be continued)
4. We no longer worry about fascism, or have to deal with it, for two reasons. One, it was
decisively defeated militarily and discredited ideologically; and two (and more importantly),
we no longer live in the Machine Age! We moved very quickly into the
Technological/Information Age, and from there into the Immigration/Industrial Outsourcing
Age. Fascism was an attempt to solve the problems of undernourished semi-literate White men
with large families who lived in urban slums and who worked in giant factories full of
deafening machinery. That political constituency has ceased to exist.
5. Centuries from now, the Peruvian robot historians will tell a very different story
about the Second World War, which was of course the apotheosis and endgame of fascism, than
the story we tell ourselves now -- or rather, allow the Jews to tell for us, when they aren't
screaming it at us and drilling it in with sleep-deprivation techniques.
Levels of apportionment can be argued over, but it's certainly true that the Jews bore
substantial responsibility for the actions and circumstances that led to the war. It could be
argued that one of its chief architects was none other than Henry Morgenthau. In any event,
the robots will view the early career of Hitler as a sort of premature German version of
Gandhi -- Hitler kicked the Jewish Empire out of Germany, and got the Germans out from under
the Jewish yoke, in the same way that Gandhi kicked the British Empire out of India. But the
Jewish Empire (which did and does exist in Europe although not on maps, controlling
institutions rather than territory, yet making war and peace just like other nations all the
same) did not go quietly, and instead mustered its British, American and Soviet satrapies to
pursue proxy revenge. The Hitler regime of course then degenerated through its own failures
into madness, incompetence, stupidity and evil, but the ball was already in play.
The point of bringing this up is the role of Jewish vindictiveness in keeping Fascism
afloat as a zombie all-purpose threat to all and sundry. The "threat of fascist evil" is
simply the threat of a nation or people getting the zany unacceptable notion into their heads
that their country might after all be better off without Jews in charge.
And that calamity cannot of course even be thought about or spoken of, much less
implemented.
"... In recent years, U.S. troops were killed not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also Syria, Kenya, Somalia, Yemen, and Niger. Few Americans could locate these countries on a map; fewer knew its soldiers fought there. Additionally, Pentagon pilots and proxies killed people in Libya, Pakistan, and elsewhere in West Africa without losing a single soldier. ..."
"... The campaigns in Somalia and Yemen best expose the absurd casualty inequity of modern American warfare. In the former, only a few U.S. service members have been killed in an 18-year intervention. Conversely, hundreds of thousands of Somalis died or were displaced as a direct or indirect result (an exacerbated famine , for example) of a largely U.S.-catalyzed war. In Yemen, just one American soldier died in combat, compared to more than 100,000 locals -- including 85,000 children starved to death -- in a terror campaign the Saudis couldn't wage without U.S. complicity . ..."
"... With unemployment sky-rocketing to Great Depression rates, and income inequality at Gilded Age levels , both holidays now "celebrate" egregious blood and treasure disparity. For example, sifting through the Department of Labor's statistics reveals that some 8,000 contractors have been killed in America's war zones. That outnumbers U.S. military fatalities. Since Washington has progressively privatized and outsourced its wars, perhaps Americans should also observe a Mercenary Memorial Day. ..."
"... Faced with unrecognizable brands of war, most people substitute nostalgia and myth. Grappling with war's reality has implications that are too disturbing. Far simpler and more satisfying is to commemorate long past sacrifices at Normandy and Iwo Jima, rather than more confounding losses in Niger and Iraq. The temptation persists even as the last World War II veterans pass; old notions of what combat is ..."
"... The United States has lost its ethical and strategic way. Riddled with a virus that has now killed more Americans than the Revolutionary, Mexican, Spanish, Indian, Philippine, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Iraq, and Afghan Wars combined , this nation requires serious soul-searching. Reimagining its bookended summer celebrations might be a good start; but it won't be easy. ..."
Pandemic or no, resilient Americans will celebrate Memorial Day together. Be it through Zoom
or spaced six feet apart from ten or less loved ones at backyard cookouts, folks will find a
way. In these peculiar gatherings, is it still considered cynical to wonder if people will
spare much actual thought for American soldiers still dying abroad -- or question the
utility of America's forever wars? Etiquette aside, we think it's obscene not to.
Just as the coronavirus has
exposed systemic rot, this moment also reveals how obsolete common conceptions of U.S.
warfare truly are -- raising core questions about the holiday devoted to its sacrifices. The
truth is that today's "
way of war " is so abstract, distant, and short on (at least American) casualties as to be
nearly invisible to the public. With little to
show for it, Washington still directs bloody global campaigns, killing thousands of locals.
America has no space on its calendar to memorialize these victims: even the
children among them.
"Just as the coronavirus
exposed much internal systemic rot, this moment also reveals how obsolete common
conceptions of U.S. warfare truly are."
Eighteen years ago, as a cadet and young marine officer, we celebrated the first post-9/11
Memorial Day -- both brimming with enthusiasm for the wars we knew lay ahead. In the
intervening decades, for
individual yet strikingly
similar reasons, we ultimately
chose paths of dissent. Since then, we've
penned critical editorials around Memorial Days. These challenged the wars'
prospects ,
questioned the efficacy of the volunteer military, and
encouraged citizens to honor the fallen by creating fewer of them.
Little has changed, except how America fights. But that's the point: outsourcing
combat to machines, mercenaries, and militias rendered war so opaque that Washington wages it
absent public oversight or awareness -- and empathy. That's the formula for forever war.
In recent years, U.S. troops were killed not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also Syria,
Kenya, Somalia, Yemen, and Niger. Few Americans could locate these countries on a map; fewer
knew its soldiers fought there. Additionally, Pentagon pilots and proxies
killed people in Libya, Pakistan, and
elsewhere in West Africa without losing a single soldier.
The campaigns in Somalia and Yemen best expose the absurd casualty inequity of modern
American warfare. In the former, only a
few U.S. service members have been killed in an 18-year intervention. Conversely,
hundreds of thousands of Somalis died or were displaced as a direct or indirect result (an
exacerbated famine , for example) of a largely U.S.-catalyzed war. In Yemen, just
one American soldier died in combat, compared to
more than 100,000 locals -- including 85,000 children
starved to death -- in a terror campaign the Saudis couldn't wage without U.S.
complicity .
No one wants to see American troops killed, but a death disparity so stark stretches classic
definitions of combat. Yet for locals, it likely feels a whole lot like "real" war on
the business end of U.S. bombs and bullets.
So this year, given the stark reality that even a deadly pandemic -- and
pleas for global ceasefire -- hasn't
slowed Washington's war machine, it's reasonable to question the very concept of Memorial
Day. There are also important parallels with Labor Day -- the holiday bookend to today's
seasonal kick off. Just as memorializing America's obscenely lopsided battle deaths is
increasingly indecent, a federal holiday devoted to a labor movement the government has
aggressively eviscerated is deeply troubling.
With unemployment
sky-rocketing to Great Depression rates, and income inequality at Gilded Age
levels , both holidays now "celebrate" egregious blood and treasure disparity. For example,
sifting through the Department of Labor's
statistics reveals that some 8,000 contractors have been killed in America's war zones.
That
outnumbers U.S. military fatalities. Since Washington has progressively privatized and
outsourced its wars, perhaps Americans should also observe a Mercenary Memorial Day.
Widening the aperture unveils thousands more "non-combat" -- but war-related -- uniformed
deaths in desperate need of memorializing. From 2006-2018
alone , 3,540 active-duty service members took their own lives -- just a fraction of the
15-20 daily veteran
suicides -- and another 640 died in accidents involving substance-abuse. Each death is
unique, but studies
demonstrate that the combined effects of PTSD and moral injury -- these wars' "
signature wound " -- contributed to this massive loss of life. On a personal level, at
least four soldiers under our commands took their own lives, as have several friends. These are
real folks who left behind real loved ones.
Faced with unrecognizable brands of war, most people substitute nostalgia and myth.
Grappling with war's reality has implications that are too disturbing. Far simpler and more
satisfying is to commemorate long past sacrifices at Normandy and Iwo Jima, rather than more
confounding losses in
Niger and Iraq. The temptation persists even as the last World War II veterans pass; old
notions of what combat is die with them.
The United States has lost its ethical and strategic way. Riddled with a virus that has now
killed more Americans than the Revolutionary, Mexican, Spanish, Indian, Philippine,
Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Iraq, and Afghan Wars
combined , this nation requires serious soul-searching. Reimagining its bookended summer
celebrations might be a good start; but it won't be easy.
In a new take on an old tradition, perhaps it's proper to not only pack away the whites, but
don black as a memorial to a republic in peril.
Matthew Hoh is a member of the advisory boards of Expose Facts, Veterans For
Peace and World Beyond War. He previously served in Iraq with a State Department team and with
the U.S. Marines. He is a Senior Fellow with the Center for International Policy.
A pretty silly rant, but some point might worth your attention...
Notable quotes:
"... I don't believe Marxist Social/Communism is the answer, as it has proven to always fail, as it is at complete odds with human nature. It drains creativity and productivity because they aren't rewarded ..."
"... Protests and Maidan open up fabulous opportunities for protest leaders. Chocolate oligarch Poroshenko became president. The little-known leader of the party faction in the parliament, Yatsenyuk, became prime minister. ..."
Meanwhile, what is going to happen to assorted fascisms? Eric Hobsbawm showed us in
Age of Extremes how the key to the fascist right was always mass mobilization: "Fascists
were the revolutionaries of the counter-revolution".
We may be heading further than mere, crude neofascism. Call it Hybrid Neofascism. Their
political stars bow to global market imperatives while switching political competition to the
cultural arena.
That's what true "illiberalism" is all about: the mix between neoliberalism –
unrestricted capital mobility, Central Bank diktats – and political authoritarianism.
Here's where we find Trump, Modi and Bolsonaro.
...Even if neoliberalism was dead, and it's not, the world is still encumbered with its
corpse – to paraphrase Nietzsche a propos of God.
And even as a triple catastrophe – sanitary, social and climatic – is now
unequivocal, the ruling matrix – starring the Masters of the Universe managing the
financial casino – won't stop resisting any drive towards change.
... Realpolitik once again points to a post-Lockdown turbo-capitalist framework, where the
illiberalism of the 1% – with fascistic elements – and naked turbo-financialization
are boosted by reinforced exploitation of an exhausted and now largely unemployed
workforce.
Post-Lockdown turbo-capitalism is once again reasserting itself after four decades of
Thatcherization, or – to be polite – hardcore neoliberalism. Progressive forces
still don't have the ammunition to revert the logic of extremely high profits for the ruling
classes – EU governance included – and for large global corporations as well.
-- ALIEN -- , 2 minutes ago
Allowing the continued uncontrolled exploitation of planetary resources will lead to global
ecosystem collapse, killing most humans.
Cheap Chinese Crap , 10 minutes ago
Good God, it 's like this guy is giving a seminar in technocratic buzzword salad
recognition.
"It takes someone of Marx's caliber to build a full-fledged, 21st century eco-socialist
ideology, and capable of long-term, sustained mobilization. Aux armes, citoyens."
Aux armes, indeed. But not to erect an oligarchy of self-appointed experts to rule us with
an iron hand. I rather prefer the idea of pulling them off their comfy, government-compensated
sinecures and dragging them down into the mud with everyone else.
Anyone who thinks they are better qualified to run your life than you yourself is an enemy
of the Enlightenment. Away with them all.
Leguran , 1 hour ago
Something worthwhile to note is missing among Pepe's carnage....
What has happened is that
every imaginable organized group from doctors to pilots to lawyers, to farmers, to pharma
companies, etc. has carved out a special slice of the economy especially for themselves.
In
Feudal times rivers could not be navigated because cockroach lords would charge fees to use the
rivers. That is exactly the same arrangement today but instead of using force of arms, laws are
used. Our economy is choking on all these impediments.
mtumba , 2 hours ago
I agree that we need a revolution, and that the .01% globalist "elites" have proven to be
not only craven, arrogant and greedy - but also stupid beyond redemption.
But I don't believe Marxist Social/Communism is the answer, as it has proven to always fail, as it is at complete odds
with human nature. It drains creativity and productivity because they aren't rewarded, and it rewards laziness and inertia, because the absolute minimum of effort
results in the barest level needed to survive, which - oddly - is enough for many.
I think it would be great to give actual capitalism a try, with extremely limited govt - a
govt that ONLY provides for the common defense and enforcement of contract laws and protection
against crimes of violence and property theft. NOT crony-capitalism that takes command over the
resources of a nation's klepotcratic govt by the .01% richest and their sycophantic bottom
feeder lawyers, lobbyists, corrupt politicians and other enablers.
Snout the First , 3 hours ago
That was sure a lot of words, needlessly making something simple difficult. Here's what it
all boils down to:
- Who do you want setting prices? The market or a central planner?
- What percent of the economy do you want the government to own or control?
- What percent of your annual income do you want the government to take? Some small amount
to be used for valid purposes, the rest to be pissed away against your better interests?
PKKA , 3 hours ago
Protests and Maidan open up fabulous opportunities for protest leaders. Chocolate oligarch
Poroshenko became president. The little-known leader of the party faction in the parliament,
Yatsenyuk, became prime minister.
You know that on the project of an epic wall between Ukraine
and Russia, Yatsenyuk stole $ 1 billion but did not build a wall. A moron with a certificate
from a psycho hospital Andrei Parubiy became the speaker of parliament. You did not know that
Parubiy had a certificate of moronity from a psycho hospital? Now you know. Boxer Vitali
Klitschko became mayor of Kiev. Vitaly pronounces the words in syllables and wrinkles his
forehead for a long time before expressing a thought. You can even physically hear the creak of
gears as they spin and creak in Klitschko's head. Do you know what rabble passed in the
Ukrainian parliament? Bandits, crooks, nazis, morons, thieves and idiots! So the protests open
up fabulous career opportunities and enrichment!
play_arrow
Phillyguy , 4 hours ago
The American public has a front row seat, watching US economic decline. This process has
been ongoing since the mid 1970's, as corporate profits slumped. In response the ruling elite
enacted a series of Neo-liberal economic policies- multiple tax cuts for the wealthy, attacks
on the poor and labor, job outsourcing, financial de-regulation, lack of spending on public and
private infrastructure and spending $ trillions of taxpayer money on the Pentagon and strategic
debacles in Afghanistan (longest war in US history), Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen. In total,
these policies have been a disaster for the average American family.
The ruling elite are well aware of American economic decline, accelerated by the Coronavirus
pandemic. Fascism comes to the fore when capitalism breaks down, and under extreme conditions,
the ruling elite use fascism as an ideological rationale to harness state power- Legislature
and police, to maintain class structure and wealth distribution. Western capitalism is
incapable of reversing its economic decline and as a result, we are seeing fascism reemerging
in the US, EU and Brazil. Donald Trump is the face of American fascism. Michael Parenti
provides an excellent historical analysis of fascism. See: Michael Parenti- Functions of
Fascism (Real History) 1 of 4 Jan 27, 2008; Link: www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0Bc4KJx2Ao
Vigilante , 4 hours ago
How come 'fascist' Trump is being attacked 24/7 by the Deep State though?
They should be on his side if your assertions are correct
Fascism resides mostly on the Left end of the spectrum...and 'Woke' capital is throwing its
lot with the 'progressives' these days
bshirley1968 , 4 hours ago
It's your perception he is being attacked. Dude, wake up.
The best the deep state has to run against Trump is Joe Biden? They are that stupid? They
are that weak? If they are that stupid and weak, how can they be a conceivable, real
threat.
You are being played. You imagine there are good guys that you can trust......and that is
why you are being played.
HomeOfTheHypocrite , 3 hours ago
The ruling class is currently divided between those who are ready to prepare fascism and
those who want to continue on with neoliberalism. Trump represents one faction of the ruling
class. His political opponents in the Deep State represent another. None of them have any
genuine concern for the fate of the American worker. Trump, if judged by his actions and not
his words, is nothing but a charlatan who mouths populist phrases while appointing billionaire
aristocrats to political positions and lavishing investment bankers with trillions of tax
dollars.
CatInTheHat , 2 hours ago
This is the problem with both sides cult followers: the insanity behind the idea that these
elite somehow have their hands tied behind their backs as they ALL move is toward fascism.
The 2 party system is a ONE party right wing fascist one. Trump is merely a figure head.
People listen to what a politician says and NOT what he does behind their backs.
Trump is 1000% Zionazi just like the rest of them
HomeOfTheHypocrite , 2 hours ago
"basically it looks alot like the age old battle between fascism and communism"
Perhaps on the streets, but not within the ruling class. The ruling class, including the
Democrats, are utterly opposed to communism or socialism. Every Democratic congressperson with
maybe one exception stood and applauded Trump's anti-socialist rants during his State of the
Union addresses. Nancy Pelosi: "We're capitalist and that's just the way it is." Elizabeth
Warren (supposedly a radical): "I'm capitalist to my bones."
"Let's say for example these protesters managed to organize well enough to stage a coup
d'etat and take over - what next ?"
There's little chance of that. They are completely disorganized and lack any sort of
political program. But, if you're giving me the task of developing a political program for
them, I'll try to offer some suggestions that could be accomplished without a Pinochet or
Stalin-style bloodletting.
1. Busting up the monopolies and cartels 2. Raising taxes on the rich 3. A government jobs program to combat unemployment 4. A massive curtailment of the military budget 5. A massive curtailment of the policing and prison budget 6. Free government healthcare (without banning private-sector healthcare)
The first three of these political tasks were accomplished in the US in the 1930s without
the need for "black ops, gulags, secret police, and all the rest of it." Major policy changes
have not always required mass repression. But they do require a serious enough political party
to disassociate itself entirely from the ruling class Democrats and Republicans. During the 30s
there was a significant rise in various populist and socialist parties. Much of FDR's policies
and statements were a response to the threat they posed to established power. There is a famous
quote where he talks about having to "throw a few of these [millionaires] to the wolves" in
order to save America from the crackpot ideas of the "communists" and "Huey Longians."
I completely share your concern related to the use of repression to implement social and
economic policies. Neither the fascists nor the communists have a thing to offer a free people
so long as they rely on tyranny to enforce their program. Above all democracy and the natural
rights of individuals must be preserved.
Jedclampetisdead , 5 hours ago
If this country has any chance, we have to execute the Zionist bankers and their minions
new game , 5 hours ago
What is and will be: Corporate Fascism.
I defy anyone to explain other wise.
Go to the World Economic Forum web page and meet your masters.
Billionaires shaping YOUR future with their fortunes from corporations.
Their wealth was had by joint ventures with bought and paid for politicians and lobbyist
crafted legislation to maximize their wealth. This fakdemic absolutely consolidates more
wealth
to fewer corporations by design. Serf and kings/queens. The club personified by immense
wealth disparity.
In a continuing process, the social scoring via digital systems will limit freedoms to state
approved corporate diktats
that clamp like a boot to the neck. **** here, 6 tissue sections and recycled bug **** for
food.
brave new gatsy world right now with the roll out out of 3 pronged vaccine controlling your
brains emotions.
It is all so obvious to anyone with an ability to see two steps into the future. navigate
the future accordingly.
They are in control, the first denial that must be removed to see clearly the next step. sad
but true.
"... Often the life cycle of protests after a televised police killing of a black person is that local youth come out and begin to self-organize. Some blow off steam, some debate. They develop self-organization and very astute but very local demands. Out of town insurrectionists (antifa, non-ideological nihilists, and right-wing insurrectionists) show up for the circus and are resented by some local factions. Finally, national nonprofits like Black Lives Matter and undefinable organizations like some of the Democratic Party's wings take "leadership," disempowe the youth, who head home, and substitute their demands for those of the youth. ..."
I listened to this colloquy last night betwixt Ingraham and Logan. It supports the statements made just now by the governor of
Minnesota and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul that the rioters the last few nights increasingly are organized, led and
coordinated by people from "out of state" and dressed in black.
Someone pays for the equipping, training, transporting of these anarchist cadres. Who? pl
Thank you for posting the video. "Who is paying" is a very good question.
Joy Reid, hardly a Trump supporter, is shocked: "That Gov. Tim Walls, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and St. Paul Mayor Melvin
Carter and now MN attorney general Keith Ellison" are all together saying outside influences are behind the violence and looting
and general agitation. The police are also "contact tracing" those arrested. I think the thread is worth a read:
I soros (oops! meant "suppose") it might be the same group that organized the massive fundraising from out of the country to pay
for Barry Soretoro's first run for the Presidency. No one seemed to care that such fundraising was illegal.
It really must be absolutely galling for our ex POTUS that the Weather Men got the forecast all wrong for election day when
DJT was first put into office.
It's amazing how much money you can get for nihilistic mayhem making a group of young never-do-wells can get so they can travel
and make mayhem.
Funding starts as self-funding or informally croudsourced from friends and relatives, develops into more formal croudsourcing,
particularly of higher-profile (twitter etc) commentators and informal reporters, and sometimes of infrastructure (food, legal,
etc.).
Finally, there sometimes becomes enough structure (not yet), that some big anonymous donors throw in. In New Orleans after
Katrina, Michael Moore was a big anonymous donor. In Occupy Chicago, Lupe Fiasco was. Occupy Wall Street in NYC had probably $250,000
donated at its peak, because people throw money at stuff like that. None of it was earmarked by donors (beyond in-kind, ie warehouse
space). It destroyed OWS because their decision structures weren't equipped to deal with that absurdly large sum of money.
Often the life cycle of protests after a televised police killing of a black person is that local youth come out and begin
to self-organize. Some blow off steam, some debate. They develop self-organization and very astute but very local demands. Out
of town insurrectionists (antifa, non-ideological nihilists, and right-wing insurrectionists) show up for the circus and are resented
by some local factions. Finally, national nonprofits like Black Lives Matter and undefinable organizations like some of the Democratic
Party's wings take "leadership," disempowe the youth, who head home, and substitute their demands for those of the youth.
If these uprisings are remembered to have political content, it is usually the messaging of the national orgs that gets remembered
(eg. body cams after Ferguson).
Sound like wishful thinking. Looks like cutting US military budget is impossible as "Full
spectrum Dominance" doctrine is still in place and neocons are at the helm of the USA foreign
policy. COVID-19 or not COVID-19.
The other day an aerospace industry analyst asked me whether I thought the defense budget
would start to go down, courtesy of the huge cost of dealing with the pandemic and the massive
deficits the nation faces. I said it was unlikely and he agreed.
This is not the conventional wisdom in DC. Some national security analysts and advocates for
higher defense budgets have
warned that the defense budget
is now under siege . Critics of the Pentagon and its spending are equally
convinced that the pandemic opens the door to necessary, deep, sensible
cuts in defense in order to fund the mountain of debt and take care of pressing needs for
income, employment, health care, global warming, and other major threats to the well-being of
Americans.
Whatever the nation's strategy, critics argue, the pandemic has changed the face of the
threat to America. COVID-19 is an invisible, lethal threat to human security, a viral neutron
bomb that spares buildings but kills their occupants.
Congress has appropriated more than 20 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, so
far, to cope with this threat. Additional funds for the military, ironically, have become a
"rounding error" in this spending -- little more than $10 billion of the more than $4 trillion
appropriated to date. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper
warned about the likelihood of defense cuts and wanted more funds for the Pentagon, but
Rep. Adam Smith, Chair of the House Armed Services Committee
said there was no way defense would get more funds through the pandemic bills.
So it looks bad for defense, and good for the advocates of cuts. But not so fast. Yes, it is
true; history shows that defense budgets do decline. It happens, predictably, when we get out
of a war – World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War. Even when we left Iraq in 2011,
the budget went down.
There is a secret ingredient in defense budget reductions: they seem to happen, as well,
when the politics of deficit reduction appear. Defense also declined after Korea because a
fiscal conservative, Eisenhower, was in office, with five virtual stars on his shoulders,
making it possible to put a lid
on the budgetary appetites of the services.
In fact, in 1985, well before the end of the Cold War, Congress, focused on the deficit,
passed the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, which was then was reinforced in the 1990 Budget
Enforcement Act that set hard spending limits on domestic and defense spending. It had to cover
both parts of discretionary spending or Congress could not agree. It was 17 years before the
defense budget
began to rise .
Put the end of war together with a dollop of deficit reduction and defense budgets will go
down. They become the caboose, rather than the engine, of the budgetary train. But beware of
what you ask for. The price of constraints on defense has been constraints on domestic
spending, as the nation has learned over the past three decades. In fact, the Budget Control
Act of 2011 constrained domestic spending, while allowing defense to
escape almost unscathed, thanks to war supplementals.
When attention shifts to debates over priorities and deficits, it opens the door to a real
discussion about defense. But they do not ensure cuts. While the military services may not see
their appetite for real growth of 3-5 percent fulfilled, it is unlikely to decline very
much.
There is a floor under the defense budget. But you need to change the level of analysis to
see it and look at who actually makes defense budget decisions and why they make the decisions
they do. It's about something I called
the "Iron Triangle."
We all like to think that strategy drives defense budgets. For the most part, however,
defense decisions are made inside a political system involving constant,
relatively closed interaction between the military services, the Congress, and the
community and industry beneficiaries of defense spending.
In outline, budget planners in the military services start with last year's budget and graft
on new funds, rarely giving up a program, a mission, or part of the force. This dynamic points
the budgets upwards over time. Secretaries and under-secretaries work to add preferences and
projects, like national missile defense, to the services' budget plans. On top of that,
presidents have made promises, adding such things as bomber funds (Reagan) and space forces
(Trump) the services do not want.
Then there is the second leg of the triangle: Congress. For all their efforts to cut
Pentagon waste, progressive members do not drive defense decisions in the Congress. The defense
authorizers and appropriators do. The associated committees are dominated by defense spending
advocates, deeply interested in the outcomes, encouraged by industry campaign contributions and
community lobbying. These outside interests are the third leg of the triangle. Contracts and
community-based impacts give them a deep stake in the outcomes.
This system is not a conspiracy; it is a visible part of American politics, similar in shape
to the players in farm price supports or health care policy. But it is a system that operates
somewhat separately from and parallel to the politics of deficit reduction and has a major
impact on the content and levels of the defense budget. And its work bakes a kind of sclerosis
into efforts to have a broader debate over spending priorities.
The politics of the Iron Triangle will set limits on the defense budget debate making deep
cuts unlikely. So what might be the options to end-run this system? Politics, of course. If the
advocates of deeper defense reductions want to change America's spending and budgeting
priorities, they will need to join forces with advocates of a "new, new deal" in America -- one
that would put priority on the national health system, infrastructure investment, climate
change, immigration, and educational reform. Only a very
large, very deep coalition has a chance of overcoming the inertia imposed by the Iron
Triangle.
And that coalition will need to focus on Joe Biden. The president is the key actor here,
particularly at the start of an administration. As Bill Clinton learned, the first months are
critical to changing overall budget priorities, before the departments, including Defense, can
begin the Iron Triangle dance.
Even then, major cuts in defense budgets are an uphill fight. The opening for a broader
priorities debate has been provided by the COVID-19 pandemic. The outcome depends significantly
on bringing this kind of focus to actions over the next seven months.
"... You will find in Sheldon Wolin's final book "Democracy Incorporated" an intricate dissection of this precept in the modern form through his analysis of America's decaying trajectory. Thank you for reminding us of this. ..."
"... As Athens showed and the United States of the twenty-first century confirmed, imperialism undercuts democracy by furthering inequalities among its citizens. Resources that might be used to improve health care, education, and environmental protection are instead directed to defense spending, which, by far, consumes the largest percentage of the nation's annual budget. ..."
"... Second, if Athens was the first historical instance of a confrontation between democracy and elitism, that experience suggests that there is no simple recipe for resolving the tensions between them. Political elites were a persistent, if uneasy and contested, feature of Athenian democracy and a significant factor in both its expansion and its demise. ..."
"... As the war dragged on and frustration grew, domestic politics became more embittered and fractious: members of the elite competed to outbid each other by proposing ever wilder schemes of conquest. ..."
You can't be a Democracy at home and an empire aboard, the violence of empire will always turn against the very idea
of democracy.
Yes, a keen observation of what ultimately undid Athens. You will find in Sheldon Wolin's final book "Democracy Incorporated"
an intricate dissection of this precept in the modern form through his analysis of America's decaying trajectory. Thank you for
reminding us of this.
lysias @ 109
A variety of scholars who study that period would disagree with you: You cannot maintain an empire abroad and democracy at
home. The two principles are diametrically opposite to one another. It's what caused the democracy of Athens (which was limited
to men -- as usual) to ultimately lose its internal cohesion and reason to be. Yes, formally it was incorporated into the Macedonian
empire, but its demise came because Athens' imperial ambitions sapped domestic resources which further contributed to the trend
toward inequality within the society.
Here is a fine quote from Wolin's book (page 264) which illustrates the point (please excuse the length of this quote):
A twofold moral might be drawn from the experience of Athens: that it is self-subverting for democracy to subordinate its egalitarian
convictions to the pursuit of expansive politics with its corollaries of conquest and domination and the power relationships
they introduce. Few care to argue that, in political terms, democracy at home is advanced or improved by conquest abroad.
As Athens showed and the United States of the twenty-first century confirmed, imperialism undercuts democracy by furthering
inequalities among its citizens. Resources that might be used to improve health care, education, and environmental protection
are instead directed to defense spending, which, by far, consumes the largest percentage of the nation's annual budget.
Moreover, the sheer size and complexity of imperial power and the expanded role of the military make it difficult to impose
fiscal discipline and account- ability. Corruption becomes endemic, not only abroad but at home. The most dangerous type of
corruption for a democracy is measured not in monetary terms alone but in the kind of ruthless power relations it fosters in
domestic politics. As many observers have noted, politics has become a blood sport with partisanship and ideological fidelity
as the hallmarks. A partisan judiciary is openly declared to be a major priority of a political party; the efforts to consolidate
executive power and to relegate Congress to a supporting role are to some important degree the retrojection inwards of the
imperial thrust.
Second, if Athens was the first historical instance of a confrontation between democracy and elitism, that experience
suggests that there is no simple recipe for resolving the tensions between them. Political elites were a persistent, if uneasy
and contested, feature of Athenian democracy and a significant factor in both its expansion and its demise.
In the eyes of contemporary observers, such as Thucydides, as well as later historians, the advancement of Athenian hegemony
de- pended upon a public-spirited, able elite at the helm and a demos will- ing to accept leadership. Conversely, the downfall
of Athens was attributed to the wiles and vainglory of leaders who managed to whip up popular support for ill-conceived adventures.
As the war dragged on and frustration grew, domestic politics became more embittered and fractious: members of the elite
competed to outbid each other by proposing ever wilder schemes of conquest. In two attempts (411–410 and 404–403) elites,
abetted by the Spartans, succeeded in temporarily abolshing democracy and installing rule by the Few.
Despite the economic ravages of the pandemic, the Pentagon continues to demand the lion's
share of the U.S. budget. It wants another $705 billion for 2021, after increasing its budget
by 20 percent between 2016 and 2020.
This appalling waste of government resources has already caused long-term damage to the
economic competitiveness of the United States. But it's all the money the Pentagon is spending
on "deterring China" that might prove more devastating in the short term.
The U.S. Navy announced
this month that it was sending its entire forward-deployed sub fleet on "contingency
response operations" as a warning to China. Last month, the U.S. Navy Expeditionary Strike
Group
sailed into the South China Sea to support Malaysia's oil exploration in an area that China
claims. Aside from the reality that oil exploration makes no economic sense at a time of record
low oil prices, the United States should be helping the countries bordering the South China Sea
come to a fair resolution of their disputes, not throwing more armaments at the problem.
There's also heightened risk of confrontation in the Taiwan Strait, the East China Sea, and
even in outer space . A huge portion of the Pentagon's budget goes toward preparing for war
with China -- and, frankly, provoking war as well.
What does this all have to do with the Great Disentanglement?
The close economic ties between the United States and China have always represented a
significant constraint on military confrontation. Surely the two countries would not risk
grievous economic harm by coming to blows. Economic cooperation also provides multiple channels
for resolving conflicts and communicating discontent. The United States and Soviet Union never
had that kind of buffer.
If the Great Disentanglement goes forward, however, then the two countries have less to lose
economically in a military confrontation. Trading partners, of course, sometimes go to war with
one another. But as the data
demonstrates , more trade generally
translates into less war.
There are lots and lots of problems in the U.S.-China economic relationship. But they pale
in comparison to World War III.
John Feffer is the director of Foreign
Policy In Focus , where this article originally appeared.
by
Los Angeles TimesUS Public Remain the Tacit Accomplice in America's Dead End Wars
Honor the fallen, but not every war they were sent to fight by Andrew Bacevich
Tweet
Share
Mail
Share
Share
19
Comments A U.S. soldier fires an anti-tank rocket during a live-fire exercise in Zabul
province, Afghanistan, in July 2010. (Photo: U.S. Army /flickr/cc) Not
least among the victims claimed by the coronavirus pandemic was a poetry recital that was to
have occurred in March at a theater in downtown Boston.
I had been invited to read aloud a poem, and I chose "On a Soldier Fallen in the
Philippines," written in 1899 by William Vaughn Moody (1869-1910). You are unlikely to have
heard of the poet or his composition. Great literature, it is not. Yet its message is
memorable.
The subject of Moody's poem is death, a matter today much on all our minds. It recounts the
coming home of a nameless American soldier, killed in the conflict commonly but misleadingly
known as the Philippine Insurrection.
In 1898, U.S. troops landed in Manila to oust the Spanish overlords who had ruled the
Philippines for more than three centuries. They accomplished this mission with the dispatch
that a later generation of U.S. forces demonstrated in ousting regimes in Kabul and Baghdad.
Yet as was the case with the Afghanistan and Iraq wars of our own day, real victory proved
elusive.
Back in Washington, President McKinley decided that having liberated the Philippines, the
United States would now keep them. The entire archipelago of several thousand islands was to
become an American colony.
McKinley's decision met with immediate disfavor among Filipinos. To oust the foreign
occupiers, they mounted an armed resistance. A vicious conflict ensued, one that ultimately
took the lives of 4,200 American soldiers and at least 200,000 Filipinos. In the end, however,
the United States prevailed.
Denying Filipino independence was the cause for which the subject of Moody's poem died.
Long since forgotten by Americans, the war to pacify the Philippines generated in its day
great controversy. Moody's poem is an artifact of that controversy. In it, he chastises those
who perform the rituals of honoring the fallen while refusing to acknowledge the dubious nature
of the cause for which they fought. "Toll! Let the great bells toll," he writes,
Till the clashing air is dim,
Did we wrong this parted soul?
We will make it up to him.
Toll! Let him never guess
What work we sent him to.
Laurel, laurel, yes.
He did what we bade him do.
Praise, and never a whispered hint
but the fight he fought was good;
In actuality, the fight was anything but good. It was ill-advised and resulted in great
evil. "On a Soldier Fallen in the Philippines" expresses a demand for reckoning with that evil.
Americans of Moody's generation rejected that demand, just as Americans today balk at reckoning
with the consequences of our own ill-advised wars.
Yet the imperative persists. "O banners, banners here," Moody concludes,
That he doubt not nor misgive!
That he heed not from the tomb
The evil days draw near
When the nation robed in gloom
With its faithless past shall strive.
Let him never dream that his bullet's scream
went wide of its island mark,
Home to the heart of his darling land
where she stumbled and sinned in the dark.
At the end of the 19th century, the United States stumbled and sinned in the dark by waging
a misbegotten campaign to advance nakedly imperial ambitions. At the beginning of the 21st
century, new wars became the basis of comparable sin. The war of Moody's time and the wars of
our own have almost nothing in common except this: In each instance, through their passivity
disguised as patriotism, the American people became tacitly complicit in wrongdoing committed
in their name.
It is no doubt too glib by half to claim that today, besieged by a virus, we are reaping the
consequences caused by our refusal to reckon with past sins. Yet it is not too glib to argue
that the need for such a reckoning remains. Have we wronged the departed souls of those who
died -- indeed, are still dying -- in Afghanistan and Iraq? The question cries out for an
answer. In our cacophonous age, it just might be that we will find that answer in poetry.
As I pointed out in my 29 above about the front page noting the names and occupations of
1,000 of the 100,000 that have needlessly died due to Trump's Treasonous Do Nothing COVID-19
Policy, today
RT reports about a Memorial Day op/ed that disses the Military: "Why Does the U.S.
Military Celebrate White Supremacy?"
That made the Pentagon's Spin Master angry, puff out his chest to fume and moan.
There's not much to the RT report, but I can't recall any similar display done
before by the NY Times . IMO, something's happened within the Top Office and it seems
to be aimed at Trump.
Of course, I'd never have known about any such happening if it hadn't been for the
reporting by RT & Global Times .
Mussolini then realized something very simple: the human being is not inherently rational.
Reason is something that does not occur naturally to human beings, but is rather something
human beings must learn. Therefore, communism could be defeated in elections and in the
streets if the massification of reason was contained in due time. Hence the crude, irrational
violence of fascism. And it worked: the communists were defeated by violence in Italy, and
Hitler would do the same in the 1932-3 elections (who was leading the persecution of
communists at the time? Future second-in-command Hermann Göring).
If I could sum up fascism and all its different variants in one word, it would be this:
irrationality. Fascism must resort to irrational arguments and narratives in order to
manipulate the masses and gain monopoly of violence and, once its hegemony is secure, resort
to art and aesthetics to keep the consensus, in the sense that political domination must be
presented to the public as a form of art, and not as a field of class struggle. This can be
clearly illustrated by the Nazi chain of command: Hitler (political leader, mastermind),
Göring (violence, armed forces), Goebbels (propaganda) and... Albert Speer, the ideal
Nazi (architect cum military).
In the weeks before the 2016 presidential election, the most powerful former leaders of the
Central Intelligence Agency did everything they could to elect Hillary Clinton and defeat
Donald Trump. President Obama's former acting CIA chief Michael Morrell published
a full-throated endorsement of Clinton in the New York Times and claimed "Putin ha[s]
recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation," while George W. Bush's
post-9/11 CIA and NSA Chief, Gen. Michael Hayden, writing
in the Washington Post , refrained from endorsing Clinton outright but echoed Morrell by
accusing Trump of being a "useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow" and sounding "a
little bit the conspiratorial Marxist." Meanwhile, the intelligence community under James
Clapper and John Brennan fed morsels to
both the Obama DOJ and the U.S. media to suggest a Trump/Russia conspiracy and fuel what became
the Russiagate investigation.
In his extraordinary election-advocating op-ed, Hayden, Bush/Cheney's CIA chief, candidly
explained the reasons for the CIA's antipathy for Trump: namely, the GOP candidate's stated
opposition to allowing CIA regime change efforts in Syria to expand as well as his opposition
to arming Ukrainians with lethal weapons to fight Russia (supposedly "pro-Putin" positions
which, we are now all
supposed to forget,
Obama largely
shared ).
As has been true since President Harry Truman's creation of the CIA after World War II,
interfering in other countries and dictating or changing their governments -- through campaigns
of mass murder, military coups, arming guerrilla groups, the abolition of democracy, systemic
disinformation, and the imposition of savage despots -- is regarded as a divine right, inherent
to American exceptionalism. Anyone who questions that or, worse, opposes it and seeks to impede
it (as the CIA perceived Trump was) is of suspect loyalties at best. ...
The all-consuming Russiagate narrative that dominated the first three years of Trump's
presidency further served to elevate the CIA as a noble and admirable institution while
whitewashing its grotesque history. Liberal conventional wisdom held that Russian Facebook ads,
Twitter bots and the hacking and release of authentic, incriminating
DNC emails was some sort of unprecedented, off-the-charts, out-of-the-ordinary
crime-of-the-century attack, with several leading Democrats (including Hillary Clinton)
actually
comparing it to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor .
The level of historical ignorance and/or jingostic American exceptionalism necessary to
believe this is impossible to describe. ... This propaganda was sustainable because the recent
history and the current function of the CIA has largely been suppressed. Thankfully, a
just-released book by journalist Vincent Bevins -- who spent years as a foreign correspondent
covering two countries still marred by brutal CIA interference: Brazil for the Los Angeles
Times and Indonesia for the Washington Post -- provides one of the best, most informative and
most illuminating histories yet of this agency and the way it has shaped the actual, rather
than the propagandistic, U.S. role in the world. ... I speak to Bevins about his book, about
what the CIA really is and how it has shaped the world we still inhabit, and why a genuine
understanding of both international and domestic politics is impossible without a clear grasp
on this story.
Trump is mostly concerned with giving handouts to the MIC because he thinks "the economy" is
based on jobs in the MIC since that is what they tell him is where US manufacturing is now
based.
Posted by: Kali | May 23 2020 18:16 utc | 2
To a degree, it is true. However, the problem with MIC as an economic stimulant is rather
pitiful multiplier effect. For starters, the costs are hopelessly bloated. Under rather
watchful Putin, Russia does its piece of arms race at a very small fraction of American
costs. By the same token, pro-economy effects of arms spending in USA are seriously diluted
-- the spending is surely there, but the extend of activity is debatable For example, in
aerospace, there is a big potential for civilian applications of technologies developed for
the military. Scant evidence in Boeing that should be a prime beneficiary. The fabled toilet
seat (that cost many thousands of dollars) similarly failed to find civilian applications.
Civilians inclined to overpriced toilets, like Mr. Trump himself, rely on low-tech methods
like gold-plating.
A wider problem is shared by entire GOP: aversion to any government programs, and least of
all industry promoting programs, that could benefit ordinary citizens. This is the exclusive
domain of the free market! Once you refuse to consider that, only MIC remains, plus some
boondogles like interstate highways. Heaven forfend to improve public transit or to repair
almost-proverbial crumbling dams and bridges.
We have to ask cui bono - who benefits from a new nuclear arms race? General Electric,
Boeing, Honeywell International, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman et al. No one else really.
Since these corporations also own the Congress and have zillions to fund Trump's re-election,
they will probably get the go-ahead to spend the rest of the world into oblivion.
Apart from the obvious fact that the MIC is the only viable engine of propulsion of the
American "real economy" (a.k.a. "manufacturing"), there's the more macabre fact that, if we
take Trump's administration first military papers into consideration, it seems there's a
growing coterie inside the Pentagon and the WH that firmly believes MAD can be broken
vis-a-vis China.
Hence the "Prompt Global Strike" doctrine (which is taking form with the commission of the
new B-21 "Raider" strategic bomber, won by Northrop Grumman), the rise of the concept of
"tactical nukes" (hence the extinction of the START, and the Incirlik Base imbroglio post
failed coup against Erdogan) and, most importantly, the new doctrine of "bringing manufacture
back".
The USA is suffering from a structural valorization problem. The only way out is finding
new vital space through which it can initiate a new cycle of valorization. The only
significant vital space to be carved out in the 21st Century is China, with its 600
million-sized middle class (the world's largest middle class, therefore the world's largest
potential consumer market). It won two decades with the opening of the ex-Soviet vital space,
but it was depleted in the 2000s, finally exploding in 2006-2008.
How many decades does the Americans think they can earn by a hypothetical unilateral
destruction of China?
Having a treaty that limits power (in this case nuclear) on the same level for the US and any
other country is simply totally against the ideology of US Superority/Exeptionalism.
That seems to be the driving (psychological and ideological) factor behind this charade.
And like this sick ideology always ends: It too will backfire.
@gepay: another problem is people that disagree with Bernhard on COVID, but then use this
disagreement to not read his artciles anymore.
So many people only want to read what they want to hear, and run away at the first real
different view.
The narcissism, that our neoliberal societies inducded in its people the last decade shows..
And seeing both sides and everything in between is not possible anymore for a majority it
seems.
And living in a bubble is so comforting and easy in todays world. On MSM and on Alt Media
alike.
"...that may well fit Trump's plans of pushing all arms control regimes into oblivion."
It's not just arms control regimes, as the WHO business showed. This is the Roy Cohn agenda
showing up again- the old GOP objection to the UN and all other international organisations.
It is pure ideology-the US has gained immensely from dominating the organisations of which it
is a part, leaving them makes no sense at all.
As to 'spending China to oblivion". This only works when every Pentagon dollar spent
forces China or Russia to spend a dollar themselves. In such a contest the richest country
wins. But that only works in the context of pre-nuclear warfare. With the nuclear deterrent
it becomes possible to opt out of all the money wasting nonsense represented by the Pentagon
budget, sit back and say, as the Chinese diplomat evidently did, "Just try it."
Which adds up to the conclusion that it is wholly irrational of the United States to denounce
treaties designed to reduce the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used: it is to the
advantage of Washington that other powers, potential rivals, are forced to build up
conventional forces because they are bound by treaty not to rely on nuclear weapons.
So, again: pure ideology designed for domestic consumption and advanced by the most
reactionary elements in American society- the Jesse Helms good ol' boys who make the neo-cons
look almost human.
He likes economic war (against everybody), they want actual war. Laguerre | May 23 2020 20:17
utc
Trump has a primitive mercantile mind. There is nothing inherently wrong about
mercantilism, but a primitive version of anything tends to be mediocre at best. Thus he loves
war that give profit, like Yemen where natives are bombed with expensive products made in USA
(and unfortunately, also UK, France etc., but the bulk goes to USA). Then he loves wars the
he thinks will give profit, like "keeping oil fields in Syria". Some people told him that oil
fields are profitable (although they can go bankrupt just like casinos).
Privately, I think that Trump wanted to make a war with Iran, but the generals explained
him what kind of disaster that would be.
One difference is that Democrats are aligned with uber Zionist of slightly less rabid
variety than Republicans. A bit like black bears vs grizzlies. Unfortunately, like in the
animal kingdom, when the push comes to shove, black bears defer to grizzlies, so on the side
of Palestinians etc. there is no difference.
Billingslea's "spending ... into oblivion" statement reflects the belief, still widespread
among US neocon political / military elites, that the Soviet Union was brought down and
destroyed by its attempts to keep up with US military spending throughout the 1980s. This
alone tells us how steeped in past fantasy the entire US political and military establishment
must be. Compared to Rip van Winkle, these people are comatose.
Spending the enemy into oblivion may be "tried and true" practice but only when the enemy
is much poorer than yourself in arms production and in one type of weapons manufacture. That
certainly does not apply to either Russia or China these days. Both nations think more
strategically and do not waste precious resources in parading and projecting military power
abroad, or rely almost exclusively on old, decaying technologies and a narrow mindset
obsessed with always being top dog in everything.
I've long since concluded, there is no president who can withdraw the US from the Forever
Wars. Obama couldn't. Trump can't. Biden/Harris/Oprah/Gabbard/Pence won't.
There are a half-dozen permanent US policies that Americans don't get to vote on, and the
Permawar is one of them.
My God, Buchanan, I am staggered by the arrogance of this column. Where in the name of all
that's holy did you ever get the idea that America has the right to impose on anyone, from
Afghans through to Venezuelans, your (perceived) systems of thought, values and democracy?
How many American soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan can even speak the local language?
Understand the local customs? None!!! They swan around in their sunglasses and battle gear
thinking that they are they return of the Terminator and wander why the locals absolutely
hate their collective guts! It's time that you collectively learned that America is NOT the
world's sheriff and that, as Benjamin Franklin said "A man convinced against his will, is of
the same opinion still".
Pat is not entirely wrong -- he hints at the explanation for failure:
"As imperialists, we Americans are conspicuous failures.
Moreover, with us, the national interest inevitably asserts itself."
As Imperialists there has never been anything but the (Elite) "national interest".
In short, these so called "losing" wars have been wars of aggression -- ie "bad" wars.
All Pat's talk of conversion, democracy etc is just so much nonsense.
"While we can defeat our enemies in the air and on the seas and in cyberspace, we cannot
persuade them to embrace secular democracy and its values any more than we can convert them
to Christianity" although they might be better persuaded to convert to Christianity –
traditional Christianity – than to embrace secular democracy and its "values".
Why would anyone want to embrace homosexuality, transgenderism, rad-feminism, opioids,
prozac, inequality, broken homes, mass shootings, mountainous debt, corrupt media, puppet
politicians & the rest of the filth & perversion that passes for "values" in secular
democracies like America or Western Europe?
Indeed, why would anyone in these decadent countries even want to defend these venal
"values", let alone try to spread them around the world like the Chinese plague?
No, "they are not trying to change us" but maybe they should.
As the British and French ultimately found out it costs more to run an empire than to loot
it. So the long retreat ensues. One would have thought that the Americans might have learned
this from history, but no! After all they were "the exceptional people, they stood taller
than the others and saw further." Errrm, no they didn't. Like their forbears they got bogged
down as well getting into debt which was only bailed out by their insistence that they would
not convert the dollar into gold.
Human nature and stupidity has got a long track-record and it isn't going to end anytime
soon.
The writer, and most commenters' are still under the erroneous belief that AMerica goes to
war in places then AMerica wins or loses or wastes lives or kill children. This is the
saddest part of the Yankee war machine: Americans joining the Army because they think theya
re joining the fight to defend the American Dream.
You-all are corporate gunmonkeys, fighting and killing and burning and bombing, not in the
name of freedom or apple pie, but in the name of Gulf Oil, Goldman Sachs, Citicorp, JPMorgan,
Monsanto, PHBBillington, whatever Devil Rumsfeld calls his sack of shit these days .
America has not won any war anywhere, even their civil war was mostly just clearing the
land for the banks. That is because it is not America at war, she just supplies the cannon
fodder. And cannons. And radiactive scrapmetal to make bullets to mow down women and children
in the name of Investor Confidence.
But then, that is what your Zionist bible tells you to do, isn't it?
I just don't think the US has the immoral fortitude to engage in genocide, so it's
hopeless trying to "win."
If by the US you mean most of the people you may be right. But the people in the US
have no say in the actions of the US government which is controlled by psychopaths.
Afghanistan is hardly even a country as the average American might define one. There's really
nothing to "win"; we only occupy. The infrastructure is primitive so it's not cost effective
to try to take whatever natural resources they may have, if any, so there's nothing they have
that we want. The Taliban were not "ousted". In the face of massive firepower they split up
and scattered; they're still there. After all, the US has been negotiating with them for a
peace deal of some sort hasn't it? "Democracy crusades" is just a propaganda fig leaf to
bamboozle stupid Americans. It's amazing that there's people who actually believe stuff like
that but PT Barnum had it right. "Eventually, we give up and go home". That's because they
live there and we don't. "They apparently have an inexhaustible supply of volunteers" willing
to fight and die. They don't want foreign robo-soldiers pointing guns at them in their own
country. We have our own version, it's called "Remember the Alamo", men who stood their
ground against the odds.
If a country is not willing to do that, and I would hope the United States is not
willing to do that, then they (we) should go home and leave the Afghans to murder each
other without our assistance. If they return to supporting terrorism or go whole hog in
producing opium, perhaps the US should decapitate their entire government and let the next
batch of losers give governing a try. I just don't think the US has the immoral fortitude
to engage in genocide, so it's hopeless trying to "win."
The growth in opium cultivation correlates with CIA activities in the area and the $3
billion from American taxpayers which financed Mujahideen 'terrorism' against the Russians
and their local proxies just to avenge the fall of Saigon.
In 1980 Afghanistan accounted for about only 5% of total world heroin production. This was
mainly for the local market and neighbor Iran.
They refuse to surrender and submit because it is their beliefs, their values, their
faith, their traditions, their tribe, their God, their culture, their civilization, their
honor that they believe they are fighting for in what is, after all, their land, not
ours.
If I may..
another way of looking at this, and I feel a profound respect for the Afghans, and only
wish we were made of the same mettle. If only ((they)) could say of us..
They refuse to surrender and submit because it is their beliefs, their values, their
faith, their traditions, their tribe, their God, their culture, their civilization, their
honor that they believe they are fighting for in what is, after all, their land, not
(((ours)))).
They are not trying to change ((((us. We))) are trying to change them. And they wish to
remain who they are.
IOW, we white Westerners, have proved willing to surrender and submit to all of it.
Without nary a peep of protest. Even as ((they)) send us around the globe to kill people like
these Afghans, for being slightly inconvenient to their agenda. [And so the CIA can
reconstitute its global heroin trafficking operation$.]
If only history would look back on this epic moment, at the last Death throes of the West,
and say of whitey, that he refused to surrender his values and faith and traditions and tribe
and God, and culture and civilization and honor.. to ((those)) who would pervert his values,
and mock his faith, and trash his traditions, and exterminate his tribe, while mocking his
God, and poisoning his culture, and destroying his civilization and all because at the end of
the day, he had no honor.
These men may be backwater, illiterate villagers,
but at least they have enough mettle and honor, to tell the Beast that they would rather
die killing as many of the Beast's stupid goons as they're able, than ever sacrifice their
sacred honor- or lands or sovereignty, or the destinies of their children – over to the
fiend, which is more than I can say for Western "man".
They are not trying to change us. We are trying to change them. And they wish to remain
who they are.
Would that the Swedish people had a Nano-shred of the blood-honor of an Afghan, Barbara
Spectre would be pounding sand.
Historically, the Afghans are fundamentalist, tribal and impervious to foreign
intervention.
Obviously, there is a great deal we need to learn from them.
What will the Taliban do when we leave?
They will not give up their dream of again ruling the Afghan nation and people. And they
will fight until they have achieved that goal and their idea of victory: dominance.
Um.. Pat. Whose land is it anyways? Is it such a horror that Afghans should be
dominant in Afghanistan ?
The Taliban was welcomed into most of the regions it governed, because they drove out
local war lords who often treated the villager's children as their sex toys, and the foreign
(CIA) opioid growers and traffickers. And it was the Taliban that put an end to all of that.
They're harsh, but they're effective, and that is their land, not ours.
Also, the Taliban offered to turn over Osama Bin Laden, if the West could provide a shred
of proof that he had anything whatsoever to do with 9/11. (he didn't ; ) But the West had
zero proof, (as the FBI admits to this day), that they have zero proof that ties Bin Laden to
9/11.
And n0w that we all know 9/11 was an Israeli false flag, intended to use the American
military as their bitch, to burn down 'seven nations in five years' .. that the Jewish
supremacists wanted destroyed, our whole pretext for being over there has been a sham from
day one. Duh.
.
.
.
.
I remember long ago when I had a subscription to National Geographic and this photo came out,
I cut the picture out, and stuck it somewhere to look at- it was so visceral and
haunting.
Leave them alone. I don't care how many Jews at the WSJ demand whitey has to stay and die
for Israel. (Afghanistan is on Iran's border, and that's why we have to stay, to menace all
those anti-Semites over there, trying to gas all the Jews and make soap).
@paranoid
goy I very much doubt if many are joining the military to "defend the American Dream."
Most are more practical and are joining to escape poverty, even if it might cost them their
lives. Recruiters will now be inundated with volunteers since there are no jobs in the covid
depression.
If the neo-con clown car Trump has permitted to run foreign policy since his election gets us
into a war with Iran and/or Venezuela before November, will Pat still be stumping for him, or
will we see the return of non-election-year Pat?
Excellent question Pat! Unfortunately there is no answer, we've been at "forever war"
seemingly forever, and the whole point as Eisenhower so preciently warned us is THE
objective.
The thing is that the Afghan government wasn't supporting terrorism. Rather, it had no
on-going control anywhere except the cities, which made the tribal areas useful hideouts /
bases for a raft of groups.
I well remember the prelude to the invasion where the US was demanding that its government
(which merely happened to be Taliban that year) hand over OBL in 72hrs. The truth was that
the US knew Afghanistan didn't have the capability to do that and it merely wanted to use OBL
as an excuse to invade and continue the encirclement of the old soviet states.
"... One could write a long history of FBI abuses and failures, from Latin America to Martin Luther King to Japanese internment. But just consider a handful of their more recent cases. ..."
"... But it was 9/11 that really sealed the FBI's ignominious track record. The lavishly funded agency charged with preventing terrorism somehow missed the attacks, despite their awareness of numerous Saudi nationals taking flying lessons around the country. Immediately after 9/11, the nation was gripped by the anthrax scare, and once again the FBI's inability to solve the case caused them to try to railroad an innocent man, Stephen Hatfill . ..."
"... With 9/11, the FBI also began targeting troubled Americans by handing them bomb materials, arresting them, and then holding a press conference to tell the country that they had prevented a major terrorist attack -- a fake attack that they themselves had planned. ..."
"... 9/11 also opened the floodgates to domestic surveillance and all the FISA abuses that most recently led to the prosecution of Michael Flynn. I am no fan of Flynn and his hawkish anti-Islamic views, but the way he was framed and then prosecuted really does shock the conscience. ..."
"... For the FBI, merely catching bad guys is too mundane. As one can tell from the sanctimonious James Comey, the culture at the Bureau holds grander aspirations. Comey's book is titled A Higher Loyalty , as if the FBI reports only to the Almighty. ..."
"... While the nation's elite colleges and tech companies are crawling with Chinese spies who are literally stealing our best ideas, the chief of the FBI's Counterintelligence Section, Peter Strzok, spent his days trying to frame junior aides in the Trump campaign. ..."
"... Some conservatives have called for FBI Director Christopher Wray to be fired. This would accomplish nothing, as the problem is not one man but an entire culture. ..."
"... One of the most amusing yet disturbing tends of the Trump era has been the increasingly strong embrace of the "intelligence community" (how I hate that term) by left liberals. ..."
"... It's tempting to wonder how many of them have even heard of COINTELPRO, but I suspect that most of them would be just fine if the FBI intervened to disrupt and destabilize the Marxist left in the unlikely event that it seemed to be gaining a significant political foothold. Can't have any nasty class politics disrupting their bourgeois identitarian parlor game! ..."
"... J. Edgar Hoover wrecked a lot of the good the FBI could have been right from the beginning, there needs to be a major cultural change over there and they need to be put back on track so that they serve us instead of themselves. ..."
"... Making sure crooks like Hoover and showboats like Comey never get put in charge would be a good start. ..."
"... Remember in "Three Days of the Condor," when Robert Redford reacts scornfully to Cliff Robertson's use of the term "community"? ..."
"... Collaboratus: Basically, working together. BULL, the individual IC Agencies can't work together internally, much less across agency boundaries. ..."
"... Virtus: a specific virtue in Ancient Rome. It carried connotations of valor, manliness, excellence, courage, character, and worth, perceived as masculine strengths. Again, BULL. The Feminazis and lgbtqxyz crowd have, pretty much snipped any balls and put them in a jar. Yes, gay pride is big in the IC. ..."
"... Fides: was the goddess of trust and bona fides in Roman paganism. She was one of the original virtues to be considered an actual religious divinity. Fides is everything that is required for "honour and credibility, from fidelity in marriage, to contractual arrangements, and the obligation soldiers owed to Rome". With respect to the IC, that last bears repeating" "Obligations Soldiers Owed To Rome." In the IC (Rome), Leadership and Management (LM) have no obligations to the 'soldiers'; so, of course, the soldiers respond in kind. ..."
"... Real underline issue is FBI has been politicized. Rather than be neutral and independent, top FBI leaders have aligned with politicians. While nominate FBI officials, presidents also select their own than someone is independent. ..."
"... Absolutely nothing new or rare was done to Flynn. The FBI used perfectly standard dirty tricks on him. ..."
"... It isn't just the FBI that uses dirty tactics. most police departments also use dirty tactics. ..."
"... As I see it the agency that needs to be broken up is the CIA. What they do is shameful and not American. They are and have always been heavily involved in other countries internal affairs. They are an evil organization. ..."
"... Absolutely phenomenal that an entire essay abusing the FBI could be written without once mentioning the man who actually made the Federal Bureau of Investigation into what it is (whatever that might be). But J Edgar Hoover is still sufficiently iconic a figure to many Conservatives that it would be counterproductive to assault him. Better someone like Comey. ..."
"... I did not know the FBI had the power to go back in time, otherwise how did they get Flynn to lie to VP Pence on Jan 14 when they didn't interview him until 1/24? Amazing how powerful they are! ..."
Its constant abuses, of which Michael Flynn is only the latest, show what a failed
Progressive Era institution it really is. Fittingly, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was founded by a grandnephew of
Napoleon Bonaparte, Attorney General Charles J. Bonaparte, during the Progressive Era.
Bonaparte was a Harvard-educated crusader. As the FBI's official history states, "Many
progressives, including (Teddy) Roosevelt, believed that the federal government's guiding hand
was necessary to foster justice in an industrial society."
Progressives viewed the Constitution as a malleable document, a take-it-or-leave-it kind of
thing. The FBI inherited that mindset of civil liberties being optional. In their early years,
with the passage of the Espionage and Sedition Acts during World War I, the FBI came into its
own by launching a massive domestic surveillance campaign and prosecuting war dissenters.
Thousands of Americans were arrested, prosecuted, and jailed simply for voicing opposition.
One could write a long history of FBI abuses and failures, from Latin America to Martin
Luther King to Japanese internment. But just consider a handful of their more recent cases. The
FBI needlessly killed women and children at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Anyone who has lived anywhere
near Boston knows of the Bureau's staggering corruption during gangster Whitey Bulger's reign
of terror. The abuses in Boston were so terrific that radio host Howie Carr declared that the
FBI initials really stood for "Famous But Incompetent." And then there's Richard Jewell, the
hero security guard who was almost railroaded by zealous FBI agents looking for a scalp after
they failed to solve the Atlanta terrorist bombing.
But it was 9/11 that really sealed the FBI's ignominious track record. The lavishly funded
agency charged with preventing terrorism somehow missed the attacks, despite their
awareness of numerous Saudi nationals taking flying lessons around the country. Immediately
after 9/11, the nation was gripped by the anthrax scare, and once again the FBI's inability to
solve the case caused them to try to railroad an innocent man, Stephen Hatfill .
With 9/11, the FBI also began targeting
troubled Americans by handing them bomb materials, arresting them, and then holding a press
conference to tell the country that they had prevented a major terrorist attack -- a fake
attack that they themselves had planned.
9/11 also opened the floodgates to domestic surveillance and all the FISA abuses that most
recently led to the prosecution of Michael Flynn. I am no fan of Flynn and his hawkish
anti-Islamic views, but the way he was framed and then prosecuted really does shock the
conscience. After Jewell, Hatfill, Flynn, and so many others, it's time to ask whether the
culture of the FBI has become similar to that of Stalin's secret police, i.e. "show me the man
and I'll show you the crime."
I am no anti-law enforcement libertarian. In a previous career, I had the privilege to work
with agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and they were some of the bravest
people I have ever met. And while the DEA can be overly aggressive (just ask anyone who has
been subjected to federal asset forfeiture), it is inconceivable that its agents would plot a
coup d'état against the president of the United States. The DEA sees their job as
catching drug criminals; they stay in their lane.
For the FBI, merely catching bad guys is too mundane. As one can tell from the sanctimonious
James Comey, the culture at the Bureau holds grander aspirations. Comey's book is titled A
Higher Loyalty , as if the FBI reports only to the Almighty.
They see themselves as
progressive guardians of the American Way, intervening whenever and wherever they see democracy
in danger. No healthy republic should have a national police force with this kind of culture.
There are no doubt many brave and patriotic FBI agents, but there is also no doubt they have
been very badly led.
This savior complex led them to aggressively pursue the Russiagate hoax. Their chasing of
ghosts should make it clear that the FBI does not stay in their lane. While the nation's elite
colleges and tech companies are crawling with Chinese spies who are literally stealing our best
ideas, the chief of the FBI's Counterintelligence Section, Peter Strzok, spent his days trying
to frame junior aides in the Trump campaign.
Some conservatives have
called for FBI Director Christopher Wray to be fired. This would accomplish nothing, as the
problem is not one man but an entire culture. One possible solution is to break up the FBI into
four or five agencies, with one responsible for counterintelligence, one for counterterrorism,
one for complex white-collar crime, one for cybercrimes, and so on. Smaller agencies with more
distinctive missions would not see themselves as national saviors and could be held accountable
for their effectiveness at very specific jobs. It would also allow federal agents to develop
genuine expertise rather than, as the FBI regularly does, shifting agents constantly from
terrorism cases to the war on drugs to cybercrime to whatever the political class's latest
crime du jour might be.
Such a reform would not end every abuse of federal law enforcement, and all these agencies
would need to be kept on a short leash for the sake of civil liberties. It would, however,
diminish the ostentatious pretension of the current FBI that they are the existential guardians
of the republic. In a republic, the people and their elected leaders are the protectors of
their liberties. No one else.
One of the most amusing yet disturbing tends of the Trump era has been the increasingly
strong embrace of the "intelligence community" (how I hate that term) by left liberals.
It's hard to believe it was only a decade ago when they were (correctly) deriding these
exact same people for their manifold failures relating to the War on Terror, but then again
left liberals at that time had not yet abandoned the pretense that they were something
other than a PMC social club.
It's tempting to wonder how many of them have even heard of COINTELPRO, but I suspect that most of them would be just fine if the FBI intervened to
disrupt and destabilize the Marxist left in the unlikely event that it seemed to be gaining
a significant political foothold. Can't have any nasty class politics disrupting their
bourgeois identitarian parlor game!
It's not the left liberals, it's the centrists and the neocons fleeing the Republican Party
like rats. The left never liked the FBI, never trusted them, with good reason.
J. Edgar
Hoover wrecked a lot of the good the FBI could have been right from the beginning, there
needs to be a major cultural change over there and they need to be put back on track so
that they serve us instead of themselves.
Making sure crooks like Hoover and showboats like
Comey never get put in charge would be a good start.
Or put another way... One of the most amusing yet disturbing tends of the Trump era has
been the increasingly strong disdain of the "intelligence community" (how I hate that term)
by far right conservatives.
Let's just be honest with ourselves - we really don't want intelligence, or science, or
oversight, unless it supports our team.
1. Collaboratus: Basically, working together. BULL, the individual IC Agencies can't
work together internally, much less across agency boundaries. This goes to guys like Mike
Flynn (former director of DIA), his predecessors and successors, and their peers across the
Intel(?) Community (that one kills me, too); the IC. Not to 'slight' anyone, but middle
management is no better, and probably, worse; everyone has to protect their own 'little
rice bowl' ya know.
2. Virtus: a specific virtue in Ancient Rome. It carried connotations of valor,
manliness, excellence, courage, character, and worth, perceived as masculine strengths.
Again, BULL. The Feminazis and lgbtqxyz crowd have, pretty much snipped any balls and put
them in a jar. Yes, gay pride is big in the IC.
3. Fides: was the goddess of trust and bona fides in Roman paganism. She was one of the
original virtues to be considered an actual religious divinity. Fides is everything that is
required for "honour and credibility, from fidelity in marriage, to contractual
arrangements, and the obligation soldiers owed to Rome". With respect to the IC, that last
bears repeating" "Obligations Soldiers Owed To Rome." In the IC (Rome), Leadership and
Management (LM) have no obligations to the 'soldiers'; so, of course, the soldiers respond
in kind.
The ICs are dog eat dog; LM are looking out for themselves...Period. Actually doing 'the
job' is pretty far down the TODO List. The vast majority of people in the 'trenches' are
just trying to get through the day; like LM, doing the 'right thing' is no longer the first
thought.
To make matters worse (if possible), MANY of those people in the trenches have
almost no clue WTF they are doing. This is because management involuntarily reassigns
people (SURPRISE!) to jobs for which they were not hired, have no qualifications, and,
often, no interest in becoming qualified. Of course, they hang on hoping that 'black swan'
will land and make everything right again.
We've had two major incidents (at least), in the last 20 years (9/11 and the Kung Flu)
that are specific failures of the IC (IMO). The IC failed (fails?) because Collaboratus,
Virtus, and Fides are just some words on a plaque; not goals for which to strive; lip
service is a poor substitute.
Yeah, these yahoos are overdue for a good house cleaning as well.
Real underline issue is FBI has been politicized.
Rather than be neutral and independent, top FBI leaders have aligned with politicians.
While nominate FBI officials, presidents also select their own than someone is
independent.
In order their men can do their "works", they also increased their authorities. Supposedly, FBI directors, once confirmed, will not change with president. In reality,
we saw presidents to replace old ones with their own.
It is not break up or whatever "reform". As long as presidents (regardless whom) can
choose their own, how can you expect FBI does its jobs stated by laws?
It is amazing how far people will let their political hatreds take them. The
FBI is actually more important for the services it provides police forces around America
than it is for solving federal crimes.
The FBI have been using dirty practices on people
for decades. Literally hundreds of people who are not criminals have written about this -
several of them are former agents who left in good standing.
They practice some of them
right out in the open, like leaking information about arrests to the press so that the
press get to film their arrests - sometimes timing arrests to hit local primetime new. It
even has a name - the prime time perp walk. Whether these people are convicted or not,
those images follow them for the rest of their lives. Or announcing that a person is "a
person of interest" to force cooperation, because they know that people hear "suspect" when
they hear such announcements. They will then offer to announce that the person is no longer
a person of interest in exchange for cooperation. It didn't deserve to be disbanded them.
Absolutely nothing new or rare was done to Flynn. The FBI used perfectly standard
dirty tricks on him. But since he was a minion of Donald Trump, the FBI should have
known that he was untouchable. That is their real wrongdoing here. But they didn't realize
it, so they should be disbanded. It is just like some progressives call for the disbandment
of ICE because it arrests illegal aliens.
This ignoramus reminds me of others of his kind who call for the disbandbandment of the
UN because they don't like the behavior of its General Council, its human rights or the
peace keeping agencies, completely oblivious of the critical services the dozens of
non-political UN agencies provide to all countries, especially to very small or under
developed ones. They call for the destruction of WHO because it kowtows to China no matter
that a number of countries in the world would have access to zero advanced health services
without it, and others who are less dependent, but find its services critical in
maintaining healthy populations. They find it politically objectionable so get rid of it! I
really hate how progressives throw around the words "entitled" and "privilege", but some
people do behave that way.
You can't go without the police though and a lot of what goes there can be reformed. Stop
treating them like an movie version of the military. Teach them to calm a situation instead
of shooting first, and realize you can treat them like an important part of society without
making them above the law.
As I see it the agency that needs to be broken up is the CIA. What they do is shameful and
not American. They are and have always been heavily involved in other countries internal
affairs. They are an evil organization.
If conservatives are coming around to the idea that police corruption is a real thing, that
would be great. Somehow, I tend to doubt that it extends much beyond a way to protect white
collar and political corruption. I hope this is a turning point. The investigations into
Clinton emails didn't seem to warrant a mention here. Oh well.
That whole email situation was worthless. Not to say whether there was or was not an issue
but the investigation was nothing worthwhile and only resulted in complicating an already
messy election. Whether you believe there was a crime or not there there was nothing good
handled by that investigation.
Personally I'm more content with the Mueller investigation. Not the way everyone
panicked over it on both sides but what Mueller actually did himself: came in, researched
the situation, found out that while a good few people acted messy Trump himself wasn't
doing more than Twitter talk (yes it's technically "not enough evidence to prosecute", but
that is how we phrase "not guilty" technically: you prove guilt not innocence), stated that
Trump keeps messing himself up (aka "why did you ask your staff to claim one reason for a
firing then tell a different story on national TV idiot")..
Then ran for the hills as everyone screamed "impeach/witchhunt".
Though don't get me wrong: I'm not going to get on the way of any attempt to dismantle
the FBI or any of those other systems. It's something I really wish "small government"
actually meant.
And lets not forget that Russia warned the FBI about the Tsarnaev brothers. The FBI did a
perfunctory investigation and dismissed the threat. They probably thought they were a
couple of poor Chechen boys persecuted by those evil Russians.
Absolutely phenomenal that an entire essay abusing the FBI could be written without once
mentioning the man who actually made the Federal Bureau of Investigation into what
it is (whatever that might be). But J Edgar Hoover is still sufficiently iconic a
figure to many Conservatives that it would be counterproductive to assault him. Better
someone like Comey.
But, this is part of a pattern of Trump and his loyal followers (no Conservatives they)
assault on the Institutions. The FBI is insufficiently tamed by Billy Barr, so it must go.
(Part of the deep state swamp. /s).
Actually, there are very sound reasons for keeping the FBI, and even more for reforming
it. But since it was engaged in checking out Trump's minion, Flynn, it is bad, very bad,
incredibly bad, and must go. OTOH, if Comey had bent the knee to Trump, the FBI would be
the most tremendous force for good the country has ever seen.
But this essay must be seen as part of the background of attempted legitimization for
whatever Trump tweetstormed today. Perhaps the critics are right, and "conservatism is
dead". If so, it would be the proper thing to give it a decent burial and go on.
Because there is nothing about Donald John Trump which is the least Conservative, and it
is sickening to see people I once presumed to be "principled" line up at the altar of
Trumpism. You know he will not be satisfied until the country is renamed The United States
of Trump.
Now, all you Trumpublicans and Trumpservatives go downvote because I decline to abandon
Conservatism for Trumpworship,
I did not know the FBI had the power to go back in time, otherwise how did they get Flynn
to lie to VP Pence on Jan 14 when they didn't interview him until 1/24? Amazing how
powerful they are!
FBI Director Christopher Wray announced Friday that he has ordered the bureau to conduct an
internal review of its handling of the probe into former national security adviser
Michael Flynn , which has led to his years long battle in federal court.
It's like the fox guarding the hen house.
Wray's decision to investigate also comes late. The bureau's probe only comes after numerous
revelations that former senior FBI officials and agents involved in Flynn's case allegedly
engaged in misconduct to target the three star general, who became
President Donald Trump's most trusted campaign advisor.
Despite all these revelations, Wray has promised that the bureau will examine whether any
employees engaged in misconduct during the court of the investigation and "evaluate whether any
improvements in FBI policies and procedures need to be made." Based on what we know, how can we
trust an unbiased investigation from the very bureau that targeted Flynn.
Let me put it to you this way, over the past year Wray has failed to cooperate with
congressional investigations. In fact, many Republican lawmakers have called him out publicly
on the lack of cooperation saying, he cares more about protecting the bureaucracy than exposing
and resolving the culture of corruption within the bureau.
Wray's Friday announcement, is in my opinion, a ruse to get lawmakers off his back.
How can we trust that Wray's internal investigation will expose what actually happened in
the case of Flynn, or any of the other Trump campaign officials that were targeted by the
former Obama administration's intelligence and law enforcement apparatus.
It's Wray's FBI that continues to battle all the Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act
requests regarding the investigation into Flynn, along with any requests that would expose
information on the Russia hoax investigation. One in particular, is the request to obtain all
the text messages and emails sent and received by former Deputy Director
Andrew McCabe.
The FBI defended itself in its Friday announcement saying that in addition to its own
internal review, it has already cooperated with other inquiries assigned by Attorney General
William Barr. But still Wray has not approved subpoena's for employees and others that
lawmakers want to interview behind closed doors in Congress.
The recent documented discoveries by the Department of Justice make it all the more
imperative that an outside review of the FBI's handling of Flynn's case is required. Those
documents, which shed light on the actions by the bureau against Flynn, led to the DOJ's
decision to drop all charges against him. It was, after all, DOJ Attorney Jeffery Jensen who
discovered the FBI documents regarding Flynn that have aided his defense attorney Sidney Powell
in getting the truth out to they American people.
Powell, like me, doesn't believe an internal review is appropriate.
"Wow? And how is he going to investigate himself," she questioned in a Tweet. "And how could
anyone trust it? FBI Director Wray opens internal review into how bureau handled Michael Flynn
case."
--
Sidney Powell 🇺🇸⭐⭐⭐ (@SidneyPowell1) May
22, 2020
Last week, this reporter published the growing divide between Congressional Republicans on
the House Judiciary Committee and Wray. The lawmakers have accused Wray of failing to respond
to numerous requests to speak with FBI Special Agent Joe Pientka, who along with former FBI
Special Agent Peter Strzok, conducted the now infamous White House interview with Flynn on Jan.
24, 2017.
Further, the lawmakers have also requested to speak with the FBI's former head of the
Counterintelligence Division ,
Bill Priestap, whose unsealed handwritten notes revealed the possible 'nefarious'
motivations behind the FBI's investigation of Flynn.
"Michael Flynn was wronged by the FBI," said a senior Republican official last week, with
direct knowledge of the Flynn investigation.
"Sadly
Director Wray has shown little interest in getting to the bottom of what actually
happened with the Flynn case. Wray's lackadaisical attitude is an embarrassment to the rank
and file agents at the bureau, whose names have been dragged through the mud time and time
again throughout the Russia-gate investigation. Wray needs to wake up and work with Congress.
If he doesn't maybe it's time for him to go. "
Powell argued that Flynn had pleaded guilty because his former Special Counsel Robert
Mueller, along with his prosecutors, threatened to target his son. Those prosecutors also
coerced Flynn, whose finances were depleted by his previous defense team. Mueller's team got
Flynn to plead guilty to lying to the FBI about a phone conversation he had with the former
Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition period. However, the
agents who interviewed him did not believe he was lying.
Currently the DOJ's request to dismiss the case is now pending before federal Judge Emmet
Sullivan. Sullivan has failed to grant the DOJ's request to dismiss the case and because of
that Powell has filed a writ of mandamus to the U.S. D.C. Court of Appeals seeking the
immediate removal of Sullivan, or to dismiss the prosecution as requested by the DOJ.
In the weeks before the 2016
presidential election, the most powerful former leaders of the Central Intelligence Agency did everything they could to elect
Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump. President Obama’s former acting CIA chief Michael Morrell published a
full-throated endorsement of Clinton in the New York Times and claimed “Putin ha[s] recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting
agent of the Russian Federation,” while George W. Bush’s post-9/11 CIA and NSA Chief, Gen. Michael Hayden, writing in
the Washington Post, refrained from endorsing Clinton outright but echoed Morrell by accusing Trump of being a “useful fool,
some naif, manipulated by Moscow” and sounding “a little bit the conspiratorial Marxist.” Meanwhile, the intelligence community
under James Clapper and John Brennan fed
morsels to both the Obama DOJ and the US media to suggest a Trump/Russia conspiracy and fuel what became the Russiagate
investigation.
In his extraordinary election-advocating Op-Ed, Gen. Hayden, Bush/Cheney’s CIA Chief, candidly explained the reasons for the
CIA’s antipathy for Trump: namely, the GOP candidate’s stated opposition to allowing CIA regime change efforts in Syria to
expand as well as his opposition to arming Ukrainians with lethal weapons to fight Russia (supposedly “pro-Putin” positions
which, we are now all supposed
to forget, Obamalargely
shared).
As has been true since President Harry Truman’s creation of the CIA after World War II, interfering in other countries and
dictating or changing their governments — through campaigns of mass murder, military coups, arming guerrilla groups, the
abolition of democracy, systemic disinformation, and the imposition of savage despots — is regarded as a divine right, inherent
to American exceptionalism. Anyone who questions that or, worse, opposes it and seeks to impede it (as the CIA perceived Trump
was) is of suspect loyalties at best.
The CIA’s antipathy toward Trump continued after his election victory. The agency became the primary
vector for anonymous, illegal leaks designed to depict Trump as a Kremlin agent and/or blackmail victim. It worked to ensure
the leak of the Steele dossier that clouded at least the first two years of Trump’s presidency. It drove the scam Russiagate
conspiracy theories. And before Trump was even inaugurated, open warfare erupted between the president-elect and the agency to
the point where Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer explicitly warned Trump on the Rachel Maddow Show that he was
risking full-on subversion of his presidency by the agency:
Democrats, early in Trump’s presidency, saw clearly that the CIA had become one of Trump’s most devoted enemies, and thus began
viewing them as a valuable ally. Leading out-of-power Democratic foreign policy elites from the Obama administration and Clinton
campaign joined forces not only with Bush/Cheney neocons but also former CIA officials to create new foreign
policy advocacy groups designed to malign and undermine Trump and promote hawkish confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.
Meanwhile, other ex-CIA and Homeland Security officials, such as John Brennan and James Clapper, became beloved liberal
celebrities by being hired
by MSNBC and CNN to deliver liberal-pleasing anti-Trump messaging that, on a virtually daily basis, masqueraded
as news.
Oliver Stone's "The Untold History of the US" opened up my eyes to how shameful our
history really is. The American Empire is no better then Great Britain, the very power this
country was supposed to rise above.
When a system is fully controlled by the big corporation/money every action and move must
serve it's master. Some are directly related to their immediate interest and some to prevent
any future challenge to it.
"...At CBS, we had been contacted by the CIA, as a matter of fact, by the time I became
the head of the news and public affairs division in 1954 shifts had been established ... I
was told about them and asked if I'd carry on with them...." -- Sid Mickelson, CBS News
President 1954-61, describing Operation Mockingbird
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, by John Perkins, was a NYTimes best-seller about the
methods CIA use to dominate countries in Latin America and in Asia. John Perkins never was
interviewed by Us Media.
"... Democrats, early in Trump's presidency, saw clearly that the CIA had become one of Trump's most devoted enemies, and thus began viewing them as a valuable ally. Leading out-of-power Democratic foreign policy elites from the Obama administration and Clinton campaign joined forces not only with Bush/Cheney neocons but also former CIA officials to create new foreign policy advocacy groups designed to malign and undermine Trump and promote hawkish confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia. Meanwhile, other ex-CIA and Homeland Security officials, such as John Brennan and James Clapper, became beloved liberal celebrities by being hired by MSNBC and CNN to deliver liberal-pleasing anti-Trump messaging that, on a virtually daily basis, masqueraded as news . ..."
In his extraordinary election-advocating op-ed, Hayden, Bush/Cheney's CIA chief, candidly
explained the reasons for the CIA's antipathy for Trump: namely, the GOP candidate's stated
opposition to allowing CIA regime change efforts in Syria to expand as well as his opposition
to arming Ukrainians with lethal weapons to fight Russia (supposedly "pro-Putin" positions
which, we are now all
supposed to forget,
Obama largely
shared ). As has been true since President Harry Truman's creation of the CIA after World
War II, interfering in other countries and dictating or changing their governments -- through
campaigns of mass murder, military coups, arming guerrilla groups, the abolition of democracy,
systemic disinformation, and the imposition of savage despots -- is regarded as a divine right,
inherent to American exceptionalism. Anyone who questions that or, worse, opposes it and seeks
to impede it (as the CIA perceived Trump was) is of suspect loyalties at best.
The CIA's antipathy toward Trump continued after his election victory. The agency became the
primary vector for anonymous illegal leaks designed to depict Trump as a Kremlin agent
and/or blackmail victim. It worked to ensure the leak of the Steele dossier that clouded at
least the first two years of Trump's presidency. It drove the scam Russiagate conspiracy
theories. And before Trump was even inaugurated, open warfare erupted between the
president-elect and the agency to the point where Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck
Schumer explicitly warned Trump on the Rachel Maddow Show that he was risking full-on
subversion of his presidency by the agency:
This turned out to be one of the most prescient and important (and creepy) statements of
the Trump presidency: from Chuck Schumer to Rachel Maddow - in early January, 2017, before
Trump was even inaugurated: pic.twitter.com/TUaYkksILG
Democrats, early in Trump's presidency, saw clearly that the CIA had become one of
Trump's most devoted enemies, and thus began viewing them as a valuable ally. Leading
out-of-power Democratic foreign policy elites from the Obama administration and Clinton
campaign joined forces not only with Bush/Cheney neocons but also former CIA officials to
create new
foreign policy advocacy groups designed to malign and undermine Trump and promote hawkish
confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia. Meanwhile, other ex-CIA and Homeland Security
officials, such as John Brennan and James Clapper, became beloved liberal celebrities by being
hired by MSNBC and CNN to deliver liberal-pleasing anti-Trump messaging that, on a
virtually daily basis, masqueraded as news .
The all-consuming Russiagate narrative that dominated the first three years of Trump's
presidency further served to elevate the CIA as a noble and admirable institution while
whitewashing its grotesque history. Liberal conventional wisdom held that Russian Facebook ads,
Twitter bots and the hacking and release of authentic, incriminating
DNC emails was some sort of unprecedented, off-the-charts, out-of-the-ordinary
crime-of-the-century attack, with several leading Democrats (including Hillary Clinton)
actually
comparing it to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor . The level of historical ignorance and/or jingostic
American exceptionalism necessary to believe this is impossible to describe. Compared to what
the CIA has done to dozens of other countries since the end of World War II, and what it
continues to do , watching Americans cast Russian interference in the 2016 election through
online bots and email hacking (even if one believes every claim made about it) as some sort of
unique and unprecedented crime against democracy is staggering. Set against what the CIA has
done and continues to do to "interfere" in the domestic affairs of other countries --
including Russia -- the 2016
election was, at most, par for the course for international affairs and, more accurately, a
trivial and ordinary act in the context of CIA interference. This propaganda was sustainable
because the recent history and the current function of the CIA has largely been
suppressed. Thankfully, a just-released book by journalist Vincent Bevins -- who
spent years as a foreign correspondent covering two countries still marred by brutal
CIA interference: Brazil for the Los Angeles Times and Indonesia for the Washington Post --
provides one of the best, most informative and most illuminating histories yet of this agency
and the way it has shaped the actual, rather than the propagandistic, U.S. role in the
world.
Entitled "The Jakarta Method: Washington's Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program
that Shaped Our World," the book primarily documents the indescribably horrific campaigns of
mass murder and genocide the CIA sponsored in Indonesia as an instrument for destroying a
nonaligned movement of nations who would be loyal to neither Washington nor Moscow. Critically,
Bevins documents how the chilling success of that morally grotesque campaign led to its being
barely discussed in U.S. discourse, but then also serving as the foundation and model for
clandestine CIA interference campaigns in multiple other countries from Guatemala, Chile, and
Brazil to the Philippines, Vietnam, and Central America: the Jakarta Method.
Our newest episode of SYSTEM UPDATE, which debuts today at 2:00 p.m. on The Intercept's YouTube channel , is
devoted to a discussion of why this history is so vital: not just for understanding the current
international political order but also for distinguishing between fact and fiction in our
contemporary political discourse. In addition to my own observations on this topic, I speak to
Bevins about his book, about what the CIA really is and how it has shaped the world we still
inhabit, and why a genuine understanding of both international and domestic politics is
impossible without a clear grasp on this story.
We have a plutocracy which is in bed with corporations, including finance corporations. Our
totalitarianism is not fascism.
Fascism arose to fight finance capital. It was the third way between communism and finance
capitalism.
People keep bandying the word fascism around because it was changed in meaning post ww2
something like conspiracy after JFK was murdered. The meaning was changed to have a negative
reaction in our brains.
Conspiracy is merely people getting together to hatch a plot, or scheme. Fascism was the
putting of the polity over capital.
My columns haven't been very funny recently. This one isn't going to be any funnier. Sorry.
Fascism makes me cranky.
I don't mean the kind of fascism the corporate media and the fake Resistance have been
desperately hyping for the last four years. God help me, but I'm not terribly worried about a
few hundred white-supremacist morons marching around with tiki torches hollering Nazi slogans
at each other, or Jewish-Mexican-American law clerks flashing "OK" signs on TV, or smirking
schoolkids in MAGA hats.
And you know what makes me really cranky? I'll tell you what makes me really cranky. It is
people who publicly project themselves as "anti-authoritarians" and "anti-fascists," or who
have established their "anti-establishment" brands and "dissident" personas on social media, or
even in the corporate media, either zealously cheerleading this totalitarianism or looking away
and saying nothing as it is rolled out by the very authorities and media propagandists they
pretend to oppose. I don't know exactly why, but that stuff makes me particularly cranky.
I'll provide you with a few examples.
The militant "Portland anti-fascists" who the corporate media fell in love with and made
famous for bravely fighting off the Trump-loving Putin-Nazi Menace over the course of the last
four years, as soon as the Corona-Totalitarianism began, did what all true anti-fascists do
when the state goes full-blown fascist no, they did not "smash the state," or "occupy the
streets," or anything like that. They masked-up and started making
vegan hand sanitizer .
Others simply looked away or sat there in silence as we were confined to our homes, and made
to carry "
permission papers " to walk to work or the corner grocery store, and were
beaten and arrested for not "social-distancing," and were otherwise bullied and humiliated
for no justifiable reason whatsoever. (We are talking about a virus, after all, that even the
official medical experts,
e.g., the U.K.'s Chief Medic , admit is more or less harmless to the vast majority of us,
not the Bubonic Fucking Plague or some sort of Alien-Terrorist-Death-Flu so spare me the
"we-had-no-choice-but-to-go-totalitarian" rationalization.)
My intent is not merely to mock these people (i.e., these "radical," "anti-establishment"
types who fell into formation and started goose-stepping because the media told them we were
all going to die), but also to use them as a clear example of how official narratives are born
and take hold.
That's somewhat pertinent at the moment, because the "Brave New Normal" official
narrative has been born, but it has not yet taken hold. What happens next will determine
whether it does.
In order to understand how this works, imagine for a moment that you're one of these people
who are normally skeptical of the government and the media, and that you consider yourself an
anti-authoritarian, or at least a friend of the working classes, and now you are beginning to
realize that there is no Alien-Terrorist-Death-Flu (just as there were no "WMDs," no "Russian
hackers," no "pee-tape," etc.), and so it dawns on you that you've been behaving like a
hysterical, brainwashed, fascist minion of the very establishment you supposedly oppose or at
the very least like an abject coward.
Imagine how you might feel right now.
You would probably feel pretty foolish, right? And more than a little ashamed of yourself.
So OK, what would do about that? Well, you would have a couple of options.
Option Number One would be admit what you did, apologize to whomever you have to, and try
like hell not to do it again. Not many people are going to choose this option.
Most people are going to choose Option Number Two, which is to desperately try to deny what
they did, or to desperately rationalize what they did (and in many cases are still actively
doing). Now, this is not as easy at it sounds, because doing that means they will have to
continue to believe (or at least pretend to believe) that there is an
Alien-Terrorist-Death-Flu which is going to kill hundreds of millions of people the moment we
stop locking everyone down, and forcing them to "social distance," and so on. They will have to
continue to pretend to believe that this Alien-Terrorist-Death-Flu exists, even though they
know it doesn't.
And this is where that Orwellian "doublethink"
comes in. People (i.e., these "anti-authoritarians," not to mention the majority of the
"normal" public) are not going to want to face the fact that they've been behaving like a bunch
of fascists (or cowards) for no justifiable reason whatsoever. So, what they are going to do
instead is desperately pretend that their behavior was justified and that the propaganda they
have been swallowing, and regurgitating, was not propaganda, but rather, "the Truth."
In other words, in order to avoid their shame, they are going to do everything in their
power to reify the official narrative and delegitimize anyone attempting to expose it as the
fiction that it is. They are going to join in with the corporate media that are calling us "
extremists ," "
conspiracy theorists ," "
anti-vaxxers ," and other such epithets. They're going to accuse those of us on the Left of
aligning with "
far-Right Republican militias ," and " Boogaloo
accelerationists ," and of being members of the Russian-backed "
Querfront ," and assorted other horrible things meant to scare errant leftists into
line.
Above all, they are going to continue to insist, despite all the evidence to the contrary ,
that we are "under attack" by a "killer virus" which could "strike again at any time," and so
we have to maintain at least some level of totalitarianism and paranoia, or else well, you
know, the terrorists win.
It is this reification of the official narrative by those too ashamed to admit what they did
(and try to determine why they did it), and not the narrative or the propaganda itself, that
will eventually establish the "Brave New Normal" as "reality" (assuming the process works as
smoothly as it did with the "War on Terror," the "War on Populism," and the "Cold War"
narratives). The facts, the data, the "science" won't matter. Reality is consensus reality and
a new consensus is being formed at the moment.
There is still a chance (right now, not months from now) for these people (some of whom are
rather influential) to stand up and say, "Whoops! I screwed up and went all Nazi there for a
bit." But I seriously doubt that is going to happen.
It's much more likely that the Brave New Normal (or some intermittent, scaled-down version
of it) will gradually become our new reality. People will get used to being occasionally
"locked down," and being ordered to wear masks, and not to touch each other, and to standing in
designated circles and boxes, like they got used to the "anti-Terrorism measures," and
believing that Trump is a "Russian asset." The coming economic depression will be blamed on the
Alien-Terrorist-Death-Flu, rather than on the lockdown that caused it.
Millions of people will be condemned to extreme poverty , or debt-enslaved for the rest of
their lives, but they'll be too busy trying to survive to mount any kind of broad
resistance.
The children, of course, won't know any better. They will grow up with their "isolation
boxes," and "protective barriers," and "contact tracing," and they will live in constant
low-grade fear of another killer virus, or terrorist attack, or Russian-backed white
supremacist uprising, or whatever boogeyman might next appear to menace the global capitalist
empire, which, it goes without saying, will be just fine.
Me, I'll probably remain kind of cranky, but I will try to find the humor in it all. Bear
with me that might take a while.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist
based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing and Broadway Play Publishing,
Inc. His dystopian novel, Zone 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. Volume I of his Consent Factory
Essays is published by Consent Factory Publishing, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amalgamated
Content, Inc. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
On this particular event, I researched COVID-19 a few months ago, before the lockdowns hit my
part of the United States, and realized that it was BS. However, since I am powerless this
had no effect on my day to day life. I didn't have the money to spend a year in a
non-lockdown country, not that many exist, or retreat to some estate in the countryside. I
neither own or control a business or facility that I could defy the lockdowns and keep open.
I still need to have to wear a mask to go grocery shopping or starve.
This was the case with other hoaxes such as WMD, so I am not sure who these things are
aimed out. I also don't know how many proles (who, remember, mostly don't vote) really
believe in them. Since they have no power, it makes no difference if they do or not. Unless
you own or operate a business or something like a church that can be closed by a lockdown
order, the most you can do is avoid wearing the mask that signals your compliance, and even
then they get you if you have to enter a store.
The hoaxes might be aimed at the lower level functionaries, the gym owners, the lower
level administrators, the cops, the inspectors who are still needed to physically enforce the
edicts on the local level. However, even here, there is a collective action problem with
disobedience, its only effective if a mass of them disobey, a lone individual disobeying will
face retaliation.
My intent is not merely to mock these people (i.e., these "radical,"
"anti-establishment" types who fell into formation and started goose-stepping because the
media told them we were all going to die), but also to use them as a clear example of how
official narratives are born and take hold.
Do you read scientific articles? I know you are not a medical doctor or a scientist so no
point asking about your actual experience in dealing with the virus, but you can read. Many
informed and intelligent people have formed their opinion of this epidemics by reading the
reported scientific evidence, experiments, epidemiological modelling, not the media. I have
posted several articles published in top-ranking journals demonstrating the effectiveness of
containment in China (recently a new work has been published with an analysis of the dynamics
in Germany). These articles also offer the data and computer code freely to reproduce the
results or adapt them to other situations.
I don't know where you live and I am sorry that you are experiencing the fascist
apocalypse (obwandiyag, above) while sitting at your desk typing out your pieces. Where I
live in Europe there was a serious epidemics that is now getting under control thanks to the
strategy of containment. There has been no fascist uprising and there have been no
politicians suddenly sig-heiling people into the totalitarian nightmare that you describe. We
are all tired of this shit but as I can see around me nearly all agree that the infections
have to be contained and that the effort to achieve containment has been worth the pain. I
guess to stop pathogens that kill or cause great suffering to people from spreading further
is a humanitarian demand, regardless of the age or health of the victims.
Also, contrary to the nightmarish situation you describe in your country, here politicians
seem to be too eager to come back to their normal routine. They are not looking to perpetuate
a state of emergency, quite on the contrary, scientific committes are advising them to carry
on a bit further (with many postdocs doing to modelling in the background) and de-escalate in
a gradual manner.
But what you describe is truly nightmarish. I see you quote a lot of twitter posts and
other media to susbtantiate your fears. So either you go out and fight the fascists hordes
sig-hailing you into totalitarianism from twitter, or instead you read scientific papers and
calm down.
Don't forget 'Covidiots'. The frontline-worker-lovin', government-narrative-believin'
social-distance welcomin' simpletons are endlessly inventive when it comes to coining
contemptuous nicknames for those who don't buy into their embrace of madness. I am happy to
be able to say I thought the virus was bogus from the first, and said so to anyone who would
listen.
So, now there's a big demographic who stuck paper hearts in their windows the way
gold-star mothers used to advertise that Someone In This House Has Gone To War. A demographic
that clapped like seals every evening at 7:00 PM to show its support for everyone who was
still allowed to do their job. That happily buckled down to a war mentality which excused the
withdrawal of individual rights in favour of the public good. As you suggest, embarrassment
is on the near horizon – what will the reaction be?
The first thing that should happen is that everyone who was in a political leadership
position during this debacle, and went along with it, should be unceremoniously kicked out of
office. The WHO leadership should all be fired. Police chiefs should be invited to resign,
effective immediately. Everyone who willingly went along with this farce and has a
responsibility to more than themselves and their immediate families should be made to
publicly apologize, or wear a paper mask with "I'm an idiot" printed on it in lipstick.
I live in Europe there was a serious epidemics that is now getting under control thanks
to the strategy of containment. There has been no fascist uprising and there have been no
politicians suddenly sig-heiling people into the totalitarian nightmare that you
describe.
Well, in Britain (which is still part of Europe geographically) all protests,
demonstrations and the like have been banned. Local elections have been delayed by one
year.
The virus has been circulating since November and the excess mortality rate over and above
the background rate did not start until after the lockdown commended in March. Part of this
is due to the cancellation of elective surgery for at least three months – no
transplants, much reduced diagnoses of new cancer cases, people with heart attacks and stroke
staying away from hospitals and so on.
There has been a veritable holocaust in care homes – caused by lack of visits from
GPs and a lack of availability of hospital care, and the rush to empty hospitals of older
people back to care homes regardless of whether or not they had the infection. Care homes
were by (emergency) law not permitted to refuse entry.
Every Thursday we are encouraged to spend several minutes of our house arrest going
outdoors and clapping for the National Health Service. It's a bit like a love version of the
Two Minutes of Hate in Nineteen Eighty-Four .
Well done on getting your articles published. That boast does little for the reputation of
these "top ranking publications."
@Levtraro Did you
say, "epidemiological modelling'? You mean, like the epidemiological model that started the
whole jaw-dropping overreaction in the first place? This epidemiological model?
The one that varied by as many as 80,000 deaths over 80 days in subsequent runs without
changing any of the feed parameters? That epidemiological model? Yes, that's the sort of
scientific work that calms me down every time.
It's funny how American-expat-in-Germany Hopkins has generally been a huge supporter of
European democratic socialism, as opposed to the Trumpian or neoliberal America which he
finds so distasteful. And yet, those European countries actually locked down more ruthlessly
than America. In Spain, France and the UK you couldn't even get in your car and drive 50
miles without the risk of being stopped. That was never the case here. Freedom of movement
was never under threat in the U.S. I wonder what he thinks about that.
C. J., whatever hope there is in the US, lies in the fact that the country is not
homogeneous. I don't think most people have yet realized that this was an epidemic in NYC and
nowhere else. There were deaths, but a very small number. Los Angeles County has 11 million
people and ~ 1700 deaths. Not every place is requiring a 'mask' of shame yet. Hopefully, a
few states 'open up' and nothing happens, and then more, and finally if New Yorkers and a few
other places want to cower and cringe for the rest of their lives, they are free to do so.
Example: Florida vs New York (from RT): DeSantis is the Republican Governor of Florida.
Florida has been one of the first states to roll back lockdown orders and allow many
non-essential businesses to reopen.
Many critics in the media predicted that Florida would end up "just like Italy" two weeks
after reopening, DeSantis continued. "Well, hell, we're eight weeks away from that and it
hasn't happened."
New York, with a population of over 19 million, has had over 250,000 cases and more than
28,000 deaths from the coronavirus. Though it has a larger population – 21 million
– and more high-risk elderly residents, Florida has registered just over 47,000 cases
and some 2,000 deaths.
And yet the MSM praises Cuomo to the skys, and lambasts DeSantis. Also, ignored is Cuomo's
decision to empty hospitals of elderly patients and send them back to nursing homes (to
die).
Can't remember where I read that (maybe Taki), but every time I see a picture of these
fools, I laff my ass off, 'cuz, as described, the masks just keep getting BIGGER. Now, even
in my hokey little town of 1,500, well off the beaten-track, idiots are wandering around the
streets and the ONE store wearing plexiglass welding face shields (is that even a THING?
Would've thought welders needed something more substantial, but thereya go). Mostly, we here
don't give a shit, and since there's no business here anyway, nobody was fired or laid off.
Sadly, however, there's no chickens at the hardware store until June.
Guess it'll give me time to build a coop if I can get the relatives to move out before I
hang myself–7 people in a single-wide, and six of them hate me.
Style Advice Please. Don't have a wu-wu virus face mask, so plan to wear girl's panties over
my head when leaving the house with the ears sticking out the leg holes . But am perplexed as
to whether the hash mark should go in the front or the back. Sartorial counsel appreciated as
do not want to look foolish.
The kind where governments declare a global "state of emergency" on account of a virus
with a 0.2% to 1% lethality
Most of the studies are converging on the 0.1% range; any above 0.2% are now unusual
outliers. In the words of Swiss Propaganda Research's "A Swiss Doctor on COVID19" series
(which is the link provided in this essay):
According to data from the best-studied countries and regions, the lethality of Covid19
is on average about 0.2%, which is in the range of a severe influenza (flu) and about
twenty times lower than originally assumed by the WHO.
From the Lethality page:
Covid-19 infection fatality rates (IFR) based on antibody studies
Population-based antibody seroprevalence studies.
Global May 19 12 countries 0.02% – 0.40%
A single case was at 0.4%, Geneva, reporting as of a certain point in April; given that
this is an outlier, I expect that a follow-up done now would report it down in Geneva. Wuhan
reported 0.3%. Gangelt, Germany, 0.25% (small study; early outbreak).
The other nine studies in the meta-analysis average <0.1% deaths to those who
are corona-positive (0.085%; range: 0.02% to 0.17%). Of course, this is Just The Flu
territory, but the Corona-True-Believers still think that's laughable and worthy of derision.
But there it is: <0.1%.
The virus is not going to cause any noticeable full-year mortality rise almost anywhere.
The Panic-induced deaths might, in some places.
in order to avoid their shame, they are going to do everything in their power to reify
the official narrative and delegitimize anyone attempting to expose it as the fiction that
it is. They are going to join in with the corporate media that are calling us "extremists,"
"conspiracy theorists," "anti-vaxxers," and other such epithets.
they are going to continue to insist, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that we
are "under attack" by a "killer virus" which could "strike again at any time,"
What you are describing, and the whole Corona-Reaction phenomenon broadly, is a religious
cult. The Corona Cult.
I have come to understand that only in terms of religion can Corona be understood. A close
look shows Corona fits all the indicators of a cult in the anthropological sense, and vert
well. It is a literal religious cult (as in, non-metaphorical).
"Postmodern Western people don't do religion, don't do religious movements, so people
haven't realized this is what it is."
They're going to accuse those of us on the Left of aligning with "far-Right Republican
militias," and "Boogaloo accelerationists," and of being members of the Russian-backed
"Querfront," and assorted other horrible things meant to scare errant leftists into
line.
This been mirrored on the alt-right, where people like Hunter Wallace at Occidental
Dissent derides anyone who doesn't share his by now weeks-long hyperventillating panic attack
as a muh-freedom-loving-cuck, or a leftist fellow-traveller, or a crazy conspiracy-theorist
(which is funny given that his commentariat seemed to largely consist of knee-jerk false-flag
idiots and flat-earthers).
Every Thursday we are encouraged to spend several minutes of our house arrest going
outdoors and clapping for the National Health Service. It's a bit like a love version of
the Two Minutes of Hate in Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Remember our boys bravely fighting on the Malabar Front!
As you implied, it's just a different side of the same coin. If a second-wave hits, people
will be encouraged to go out on their balconies and shout out their hatred for
"covid-deniers" and "anti-vaxxers".
@Levtraro He
lives in Germany. Who have a low incidence of the disease, and so he doesn't get it in his
face like he would in some other countries.
And I swear to god, for like a whole year before the epidemic, he was writing these
"humorous" articles mocking people for thinking that fascism was on the rise.
@Levtraro It's
not going back to normal Even the politicians realize that there's no point in lying to us
that it will. Many small businesses won't return. Men like Bill Gates and Eric Schmidt will
be able to force their autistic view on reality on the rest of us. Just watch CNN for 5
minutes and you'll get a good idea of what the "new normal" is gonna look like. Break through
that denial now. Shit is about to get real, or should I say , virtual. Right now you can't
even tell difference.
did what all true anti-fascists do when the state goes full-blown fascist
Curious, isn't it? These Antifa and other supposed loony lefty groups suddenly are all in
with government totalitarianism. I saw some Maoist-RCP front group counter-picket an
anti-lockdown rally. It tends to confirm my feeling that those groups are infiltrated and run
by government agencies. This certainly was the most successful fear-mongering propaganda
campaign of all time, full-spectrum 24/7 hysteria what with their death counts and all. This
was also a training exercise. They'll analyze how this played out and refine it for the next
time just as 'color revolutions' were refined and turned into a how-to textbook. Any doubt
about there being a next time?
Mr. Hopkins, from this 4th article of yours that I've read, I see you are really going places
with the truth. I'd have probably made an effort to back-read your older stuff, maybe a
couple of columns per day, had I not just seen that you are a lefty, by your own admission.
As one expert on this insanity , blogger/commenter E.H. Hail has noted, this
Panic/anti-Panic divide cuts across normal political divides though.
You bring up the Cold War as some sort of made-up thing like the "War on Terra" and the
"War on Drugs" (my addition), and this War against this "virus of mass destruction", which is
wrong (about the Cold War, not the rest), and it seems GloboCap(TM) is your trademark term
(making no sense – I have not seen Capitalism operating without Big-Gov anywhere in the
world lately, outside the illegal-Mexican run flea markets). However, I will leave that
behind, as you may learn something else as you see some of the behavior you note in the
antifa people and others of the left that you rightly are disgusted by here.
Therefore, I will keep reading your latest, greatest rants, "rants" said in a most
admiring way, and pointing them out to friends and on the Peak Stupidity blog. Can the rest of the
non-hysterical among us on the left and right around the world possibly realize from this
Panic-Fest response what totalitarianism is all about? I mean, before it's too late, that is
– that'd sure be nice. Maybe ideological definitions should be created from scratch out
of this.
I like the 2nd half of this article, in which you explain very well, in my opinion, that
2nd option that people who have been so far wrong on this issue will almost all pick. There
is no way you will get an "I was wrong" admission, much less an apology, from anyone without
the integrity of a Steve Sailer, meaning, well, here on unz, nobody but Steve Sailer. Those
people will be obligated to stick to their original story and do that double-thinking, even
supporting Totalitarianism when they know quite well what it entails. People don't like to be
wrong.
A prediction of mine is that, once it is realized that deaths of old people around the
world will be pretty much the same in 2020 as in other years, along with telling us that this
is because we DID properly LOCKDOWN and SHELTER-IN-PLACE! per Big-Bro's instructions and then
they will bring up "it's baaaack" every so often.
@eD There is
plenty you can do, Ed, by example. Maybe it's my State, in which people are pretty laid back
about this, whatever side they are on, but nobody ever told me to wear a mask, even though I
didn't right up through last week*. I can go into the Target store right now, and if I get
any BS, I'll let myself get pulled out of the store.
It won't happen like that here though, Ed. People are in friendly defiance all over the
place. I suggest you do the same thing. All it takes is 300,000,000 people saying "there is
nothing I can do", to let this shit get worse. It only takes a couple of dozen or so people
in one place – a little too big a crowd for the police to handle without some real
trouble – to lead the rest out of this stupidity.
You read the column – I take this just as seriously as Mr. Hopkins.
.
* I've written about this elsewhere, that, because I promised my wife, I've finally worn
one of these in stores (part-time), on an airliner, and in busy places. This is solely
because she was getting very upset, with a lack of sleep being a factor, with that always
ready phone-infotainment around. It was either start lying to her (I wasn't going to), not go
to stores or travel for work, have us on extremely bad terms, causing grief to the whole
family, or wear it for a while. It's the same stupid blue thing I've kept in my pocket for a
week – yes, it's probably spreading more germs that it filters – I don't
care.
Cheer up, CJ: You can always try to smuggle a pen into the gulag to write your pieces on
toilet paper. Wait! Between the body cavity searches and the lack of toilet paper, you might
not be able to keep calm and carry on, but if you're lucky, they'll give you The Complete
Works of Paul Krugman , and you can use some of that to wipe and some of it to cut out
letters to tell your story.
I guess to stop pathogens that kill or cause great suffering to people from spreading
further is a humanitarian demand, regardless of the age or health of the victims.
I fully agree that the first reaction of a decent health system in an epidemic breakout is
to contain the infection, look after the sick and protect the most vulnerable. Containment
and isolation is the first line of defence when the threat is real or imminent and that has
been learned from the historical record when plagues got out of control and decimated towns
and villages.
This epidemic was first reported by China as of a particularly nasty virulence, easy
transmissibility and causing multi-organ pathologies to such an extent that the Wuhan
epicenter's medical facilities were overwhelmed with victims and had to erect two hospitals
in record time to look after them. Facing a new and, then unknown, threat, the responsible
authorities acted swiftly to isolate the threat, study it and contain it to the regional
source of the virus to protect the rest of the country. As a result of a firm policy of
containment, the rest of China was barely touched by the epidemic, worked as normal and the
number of deaths for the most populated country on Earth was limited to under 4,000. It
worked, saved many lives and the Chinese economy only suffered a short hiccup.
While China was in the throes of a potential calamity because of its population's high
density, almost all other countries, except its most immediate neighbours, looked on (many in
the US with glee), made jokes about the Chan-virus and the ruling elites did nothing to
protect their respective peoples. When it hit them, all they could do was to blame China and,
too late, followed the Chinese way when the horse had already bolted. What makes this
tragically farcical is that the US think-tanks, wheeler-dealers and medical experts had
recently "gamed" such scenario in their computer modelling exercise Event 201, almost
coincidentally with the beginning of the, still undetected, infections, which were reported
later. That delay in taking firm and drastic action to effectively prevent infestation led
eventually to high mortality in the densely populated countries of Western Europe (namely
Spain, Italy, France, Belgium, Holland and UK) and New York. Amongst all that callous
inefficiency there are some "miraculous" exceptions, such as Australia ( casual lockdown, 24
million, only 100 dead) and New Zealand, almost untouched by the coronavirus.
So, timely and systematic containment and isolation as the first defence for the
protection of the people works and enables the country to resume normal life again within a
short time (look at China's full-steam ahead for weeks now). It was a very efficient short
and sharp treatment of a public health issue. In some other countries, particularly the US,
it become a heartless political game of point-scoring, the people being the ball to kick
around the field.
When the post-morten is done (but even now some lobertarians are already claiming the
fictional SS, the "Sweden Success") the political football game will be replayed with unruly
vigour instead of having a hard-headed look at the disaster and its lessons and how a public
health issue was transformed into a political one, or was it the other way around? A
political scheme of sorts transformed into a public health issue to serve as cover for some
ulterior purpose as I suspect.
I have no doubts that the CV-19 is a real danger for any unprotected population and
reports from the coalface about the victims' suffering are a sobering reminder of our
mortality, therefore the measures, if taken by the health authorities for the welfare of the
people, are legitimate and deserving our approval. But the politicization of a disaster for a
hidden agenda is another matter altogether and Hopkins is right to highlight the totalitarian
facet lurking behind the promoters of the pandemic, whether the source of it or the
opportunistic gain of function from it.
Karens and Cucks. That's who these things are aimed at: obese dim-witted middle-aged
she-beasts whose sexual value has gone through zero and who want to scold the world and the
beta-males who are 'head' of their households.
The Karens buy in immediately because it gives them social power; the cucks are cucked and
so are largely irrelevant (except to the extent that their beta-ness prevents them from
offering a counterbalance).
The net effect on the household is that the kids get – via Karen – the
worldview of retards like Sanjay .Gupta and Dr Phil.
The net effect on society is that finger-wagging fat 40-something women becomes a norm
outside of middle-school classrooms (it's been a norm inside classrooms for a generation,
which is why kids can't read despite spending $15k of public funds per student per year).
This is why I refer to CNN etc as HousewifeTV . Like women's magazines, it has less
intellectual content than Dora the Explorer – but stupid obese 40-something
women lap it up. (Stupid obese 40-something men are also a waste of space, but they're benign
by comparison – because nobody cares if you tell them to fuck off).
@Levtraro"Many informed and intelligent people have formed their opinion of this epidemics by
reading the reported scientific evidence, experiments, epidemiological modelling, not the
media."
I applaud you for reading the scientific literature rather than getting your information
from the MSM.
However, something fishy is going on in the world of science. If this goes on much longer,
I will no longer refer to it as "the world of science."
One of the contributors to the flawed study is quoted as having said, " people felt this
had to be communicated quickly." This is shocking and absolutely unacceptable. These guys
should be dismissed and facing criminal charges. People panicked over these kind of reports.
They can almost be justified because if the virus could have done all the things reputable
scientists were attributing to it, we were dealing with something the nature of which we'd
never dealt with before. "There's no doubt after reading [the NEJM] paper that
asymptomatic transmission is occurring," Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told journalists. "This study lays the question
to rest." Heads need to roll.
It is interesting to me you mention studies demonstrating the efficacy of the Chinese
lockdowns after the lockdowns took place. Shouldn't we have had those studies in hand
beforehand , and isn't there a possibility, in this new more lax climate of releasing
results without peer review or complete disclosure (a la Moderna and others) of "covering
their posteriors" to avoid admission of failure and cowardice?
You think the containment measures saved us, not that the virus's virulence was hyped. (
NBhttps://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6490/489.full
. "These findings explain the rapid geographic spread of SARS-CoV-2 and indicate that
containment of this virus will be particularly challenging." The virus appears to have
already spread throughout the world before containment measures were enacted. Do we care
about that when we evaluate the effectiveness of the containment measures?)
I would just like to ask: How sure are you this is not all because you fit the category
Mr. Hopkins describes here, "In other words, in order to avoid their shame, they are
going to do everything in their power to reify the official narrative and delegitimize anyone
attempting to expose it as the fiction that it is. "?
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government
is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is
the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." ~ Ayn
Rand
"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the
illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just
take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs
out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater. " Frank Zappa
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of
tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt the Younger, former British prime
minister
"Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs. But once the principle
is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own
foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments. A good case
could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine. And why limit the
government's benevolent providence to the protection of the individual's body only? Is not
the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils?
Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad
paintings and statues and from hearing bad music?" Ludwig Von Mises
"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be
allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." Thomas Jefferson
"When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty." Thomas Jefferson
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you
have The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases. The two
enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the
chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
Thomas Jefferson
"When you abandon freedom to achieve security, you lose both and deserve neither." Thomas
Jefferson
"Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and
counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very
cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be "reformed"or "improved",simply because of
their innate criminal nature." onebornfree
@obwandiyag I
noted that. Those pieces mocking the Russiagate-Nazi-Putin-Fascist hysteria were very funny
indeed. But now he is yelling that the fascist regime is here because of the virus. It's kind
of second order funny.
@Marshall Lentini
There's no purpose in arguing with those people. As said in the comment just above yours,
they're a cult and facts have no grip on cultists.
@Marshall Lentini
The studies are no correlational. Read them to correct your error. I posted a cool set of
top-notch research in another comment on this thread. Normally these articles are behind a
paywall but publishing houses are letting all of them free for everyone to read.
@Hail I have
revised (and asked Ron Unz to revise) the "0.2% – 1% lethality" cited in my original
text to read "0.2% – 0.6% lethality" to reflect a low/high range of estimates, from the
Swiss Propaganda Research data on the low end to the revised Imperial College IFR on the high
end. Because so many people are jumping down each other's throats with numbers, I thought
both ends of the range should be sourced.
@Parfois1 Thanks
for your thoughtful reply to my comment. I agree there is substantial risk of opportunistic
state aggrandizement due to the pandemics. But state-apparatchiks are nearly always looking
for aggrandizement opportunities, especially in the USA where apparatchiks think they are
exceptional, like to meddle in other people's businesses, go on pontificating incessantly,
and essentially work for powerful minorities.
Yes C.J, Bolshevism and its evil twin Fascism have come to America. It has come openly
through the Democrat Party Governors who are using the current scamdemic and the gullibility
of well over half the population to destroy their state economies. It has come covertly
through a president who promised to return America to its former glory days by draining the
swamp, but instead has refilled it and gone along with every insider policy there is. A
president who is now promising forced vaccinations via our military and "others"(UN
troops?).
So get ready America, hell is coming to breakfast
@onebornfree "The
two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with
the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the
first." Thomas Jefferson
Lockdown the entire Federal government to the "chains of the constitution", plus all local
and state governments NOW!
" Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to
willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of
the United States.For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not
only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also
acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while
the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official
duties . ".
Leftotards are just waking up to the realization that they are the Billionaire Establishments
Bxtch. These Antifa / anti-facist idiots are the useful idiots of the Billionaire funded
Democratic party., and also their warped and pampered college professors.
What drives these fools is their need of a UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME period !!! none of these
idiots give a rats arse about fascism as most dont even know what it is, else they wouldnt
cry for Totalitarian Communism.
"What if the government has it wrong -- on the medicine and the law?
What if face masks can't stop the COVID-19 virus? What if quarantining the healthy makes
no medical sense? What if staying at home for months reduces immunity?
What if more people have been infected with the virus in their homes than outside
them?
What if there are as many credible scientists and physicians who disagree with the
government as those who agree with it?
What if the government chooses to listen only to scientists and physicians who would tell
it what it wanted to hear? What if the government silences scientists and physicians, and
even fires one, who attempt to tell it what it didn't want to hear?
What if the government wants to stoke fear in the populace because mass fear produces mass
compliance? What if individual fear reduces individual immunity?
What if a healthy immunity gets stronger when challenged? What if a pampered immunity gets
weaker when challenged? What if we all pass germs and viruses -- that we don't even know we
have -- on to others all the time, but their immune systems repel what we pass on to
them?
What if the COVID-19 virus has run its course and run into natural immunities? What if
many folks have had symptom-free episodes with many viruses and are now immune from them?
What if the government refuses to understand this because it undermines the government's
power to control us? . What if -- when the pandemic is over -- folks sue the government
for its destruction of life, liberty and property only to learn that the government gave
itself immunity from such lawsuits? What if -- when the pandemic is over -- the government
refuses to acknowledge its end? "
I am not sure how anything is going to play out at this point, but I will make two
observations
1. People don't like being played, or made fools of. Maybe most of them will pretend they
weren't completely suckered, same as after 9/11, but maybe a critical mass of anger is
building.
2. I begin conversations with every mask wearing moron by commenting "I liked social
distancing better under its original name – segregation. But let us practise standing
apart, or in Afrikaans, apartheid." Then I follow up with pointing out any mask is
contaminated once you take it off, so, go work on radioactives, or something. The point is,
no rational argument is going to work with the hysterical little girls pretending to be
adults.
I'd say this has no relevance to what I said, but first it would have to make some normal
sense. To be extra clear: that "lockdowns" stopped the spread of this virus is an
assertion , and one disproved by Sweden and Belarus.
Somehow the two facts of a) two-week or greater incubation period and b) delayed or
"adequate" response by various nations do not add up in the covidiot's mind to "the virus was
already running its course by the time of lockdowns", because it's better for you to play
chicken and the egg since you've already committed to the melodrama of coronamania. It's hard
admitting one was wrong, especially when the price tag isn't presented right away.
I posted a cool set of top-notch research in another comment on this thread.
Indeed, I've looked at each these top-notch articles. But let me start with the
first.
The title of the first top-notch article is The lockdowns worked -- but what comes
next? . Now I'm unaware of any other field but Coronavirus Studies in which it's
acceptable simply to announce , rather than propose , the thing which an
alleged research paper is supposed to examine and substantiate. But when it comes to the
rona, the rules (like that pesky one about correlation not implying causation) go out the
window.
The second line is: The world is holding its breath. I'm also not aware of any
other field which permits a cheap, moralistic tagline in its papers to preface alleged
research. This is, of course, a huge red flag which you're not supposed to question. "A
specter is haunting Europe "
(Well, technically the second line is: Science's COVID-19 coverage is supported by the
Pulitzer Center – very gracious of them to mention, and pretty much tipping their
hand as far as their motives. Ever looked at the Board of Directors at Pulitzer? Lots of NYT
"assistant managing editors".)
The rest is more of the same – a mix of petitio principii, moralism, bad metaphors,
and ominous assumptions about how civilization should work in the opinion of this "Kai
Kupferschmidt". Here's a charming example of the totally non-fascist, un-totalitarian "model"
supported by your author:
For now, the most likely scenario is one of easing social distancing measures when it's
possible, then clamping down again when infections climb back up, a "suppress and lift"
strategy that both Singapore and Hong Kong are pursuing. Whether that approach can strike
the right balance between keeping the virus at bay and easing discontent and economic
damage remains to be seen.
What you're doing here is passing off opinion pieces as research, while ignoring the
mountain of actual research that the opposition have been doing in the meantime as lunatics
like you preach never-ending cycles of lock-and-lift, or excuse me, "suppress and lift", as
Herr Kupferschmidt would have it.
But that's all immaterial to me. I do not care about research. I am totally comfortable
with a ~1%, even a 5% death rate affecting the elderly and grossly infirm. I don't care about
R or any other variable. I care about not having to wear masks or stand in boxes or read
moralistic tripe like this that ham-handedly tries to justify it. I am not interested in
"research" whose aim is my bondage to prophylactic theater, as someone here put it –
not that any of what you're offering qualifies as anything other than sunk cost fallacy
propaganda, in my book.
Smoking kills 8 million people per year in the world (plus many more millions of addicts).
Have they forbidden tobacco? No.
Alcoholism kills 3 millions people per year in the world. Have they forbidden alcohol?
No.
(these numbers according to WHO).
"Covid-19", with all the fraudulent data, have killed (sure?) 331.000 people up to this
date. What have they done? All what Mr. Chopkins have said (i.e. shutting down the world's
economy, taking out our freedom, and much more).
In other words: they don't freaking care about our health. Why is that so difficult to
understand for people?
I live here in PA, where the new normal resistance is real. The cops for the most part are
looking the other way, except in Philadelphia. My local Amish hardware store was thankfully
mask free zone. There is no social distancing at the ag auctions, nor are there masks.
Someone (a pissed off Democrat no less) told me a "Karen" was at the Monday hay auction
snapping pictures, and the auctioneer had people escort him out. Who'd a thunk the Amish and
Mennonites leading the big old FU to Tommy Wolf and his freak health secretary? Those two
clowns might just give Trump PA in the fall.
Could we quit the constant libeling of "muh fascism?" Fascism was just an objectively more
decent system than what we have now. At least those leaders made some attempt to benefit
their people. Our current anarcho-tyrannical capitalist-socialist order squeezes us like rags
to get the last drop of shekel from our crushed souls. You also cannot ignore the
undercurrent of child abuse by our elites. The Fascists were quite moral and kind in
comparison.
@Adam Smith This
whole Covid 19 thing has been a giant Pain in the Ass to everyone. Unfortunately it is too
real to ignore. What bothers me is the whining by folks like Mr. Hopkins, who failed to speak
up about the Patriot Act and the complaints by the intelligence depts because Apple security
is too tight, or countless intrusions by our government masking anti-terrorism activities or
any number of wasted political investigations, the list is endless. We are as close to
Fascism and Totalitarianism as we have ever been. Lets face the fact that our government is
no better than the countless regimes we have criticized over the years. We are a screwed up
nation that has drifted so far from the constitution, that we no longer resemble the United
States of America.
05 Apr 2020 Dr. Fauci revealed his fears of a 'surprise outbreak' back in 2017 and warned
the upcoming Trump administration would face 'challenges' with infectious diseases in a
Georgetown speech
In his speech titled 'Pandemic Preparedness in the Next Administration,' Dr. Fauci told
attendees at Georgetown University in January 2017 that the upcoming presidential
administration would face 'challenges' with infectious diseases.
@Phaeton This is
where all of the fake numbers are coming from in this Plandemic.
Nov 4, 2019 Event 201 Pandemic Exercise: Segment 4, Communications Discussion and Epilogue
Video
Event 201 is a pandemic tabletop exercise hosted by The Johns Hopkins Center for Health
Security. The exercise illustrated the pandemic preparedness efforts needed to diminish the
large-scale economic and societal consequences of a severe pandemic.
* I've written about this elsewhere, that, because I promised my wife, I've finally worn
one of these in stores (part-time), on an airliner, and in busy places. This is solely
because she was getting very upset, with a lack of sleep being a factor, with that always
ready phone-infotainment around.
Collectively failing to stand up to our wives for the past 60 years is what got us into
this mess. We've somehow managed to normalize hysterics.
A couple days ago Brattleboro, Vermont made wearing masks in stores mandatory for customers.
A lady at the select board meeting said masks need to be normalized, "Because it's just such
a simple visible sign that people are being safe in our community."
Vermonters are natural jackbooted hippies and are really getting off on covid-19.
I wish Judy Chicago were alive to design these masks.
Brattleboro, population 12,000, had ten fatal opioid overdoses in 2019 and four in April
2020. There have been three deaths in the whole county due to covid-19. Two were from
NYC.
Andrew Sullivan had a post about Pepys in 1665, a year of plague in London. He recounts
Pepys living life to the full -- working, partying, womanizing -- while whole families drop
dead around him. Pepys lists off dozens of people in his day to day life dying while he
himself does nothing, or very little, to "stay safe." His morale was never better.
Sullivan then concludes his piece, "And today, in the richest country on Earth, with
medical technology beyond Pepys's wildest imagination, and a plague killing a tiny fraction
of the population, some are wielding weapons in public to protest being asked to stay at home
for a few more weeks and keep a social distance. Please. Get a grip."
See Pepys didn't stay home, wear a mask, or keep social distance. And he was fine, while a
quarter of London's population died. So objecting to being forced to do those things is
foolish since almost nobody knows anybody who's died from this "pandemic."
The other nine studies in the meta-analysis average <0.1% deaths to those who are
corona-positive (0.085%; range: 0.02% to 0.17%). Of course, this is Just The Flu territory,
but the Corona-True-Believers still think that's laughable and worthy of derision. But
there it is: <0.1%.
Well, now we know. So what was it all about? Was it a genuine mistake – or was it a
bio-weapon that fizzled (but still delivered the anti-Chinese pre-prepared media frenzy).
Probably the latter. Recent CIA projects are more successful at raising media frenzies
than delivering results (for example: full MSM and Western government support for the
miserable Venezuelan coup attempt).
@onebornfree Yo,
onebornfree,
Did you cash your free-shit-from-the-guv check like all the rest of us unscrupulous $1200
whores (used to be $20 whores but there has been considerable inflation since that magic
year, 1913)?
" and those complaining about being out of work were people whose work is 'largely useless.'"
It's not the being out of work part that's actually the problem. It's the being broke
part, which is a consequence of the being out of work part, that sucks.
@nsa "Did you
cash your free-shit-from-the-guv check like all the rest of us unscrupulous $1200 whores "
Sorry to disappoint – I don't take "free", "shut up and be a good slave", fake money
from governments. I make my own way [barely] and got off the slave plantation gravy train to
hell a long time ago.
@Kratoklastes I
think you can ditch the obesity correlation.
Maybe what you are noticing is that the gen-x children of 70s and 80s single moms are
often man hating bitches or self hating faggots. Divorce on demand has consequences, such as
an instinct to blame men for everything possible.
*my use of 'faggots' is in the gen-x vernacular to mean a wimpy little sissy
@onebornfree See,
I think your questions are very good, but it's like asking a 27-year-old fat woman with a BA
degree what she'd think if it could be shown that there had been no gas chambers at Dakau.
The question is an aggressive challenge to her weak brain cells and is, therefore, a crime.
What if the moral history of the twentieth century were the exact opposite of what we were
all taught? What if unpasteurized milk is better for you? What if the substantive content of
modern life adds up to a negative number?
The problem with conversion is that you have to admit that everything you think you know
is incorrect.
Hopkins can't make the connection between belittling the "white-nationalist morons" and this
"new normal" he now decries. What did you think was gonna happen in America once white people
were kicked to the curb?
I'm a proud supporter of those white men who put their lives and reputations on the line
in Charlottesville to stand up for my people. Our "new normal" happened many years ago,
with
• gay marriage
• "hate" speech
• socialized medicine inc. federally-funded abortions
• central and fractional banking
• taxation slavery
• the enforced associations and affirmative action of civil rights
Our nation was founded on the voting rights of white male landowners. Everything since
then is abnormal.
@obwandiyag One
certainly can't reproach you inconsistency in disingenuousness. It is pretty much obvious to
everyone except you that the fascism the author is seeing rising and the fascism he dismisses
as a fantasy are distinct.
something fishy is going on in the world of science.
Scientists are for sale as they are usually on one payroll or another. Interested parties
shop around for ones that will say what they want them to say. Sure there's independent ones
and those who report the facts but the waters get muddied and the average person doesn't know
whose word to trust. Ditto with so-called studies which often have a predetermined outcome
according to those financing them. Lots of academic corruption and fraud goes on. Don't take
what the folks in white lab coats tell you as gospel but match it up against your own common
sense. Just look at the history of the harmful quack nonsense the 'experts' of the day have
promoted in the past hundred years or so.
@Achmed E. Newman
""because I promised my wife, I've finally worn one of these in stores (part-time), on an
airliner, and in busy places. This is solely because she was getting very upset,""
@onebornfree"What if we all pass germs and viruses -- that we don't even know we have -- on to others
all the time, but their immune systems repel what we pass on to them?"
This one isn't a "what if" but a known and important fact about our amazing world. We are
slathered in bacteria, viruses, and many, many other micro- and macro- organisms. At one time
I was even able to see several species of benign lice on my skin and the skin of others,
without using a magnifying glass or microscope. If I recall correctly, there are at least
seven species of these Not only are they not harmful, they are helpful. They live on dried,
dead skin, among other things.
That's the general case, friends. The bacteria and viruses surrounding us are not usually
detrimental. We must have them around. They are a part of the general good health of the
planet and all living things.
The viruses are absolutely fascinating. They play a role in the evolution of life on
planet earth we are only beginning to fathom. It is a form of madness to think they are all
pathogenic. Overwhelmingly they are not.
The viruses can't be eradicated the way we eradicated small pox, for example.
I have my own theory about this mess, which I hold only with remorse. We only know about
it because we looked for it. We wouldn't have observed anything out of the ordinary this year
based on the epidemiological distributions and incidences of sicknesses and deaths. There's
nothing wrong with looking around and discovering new things, but this is clearly not a realm
readily usable for forming immediate public policy, especially not drastic and unprecedented
public policy.
Everyone who played a part in making this into immediate, drastic and unprecedented public
policy needs to be held accountable. We need a very thorough review of the interplay of these
multiple factors, and a good house cleaning is in order. I don't know what I will do if once
more I see us refusing to admit our mistakes, but even worse will be refusing to learn from
them.
As always, these two steps are the only way forward. I can't believe we in the USA are
failing in this area. It seemed to me it was here, if anywhere, our form of society had an
advantage. (Well, maybe not the politicians, but in business, make a big mistake and in the
USA, you're out. That was not a bad thing. The others in business saw the mistake, avoided
it, learned and went on.)
@Anonymous The
Face Mask "Study" that was released in the New England Journal of Medicine has now been
DEBUNKED as a FRAUD and as garbage even by the Scientists who put it out -- they've admitted
this now. However, you probably haven't heard this because the Mainslime Media has ignored it
and is still using it to cause us to be forced to wear these insanely stupid Masks.
As you say this is whole thing is "too real to ignore" -- but the reason it is? Because it
is a complete and total pre-planned "Elite" FRAUD on the Peons, to strip them of all rights
and impoverish them, being hoisted on a Cold Virus the NWO ChiComs released that is about as
bad as a Seasonal Flu. People need to wake up–especially supposedly intelligent people
who come to this site and publish articles and comments. Here is the retraction of the phony
"Study" used to Face Mask us all (never done as to a Cold Virus– as even Dr. Fauci said
on TV–because it does nothing –might even make you sick .):
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/paper-non-symptomatic-patient-transmitting-coronavirus-wrong
@onebornfree The
reason for ordering/coercing Face Mask wearing by the Public has now been DEBUNKED as a
FRAUD! The actual Scientists have admitted it was total and complete garbage. The Mainslime
Media, no surprise, is ignoring this and still using the debunked "study" that was published
in the New England Journal of Medicine on January 30th– the CDC used it to reverse the
ALWAYS applied standard based on Science that wearing in mass Face Masks by the Public does
NOTHING as to a Cold Virus. Here is the article as to the what happened:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/paper-non-symptomatic-patient-transmitting-coronavirus-wrong
We know that Corona is a giant with feel of the softest clay you can find, but that's just
on the facts and the science. Corona-Alternative-Facts just don't care.
Is the Corona With Feet of Clay defeated by a thousand small acts by nobodies doing
friendly defiance?
Such as, declining to take those extra few steps to avoid someone. Walking in a
straight line as a dissident act .
While on the subject. Please, Corona-Believers, no more of that halting entirely to keep
well out of the way, followed by glowering at the other person as he passes; that's just
bizarre. The Corona Halt-and-Stare.
Covid-19 is really Rohrschach-19. It seems that the "panic" went both ways. One one side the
extreme hysteric reaction with the "lockdown" of healthy people, the theatrics of the
authorities and media with a disease that apparently kills mostly people over 80, but on the
other hand also the protesters about "fascist takeover" and "totalitarianism". Look, it
wasn't that bad, as far as totalitarianism goes. Except perhaps in North Korea, no one was
shot. Maybe with Bill Gates' vaccine things will get worse, but, so far, it wasn't that bad.
I think the "Transdemic", i.e. pretending that transexuals are "women" and all the craziness
about "anti-racism" is much worse.
Now, for those who had a small business, yes, it was bad, and being locked at home for
weeks has not been fun (also, rather pointless). But in Germany, where I believe the author
lives, the lockdown has been quite light, and while many places closed there was never a
prohibition to be outside. Even masks were only used later on and only in supermarkets,
shops, etc. So, while inconvenient, it was not really Nazi Germany II.
Anyway, it's a quite strange situation really, and I wonder what will happen next, my
impression is that people are becoming more cynical and will not accept a "second wave"
lockdown, which makes me think if either there is a great conspiracy, or our elites are
really dumb and incompetent. Or maybe it's both things? Like in the title of that book, a
"conspiracy of dunces". They are evil and Machiavellic but they are also a bit dumb.
With 30% already immune, the next wave, if any, will be minor, at most.
[Studies] show that there is enough immunity to make sure that a second wave – if
any – is mild.
A "second wave" CAN be created artificially created by the media by hyper focus on a few
stories (much like the original wave; it was another foretold-apocalypse-washout as proved by
the easy handling of the whole thing in Stay-Open Sweden).
The media cannot keep its Corona Cocaine Binge, and its ongoing CoronaBloodlust, going
for months on end. But it may well get a "second wind" at it, when the "second wave" of
Corona cases comes in the fall. A CoronaPanic Second Wave .
I'll tell you what would be ironic, is if the Nov. 2020 presidential election ends up
being a referendum on Corona Shutdowns:
Yes Corona Shutdowns: BIDEN
No Corona Shutdowns: TRUMP
This scenario seems at once so crazy as to be laughable, and yet also plausible to
actually happen. Somehow both at the same time. God help us.
I'm not sure how realistic this exact scenario looks now. Does anyone care about Biden
anymore? Would he really position himself as the Pro-Shutdowns guy if the media begins
artificially creating a second panic wave?
@Blip Blop I
can't "agree-button" at you yet but I completely agree with you. I live in Spain and this is
complete madness. I see so many kids wearing masks, that I would get depressed if it weren't
because I see other parents avoiding all this stuff, which give me hope. Today I saw a
pregnant woman wearing a mask, and I have wondered if this unborn human being is suffering
because of her (of course she is probably thinking that she is doing the best for him/her).
Here in my country masks have been mandatory everywhere in public areas (unless you can
keep the famous 2 meters with others) since yesterday, but people have used them for almost
two months already.
@Dumbo Of course,
I say this if this is just an exception, but if this really becomes the "new normal", then
it's not good. And in fact I think this was just a "laboratory", in preparation for something
worse later on
@Levtraro Third
order funny is that you two can't tell the difference. He's essentially mocking hysterical
reactions to two seperate hoaxes that reify already existing authoritarianism.
@Levtraro Tired
of the "Models" and Statistics of all the NWO bought off "Experts" funded by Gates Foundation
and Rockefeller -- all of them are little more than Prostitutes/Whores.
I have actually hired "Experts" for decades -- who pays them and funds their "grants" etc.
directly effects their "opinions". You can literally get them to "Model" whatever and testify
to anything–for $$$ -- grant or otherwise– and I am talking about World Class
Credentialed "Experts". This is the REALITY -- if you argue otherwise you are either an
Agenda driven partisan, ignorant or have never dealt with them.
As the other person stated above -- "Expert" Neal Ferguson has been completely discredited
(boffing the Married Leftist "Activist" proved he totally did not believe in the "Social
Distancing" garbage either -- it appears in NO infectious disease Textbook and no one in the
Field has ever taught it) -- this TOTAL BS of claiming the lock downs worked in
periodicals/magazines run by them? Please peddle it elsewhere! -- We in fact know they don't
work -- you don't Quarantine Healthy People -- and in some cases, thankfully proving this,
the timing showed that the lock downs clearly could not have been the reason for downturns
(California etc. -- clearly Herd Immunity was already in play one of the greatest Scientists
ever in the past as to Small Pox and other pandemics stated they should not be used, do some
research?) -- what people like Ferguson do is put themselves in a position so that regardless
of what happens they can claim they are right. Funny how that works? His "Models" were
garbage–the actual data he used as "garbage in" has now been analyzed and, yes, it was
garbage.
So we have the same networked "Experts" now covering for themselves and Ferguson, and
putting out, in their own Magazines/Periodicals they control, what you then cite in your
comment -- it is all CYA BS -- peddle it elsewhere.
Here is another example of the "Experts" at work. On January 30th the New England Journal
of Medicine published a "Study" that claimed, unlike any Cold Virus EVER, this one was
different– that there were "asymptomatic spreaders" -- the "Study" was then used by the
CDC to put out the "wear Face Masks" change of position directive (Dr. Fauci also used it as
he had previously said publicly on TV they were useless– which they have always been
known to be in the past .). It is still being used to this day to order and coerce the
wearing of Face Masks. Problem? It was a total and complete FRAUD.
Even the Scientists who actually did it have now admitted it was "FLAWED" and total
garbage. Unfortunately, the NWO Globalist Media and "Experts" are still using it to justify
forcing the Face Mask wearing and resulting fear mongering. They need to arrest Ferguson for
what he did and start really penalizing these "Experts" who are nothing but Agenda driven
shills. Here is the retraction as to the phony "flawed" Study:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/paper-non-symptomatic-patient-transmitting-coronavirus-wrong
@Getaclue I had
to think about it a bit, but you've got a point. That flawed study did promote face mask
wearing in public even though there is not a word in it about face masks or ordering/coercing
their wearing.
(There's a picture with a Chinese-looking woman who is wearing a face mask at the top of
the page.)
The NEJM is an interesting publication. I believe it serves an important function within
the medical community but it is important not to take its reports as authoritative or
necessarily even scientific.
Before the results were debunked the studious would have noticed how very small the sample
size was. Am I right to see there were less than ten people in that group, and that one
woman– one woman!– was at the heart of the "evidence." Wow. This was used to
support a novel (for the USA) public policy affecting millions and millions of people.
Also note the irreplaceable genius of our hero and savior Dr. Anthony Fauci as he is
quoted at the end of the article. He still believes asymptomatic transmission occurs even
after the slender thread of evidence upon which that belief might have been supported has
been kicked out from under him. He obviously didn't need scientific support in the first
place– he has an agenda.
It is lucky I am a nobody in nowhereville and will never be anywhere near these creeps. I
don't think I could restrain myself if I had any opportunity whatsoever to, um, commit a
terrible violent crime. (Can I admit this? My posts are moderated and if this offends, please
feel free to delete that one part. Please allow me to say the rest.)
The World Health Organization (WHO) says healthy people don't need to wear face masks to
prevent the spread of the coronavirus, and masks should only be for those who are sick,
their caretakers and health care workers.
In guidance released by WHO Monday, the United Nations public health agency said "there
is currently no evidence that wearing a mask (whether medical or other types) by healthy
persons in the wider community setting, including universal community masking, can prevent
them from infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19."
WHO said the use of medical masks among the general public could create a false sense of
security and cause people to ignore social distancing measures and hygiene practices.
Currently in the U.S., the overwhelming majority of states have issued stay-at-home orders
to stop the spread of the virus, and federal guidance advises citizens to stay home and not
gather in groups of more than ten through April 30.
This is from late March before the CDC changed its tune.
The CDC currently states that healthy people do not need to wear face masks unless they
are caring for someone who is ill with the new coronavirus.
So, it appears the WHO and the CDC are indeed fascist as is noted that they are in
agreement with the fascists at this venue.
Also, nothing is more fascist than the government ordering slave wage peasants back into
filthy disease-infested slaughterhouses (slaughterhouses are incubators for COVFEFE-19 --
they are America's wet markets) under the aegis of the Defense Protection Act.
@Bragadocious
Sweden is more "left" than Germany, France or the UK. They didn't lock down anyone. The UK
government is more "right" than any UK government since John Major was PM.
The notion that the US government, or Trump for that matter, isn't authoritarian, is
absurd. Presidents, by nature of the position, are authoritarian. The same goes for
legislative bodies. The only issue is whether you recognize the authority they exert.
In other words: they don't freaking care about our health. Why is that so difficult to
understand for people?
I'm sure that was rhetorical, but I'll answer it anyway. People (in general) don't
understand because they are stupid. Profoundly and probably irreversibly stupid, compounded
exponentially by a media propaganda barrage praising the retards for their great
intelligence. When more than half the total US population has an IQ below 100, yet thinks
itself brilliant because the talking heads on MSNBC tell them so, the CoronaCaust is the
logical outcome really.
I'd bet my favorite dog that significantly fewer than 50% could adequately explain the
germ theory of disease, infectious pathogens, or the human microbiome. They could, however,
expound interminably on the glories of Beyonkey's latest autotuned hit or point out how you
are a racist for noticing the facts in evidence that they pretend not to see.
Given the dysgenic trends in human reproductive rates compounded by modern medicine
enabling every retard to survive and reproduce, we should all get ourselves very used to
being governed by the irrational terrors of simpletons.
@Biff Probably
not what R.C. is referring to, but my definition would be an economy free of the
international banking cartel and its big casinos like Wall Street.
Perhaps it is the aspect of paranioa that makes it apt
You remind me of an absurd TV special years ago that played audio of some wiretapped guys
theorizing that ATF was out to get them and their guns. The underlying video was of their
guns, stolen, in an ATF warehouse . The lead-in narration discussed how paranoid these
crazy gun nuts had been. They now sat in concrete and steel cages, their guns taken, gleeful
psyop tool mocking their wiretapped concerns as 'paranoid' for being 100% correct regarding a
threat which was active at the time they expressed concern that it might be happening
.
In other words, pretty much the same psyop that media ran on you successfully re the Mt.
Carmel invasion and massacre, assuming you're sincere. Associating paranoia with them is
beyond ignorant. They had an irrational/delusional fear that they were going to be persecuted
worse than they were?
A good column overall, Mr. Hopkins, but what is going on now is not "real fascism". Real
fascists would have taken care of the usurious bankers by now, not given them more money to
f*ck us over.
@450.org"Also, nothing is more fascist than the government ordering slave wage peasants back into
filthy disease-infested slaughterhouses (slaughterhouses are incubators for COVFEFE-19 --
they are America's wet markets) under the aegis of the Defense Protection Act."
I happen to agree with you here, and am offended if you think I or most people commenting
against you would disagree. The gov't shouldn't be able to order people to work any more than
the gov't should be able to order people not to work.
"I can't believe how many CDC and WHO employees are on here advocating no face
mask."
You can't believe– or understand– but that's because you are not paying close
attention. And that's a shame.
Do you see the CDC and WHO were advocating no face mask for the reason there was no
evidence of their being effective? Do you see the CDC and WHO changed and began advocating
face masks when very slim evidence which turned out to be faulty emerged? Do you see the CDC
and WHO have not reversed their position now we are again in the situation of there being no
evidence of the effectiveness of face masks?
@Hail Good news,
The Atlantic just laid off 68 employees due to lack of advertising revenue. Noticed my local
newspaper is half the size it was in February due to lack of advertising pages.
@Yusef End of
February I asked 2 Drs about wearing a mask when flying. One said don't wear a mask or worry.
The other said as long as you're not in the international terminal near the Chinese airlines
sections, don't wear a mask or worry.
@eD There are
things that regular people can do to fight the the new abnormal. I still offer my hand to
anyone who is willing to take it. I go for my daily walks in a group of two or three without
keeping any social distancing and I argue my case with any cop who tells me that I am
disobeying the law, reminding him that we are in the same side against the crooks, the
cowards, the fools, the freaks and the tyrants who are trying to mould us into obedient
slaves. Though in the interest of full disclosure, I should clearly state that I sensed the
totalitarianism of the American government around thirty years ago and left the United States
on a one way ticket to a third world whose virtue is a government that is weak enough not to
overpower its society.
Resistance should be primarily in your mind. While I would not blame anyone for avoiding a
confrontation with American mad dog policemen, having watched with horror how four of those
brutes attacked retired ex long time CIA high official Mr. Ray McGovern when he asked the
senators in charge of vetting Gina Haspel a legitimate question only to be attacked by these
senseless brutes, dragged out the room and pulled down to the floor suffering a dislocated
shoulder, I would not allow myself to admonish American citizens for avoiding any attempt at
talking reason to these goons in blue uniforms. But I think that you will have won at least a
half victory if you simply play the routine without making yourself hostage to the fear
mongering and by clearly stating to your company that you are wearing the mask for the sake
of putting the gullible at ease.
Unless the United States moves into a system of decentralisation with more empowerment to
the state and local communities, the Fascist clutches of the federal government backed by the
technocracy will keep whittling away at the freedoms of the citizens dooming them to a life
of slavery.
@Stan d Mute As
you said, it was retorical. I have to say that I am extremely surprised to see how irrational
people can be, though. Because it is not only that they are ignorant about a topic, which is
something normal. It is that you can't argue with them. And I am not talking only about
people who watch mainstream media, but also many people from the so-called alternative world.
Just an example: yesterday a relative was worried because her friends had "attacked" her
in a Whatsapp group (because in person most of them are a cowards who wouldn't say anything)
for criticizing the measure of making masks mandatory in all Spanish public places if we
can't have a separation of 2 meters. They were all defending that all people should wear
masks in public, doesn't matter if you are alone in the street (strangely enough, none of
them talk about Sweden and Iceland). THIS IS THE LEVEL in the country where I live. These
people are attacking people without knowing, as you say, even the most elemental knowledge of
mainstream immunology. If they, instead of watching news 24/7, would have read a couple of
chapters of any good book about this topic, they would see, at least, some of the lies
regarding vaccines (I feel like crying everytime someone confuses "treatment" with
"prevention").
The last sentence in your comment is quite scary. For some reason I have recalled about
one of the stories about what happened to Laozi. I copy this fragment from Wikipedia (yeah, I
know ): "The third story in Sima Qian states that Laozi grew weary of the moral decay of life
in Chengzhou and noted the kingdom's decline. He ventured west to live as a hermit in the
unsettled frontier at the age of 80."
I wonder what he would do if he would see the unbelievably decline of today.
To be honest, the only thing that give me hope today is seeing young people, around 16-20,
completely ignoring the social distancing and masking psyop.
It is not. Forces behind Russiagate are intact and still have the same agenda. CrowdStrike
was just a tool. As long as Full Spectrum Dominance dourine is alive, Russiagate will flourish in
one form or another
Notable quotes:
"... The need for a scapegoat to blame for Hillary Clinton's snatching defeat out of the jaws victory also played a role; as did the need for the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think-Tank complex (MICIMATT) to keep front and center in the minds of Americans the alleged multifaceted threat coming from an "aggressive" Russia. (Recall that John McCain called the, now disproven , "Russian hacking" of the DNC emails an "act of war.") ..."
"... Though the corporate media is trying to bury it, the Russiagate narrative has in the past few weeks finally collapsed with the revelation that CrowdStrike had no evidence Russia took anything from the DNC servers and that the FBI set a perjury trap for Gen. Michael Flynn. There was already the previous government finding that there was no collusion between Trump and Russia and the indictment of a Russian troll farm that supposedly was destroying American democracy with $100,000 in Facebook ads was dropped after the St. Petersburg defendants sought discovery. ..."
"... Given the diffident attitude the Security State plotters adopted regarding hiding their tracks, Durham's challenge, with subpoena power, is not as formidable as were he, for example, investigating a Mafia family. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the corporate media have all been singing from the same sheet since Trump had the audacity a week ago to coin yet another "-gate" -- this time "Obamagate." Leading the apoplectic reaction in corporate media, Saturday's Washington Post offered a pot-calling-the-kettle-black pronouncement by its editorial board entitled "The absurd cynicism of 'Obamagate"? ..."
"... So if we dug in and found large payments from George Soros or Mrs Clinton to these 'journalists', what crime could they be accused of? No crimes, I don't think. ..."
"... There never was anything to Russiagate. It was always just politics. I knew that from the beginning. There was, however, a lot of something to the torture scandal. Obama said "We are not going to look back." And now Gina Haspel, one of the chief torturers, partly responsible for destroying the torture tapes, despite a court order to preserve them, is now head of the CIA. ..."
"... Drain the Swamp my ***. He's started by firing all the IG's? Trump "looking back," not forward. He could start by investigating Gina Haspel. ..."
"... For example, Foglesong argued that "a vital factor in the revival of the crusade in the 1970s was the need to expunge doubts about American virtue instilled by the Vietnam War, revelations about CIA covert actions, and the Watergate scandal." ..."
"... By tracing American representations of Russia over the last 130 years, Foglesong illuminated three of the strongest notions that have informed American attitudes toward Russia: (1) a messianic faith that America could inspire sweeping overnight transformation from autocracy to democracy; (2) a notion that despite historic differences, Russia and America are very much akin, so that Russia, more than any other country, is America's "dark double;" (3) an extreme antipathy to "evil" leaders who Americans blame for thwarting what they believe to be the natural triumph of the American mission. These expectations and emotions continue to effect how American journalists and politicians write and talk about Russia. "My hope," Foglesong concluded, "is that by seeing how these attitudes have distorted American views of Russia for more than a century, we may begin to be able to escape their grip." ..."
Seldom mentioned among the motives behind the persistent drumming on alleged Russian
interference was an over-arching need to help the Security State hide their tracks.
The need for a scapegoat to blame for Hillary Clinton's snatching defeat out of the jaws
victory also played a role; as did the need for the
Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think-Tank complex (MICIMATT) to
keep front and center in the minds of Americans the alleged multifaceted threat coming from an
"aggressive" Russia. (Recall that John McCain called the, now
disproven , "Russian hacking" of the DNC emails an "act of war.")
But that was then. This is now.
Though the corporate media is trying to bury it, the Russiagate narrative has in the past
few weeks finally
collapsed with the revelation that CrowdStrike had no
evidence Russia took anything from the DNC servers and that the FBI set
a perjury trap for Gen. Michael Flynn. There was already the previous government finding that
there was no collusion between Trump and Russia and the indictment of a Russian troll farm that
supposedly was destroying American democracy with $100,000 in Facebook ads was dropped after
the St. Petersburg defendants sought discovery.
All that's left is to discover how this all happened.
Attorney General William Barr, and U.S. Attorney John Durham, whom Barr commissioned to
investigate this whole sordid mess seem intent on getting to the bottom of it. The possibility
that Trump will not chicken out this time, and rather will challenge the Security State looms
large since he felt personally under attack.
Writing on the Wall
Given the diffident attitude the Security State plotters adopted regarding hiding their
tracks, Durham's challenge, with subpoena power, is not as formidable as were he, for example,
investigating a Mafia family.
Plus, former NSA Director Adm. Michael S. Rogers reportedly is cooperating. The
handwriting is on the wall. It remains to be seen what kind of role in the scandal Barack
Obama may have played.
But former directors James Comey, James Clapper, and John Brennan, captains of Obama's
Security State, can take little solace from Barr's remarks Monday to a reporter who asked about
Trump's recent claims that top officials of the Obama administration, including the former
president had committed crimes. Barr replied:
"As to President Obama and Vice President Biden, whatever their level of involvement,
based on the information I have today, I don't expect Mr. Durham's work will lead to a
criminal investigation of either man. Our concerns over potential criminality is focused on
others."
In a more ominous vein, Barr gratuitously added that law enforcement and intelligence
officials were involved in "a false and utterly baseless Russian collusion narrative against
the president. It was a grave injustice, and it was unprecedented in American history."
Meanwhile, the corporate media have all been singing from the same sheet since Trump had the
audacity a week ago to coin yet another "-gate" -- this time "Obamagate." Leading the
apoplectic reaction in corporate media, Saturday's Washington Post
offered a pot-calling-the-kettle-black pronouncement by its editorial board entitled "The
absurd cynicism of 'Obamagate"?
The outrage voiced by the Post called to mind disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok's indignant
response to criticism of the FBI by candidate Trump, in a Oct. 20, 2016 text exchange with FBI
attorney Lisa Page:
Strzok: I am riled up. Trump is a f***ing idiot, is unable to provide a coherent
answer.
Strzok -- I CAN'T PULL AWAY, WHAT THE F**K HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY
Page -- I don't know. But we'll get it back. We're America. We rock.
Strzok -- Donald just said "bad hombres"
Strzok -- Trump just said what the FBI did is disgraceful.
Less vitriolic, but incisive commentary came from widely respected author and lawyer Glenn
Greenwald on May 14, four days after Trump coined "Obamagate": ( See "System Update with Glenn
Greenwald -- The Sham Prosecution of Michael Flynn").
For a shorter, equally instructive video of Greenwald on the broader issue of Russia-gate,
see this clip from a March 2019 Democracy Now! -sponsored debate he had with David Cay Johnston
titled, "As Mueller Finds No Collusion, Did Press Overhype Russiagate? Glenn Greenwald vs.
David Cay Johnston":
(The entire
debate is worth listening to). I found one of the comments below the Democracy Now! video
as big as a bummer as the commentator did:
"I think this is one of the most depressing parts about the whole situation. In their
dogmatic pushing for this false narrative, the Russiagaters might have guaranteed Trump a
second term. They have done more damage to our democracy than Russia ever has done and will
do ." (From "Clamity2007")
In any case, Johnston, undaunted by his embarrassment at the hands of Greenwald, is still at
it, and so is the avuncular Frank Rich -- both of them some 20 years older than Greenwald and
set in their evidence-impoverished, media-indoctrinated ways.
... ... ...
Uncle Frank, 40 seconds ago
So if we dug in and found large payments from George Soros or Mrs Clinton to these
'journalists', what crime could they be accused of? No crimes, I don't think.
But when journalists are revealed to be issuing paid-for propaganda/lies mixed with their
own internal opinions, and their publisher allows it to be presented as if it were reporting
rather than opinion, said writers, editors, and publishers are relegated to obscurity and
derision.
Their work will never be taken seriously again by anyone who wasn't already
brain-washed.
They don't get that, I guess.
QABubba, 47 minutes ago (Edited)
There never was anything to Russiagate. It was always just politics. I knew that from the
beginning. There was, however, a lot of something to the torture scandal. Obama said "We are not
going to look back." And now Gina Haspel, one of the chief torturers, partly responsible for
destroying the torture tapes, despite a court order to preserve them, is now head of the
CIA.
General Flynn was so involved with Turkey he should have been registered as a foreign
agent.
And as I have said before, the real crime was laundering Russian Mafia/Heroin money
through Deutsche Bank into New York real estate. It is curious that Turkey is also a huge
transport spot for heroin into the
EU. And France and other EU nations have a migrant population that lives off the drug
trade.
Drain the Swamp my ***. He's started by firing all the IG's? Trump "looking back," not forward. He could start by investigating Gina Haspel.
The MSM disinformation campaign with consistent common talking points is not difficult to
see with a little discernment. The bigger question is has this happened organically or is there a larger agency
manipulating the public discourse?
"By 1905," Foglesong stated, "this fundamental reorientation of American views of Russia
had set up a historical pattern in which missionary zeal and messianic euphoria would be
followed by disenchantment and embittered denunciation of Russia's evil and oppressive
rulers." The first cycle, according to Foglesong, culminated in 1905, when the October
Manifesto, perceived initially by Americans as a transformation to democracy, gave way to a
violent socialist revolt. Foglesong observed similar cycles of euphoria to despair during the
collapse of the tsarist government in 1917, during the partial religious revival of World War
II, and during the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s
Crucial to Foglesong's analysis was how these cycles coincided with a contemporaneous need
to deflect attention away from America's own blemishes and enhance America's claim to its
global mission.
For example, Foglesong argued that "a vital factor in the revival of the crusade in the
1970s was the need to expunge doubts about American virtue instilled by the Vietnam War,
revelations about CIA covert actions, and the Watergate scandal."
By tracing American representations of Russia over the last 130 years, Foglesong
illuminated three of the strongest notions that have informed American attitudes toward
Russia: (1) a messianic faith that America could inspire sweeping overnight transformation
from autocracy to democracy; (2) a notion that despite historic differences, Russia and
America are very much akin, so that Russia, more than any other country, is America's "dark
double;" (3) an extreme antipathy to "evil" leaders who Americans blame for thwarting what
they believe to be the natural triumph of the American mission. These expectations and
emotions continue to effect how American journalists and politicians write and talk about
Russia. "My hope," Foglesong concluded, "is that by seeing how these attitudes have distorted
American views of Russia for more than a century, we may begin to be able to escape their
grip."
Moribundus, 3 hours ago
America's imperialism rules: Never to admit a fault or wrong; never to accept blame;
concentrate on one enemy at a time; blame that enemy for everything that goes wrong; take
advantage of every opportunity to raise a political whirlwind.
Kidbuck, 5 hours ago
Trump hasn't engaged in a fight in his life. He's a sissy at heart wants to negotiate. He
can't even do that right. He's caved on nearly every campaign promise he made. The only thing
his administration fights for is their salary and their retirement. Hillary still waddles
free and farts in his general direction.
ChaoKrungThep, 4 hours ago
Trump the Mafia punk, like his dad, and draft dodger like his German grand dad. Barr, old
CIA asset from the Clinton-Mena coke smuggling op. This crappy crew is running their masters'
game in front of the redneck rabble who are dumber than their mutts.
Save_America1st, 9 hours ago
Geez...how far behind can most of these assholes be after all these years????
For one...there was no "Russia-gate". It was all a hoax from the beginning, and anyone
with a few functioning brain cells knew that from the start.
And as of about 3 years ago we have all known this as "Obamagate" for the most part...we
all knew the corruption of the hoax totally led up to O-Scumbag.
And now as of the recent disclosures it is a total fact.
Haven't most of you been watching Dan Bongino for over 2 years now and haven't you read
his books? Haven't you been reading Sarah Carter and John Soloman among others for nearly 3
years now???
Surely, you haven't been just sitting around sucking leftist media **** for over 3 years,
right???????? I'm sure you haven't.
So why is this article even necessary on ZeroHedge?????
We already knew and have known the truth since before even the 2016 election. Drop it.
Posa, 9 hours ago
So funny. The 85 Year old "American century' is palpably disintegrating before our very
eyes. In particular the Deep State permanent bureaucracy is completely untethered and facing
what seems to be a Great Reckoning in the form of Barr- Durham. Cognitve Derangement prevails
in the press and spills overto the body politic. The country teeters a slo-mo Civil War.
Meanwhile, The dollar is disintegrating and we seem to face an economic abyss, the Terminal
Depression. Real "last Days of Rome" stuff.
BaNNeD oN THe RuN, 5 hours ago (Edited)
The Israeli dual citizens like Adelson and Mercer bought the Presidency.
Mossad was the organization handling the mole Seth Rich.
Blaming Russia also worked for those 2 groups because it deflected attention away from
(((them))).
Ray McGovern, being ex-intel, must know this to be true.
LetThemEatRand, 11 hours ago
Russiagate. The supposed target of said coup d'etat just Presided over the largest bailout
of banks ever by a factor of five or more. Trump supporters are asleep for the bailout, Trump
haters are asleep for the bailout. Let's fight about transgender bathrooms and Russiagate,
shall we?
Those are far from failures, those were successful disinformation/propaganda operations conducted with a certain goal --
remove Trump -- which demonstrate the level of intelligence agencies control of the MSM. In other words those are
parts of a bigger intelligence operation -- the color revolution against Trump led most probably by Obama and Brennan.
Now we know that Obama played an important role in Russiagate media hysteria and, most porbably, in planning and executing the
operation to entrap Flynn.
Notable quotes:
"... They are listed in reverse order, as measured by the magnitude of the embarrassment, the hysteria they generated on social media and cable news, the level of journalistic recklessness that produced them, and the amount of damage and danger they caused ..."
"... Note that all of these "errors" go only in one direction: namely, exaggerating the grave threat posed by Moscow and the Trump circle's connection to it. It's inevitable that media outlets will make mistakes on complex stories. If that's being done in good faith, one would expect the errors would be roughly 50/50 in terms of the agenda served by the false stories. That is most definitely not the case here. Just as was true in 2002 and 2003, when the media clearly wanted to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and thus all of its "errors" went in that direction, virtually all of its major "errors" in this story are devoted to the same agenda and script: ..."
"... Crowdstrike, the firm hired by the DNC, claimed they had evidence that Russia hacked Ukrainian artillery apps; they then retracted it . ..."
"... The U.S. media and Democrats spent six months claiming that all "17 intelligence agencies" agreed Russia was behind the hacks; the NYT finally retracted that in June, 2017: "The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community." ..."
"... Widespread government and media claims that accused Russian agent Maria Butina offered "sex for favors" were totally false (and scurrilous). ..."
BuzzFeed was once notorious for
traffic-generating "listicles," but has since become an impressive outlet for deep
investigative journalism under editor-in-chief Ben Smith. That outlet was prominently in the
news this week thanks to its "bombshell" story about President Trump and Michael Cohen: a story
that, like so many others of its kind,
blew up in its face , this time when the typically mute Robert Mueller's office took the
extremely rare step to
label its key claims "inaccurate."
But in homage to BuzzFeed's past viral glory, following are the top ten worst media failures
in two-plus-years of Trump/Russia reporting. They are listed in reverse order, as measured by
the magnitude of the embarrassment, the hysteria they generated on social media and cable news,
the level of journalistic recklessness that produced them, and the amount of damage and danger
they caused. This list was extremely difficult to compile in part because news outlets
(particularly CNN and MSNBC) often delete from the internet the video segments of their most
embarrassing moments. Even more challenging was the fact that the number of worthy nominees is
so large that highly meritorious entrees had to be excluded, but are acknowledged at the end
with (dis)honorable mention status.
Note that all of these "errors" go only in one direction: namely, exaggerating the grave
threat posed by Moscow and the Trump circle's connection to it. It's inevitable that media
outlets will make mistakes on complex stories. If that's being done in good faith, one would
expect the errors would be roughly 50/50 in terms of the agenda served by the false stories.
That is most definitely not the case here. Just as was true in 2002 and 2003, when the media
clearly wanted to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and thus all of its "errors"
went in that direction, virtually all of its major "errors" in this story are devoted to the
same agenda and script:
10. RT Hacked Into and Took Over C-SPAN (Fortune)
On June 12, 2017, Fortune claimed that RT had hacked into and taken over C-SPAN and that
C-SPAN "confirmed" it had been hacked. The whole story was false:
Holy shit. Russia state propaganda (RT) "hacked" into C-SPAN feed and took over for a good
40 seconds today? In middle of live broadcast. https://t.co/pwWYFoDGDU
9. Russian Hackers Invaded the U.S. Electricity Grid to Deny Vermonters Heat
During the Winter (WashPost)
On December 30, 2016, the Washington Post reported that "Russian hackers penetrated the U.S.
electricity grid through a utility in Vermont," causing predictable outrage and panic, along
with threats from U.S. political leaders. But then they kept diluting the story with editor's
notes – to admit that the malware was found on a laptop not connected to the U.S.
electric grid at all – until finally acknowledging, days later, that the whole story was
false, since the malware had nothing to do with Russia or with the U.S. electric grid:
Breaking: Russian hackers penetrated U.S. electricity grid through a utility in Vermont
https://t.co/LED11lL7ej
8. A New, Deranged, Anonymous Group Declares Mainstream Political Sites on the
Left and Right to be Russian Propaganda Outlets and WashPost Touts its Report to Claim Massive
Kremlin Infiltration of the Internet (WashPost)
On November 24, 2016, the Washington Post
published one of the most inflammatory, sensationalistic stories to date about Russian
infiltration into U.S. politics using social media, accusing "more than 200 websites" of being
"routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season, with combined audiences of
at least 15 million Americans." It added: "stories planted or promoted by the disinformation
campaign [on Facebook] were viewed more than 213 million times."
Unfortunately for the paper, those statistics were provided by a new, anonymous group that
reached these conclusions by classifying long-time, well-known sites – from the Drudge
Report to Clinton-critical left-wing websites such as Truthout, Black Agenda Report, Truthdig,
and Naked Capitalism, as well as libertarian venues such as Antiwar.com and the Ron Paul
Institute. – as "Russian propaganda outlets," producing one of the longest Editor's Note
in memory appended to the top of the article (but
not until two weeks later , long after the story was mindlessly spread all throughout the
media ecosystem):
Russian propaganda effort helped spread fake news during election, say independent
researchers https://t.co/3ETVXWw16Q
Just want to note I hadn't heard of Propornot before the WP piece and never gave
permission to them to call Bellingcat "allies" https://t.co/jQKnWzjrBR
7. Trump Aide Anthony Scaramucci is Involved in a Russian Hedge Fund Under
Senate Investigation (CNN)
On June 22, 2017, CNN reported that Trump aide Anthony Scaramucci was involved with the
Russian Direct Investment Fund, under Senate investigation. He was not. CNN retracted the story
and forced the three reporters who published it to leave the network. 6. Russia Attacked
U.S. "Diplomats" (i.e. Spies) at the Cuban Embassy Using a Super-Sophisticated Sonic Microwave
Weapon (NBC/MSNBC/CIA)
On September 11, 2017, NBC News and MSNBC
spread all over its airwaves a claim from its notorious CIA puppet Ken Dilanian that Russia
was behind a series of dastardly attacks on U.S. personnel at the Embassy in Cuba using a sonic
or microwave weapon so sophisticated and cunning that Pentagon and CIA scientists had no idea
what to make of it.
But then teams of neurologists began calling into doubt that these personnel had suffered
any brain injuries at all – that instead they appear to have experienced collective
psychosomatic symptoms – and then biologists published findings that the "strange sounds"
the U.S. "diplomats" reported hearing were identical to those emitted by a common Caribbean
male cricket during mating season.
An @NBCNews
exclusive: After more than a year of mystery, Russia is the main suspect in the sonic attacks
that sickened 26 U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials in Cuba. @MitchellReports has the
latest. pic.twitter.com/NEI9PJ9CpD
4. Paul Manafort Visited Julian Assange Three Times in the Ecuadorian Embassy
and Nobody Noticed (Guardian/Luke Harding)
On November 27, 2018, the Guardian
published a major "bombshell" that Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had somehow managed
to sneak inside one of the world's most surveilled buildings, the Ecuadorian Embassy in London,
and visit Julian Assange on three different occasions. Cable and online commentators
exploded.
Seven weeks later,
no other media outlet has confirmed this ; no video or photographic evidence has emerged;
the Guardian refuses to answer any questions; its leading editors have virtually gone into
hiding; other media outlets have expressed serious doubts about its veracity; and an Ecuadorian
official who worked at the embassy has called the story a complete fake:
Paul Manafort held secret talks with Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in
London, and visited around the time he joined Trump's campaign, the Guardian has been told.
https://t.co/Fc2BVmXipk
The Guardian reports that Paul Manafort visited Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks,
the same month that Manafort joined Donald Trump's presidential campaign in 2016, a meeting
that could carry vast implications for the Russia investigation https://t.co/pYawnv4MHH
3. CNN Explicitly Lied About Lanny Davis Being Its Source – For a Story
Whose Substance Was Also False: Cohen Would Testify that Trump Knew in Advance About the Trump
Tower Meeting (CNN)
On July 27, 2018, CNN
published a blockbuster story : that Michael Cohen was prepared to tell Robert Mueller that
President Trump knew in advanced about the Trump Tower meeting. There were, however, two
problems with this story: first, CNN got caught blatantly lying when its reporters claimed that
"contacted by CNN, one of Cohen's attorneys, Lanny Davis, declined to comment" (in fact, Davis
was one of CNN's key sources, if not its only source, for this story), and second, numerous
other outlets retracted the story after the source, Davis, admitted it was a lie. CNN, however,
to this date has refused to do either: 2. Robert Mueller Possesses Internal Emails and Witness Interviews Proving Trump
Directed Cohen to Lie to Congress (BuzzFeed)
BREAKING: President Trump personally directed his longtime attorney Michael Cohen to lie
to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow in order to obscure his
involvement. https://t.co/BEoMKiDypn
The allegation that the President of the United States may have suborned perjury before
our committee in an effort to curtail the investigation and cover up his business dealings
with Russia is among the most serious to date. We will do what's necessary to find out if
it's true. https://t.co/GljBAFqOjh
Listen, if Mueller does have multiple sources confirming Trump directed Cohen to lie to
Congress, then we need to know this ASAP. Mueller shouldn't end his inquiry, but it's about
time for him to show Congress his cards before it's too late for us to act. https://t.co/ekG5VSBS8G
To those trying to parse the Mueller statement: it's a straight-up denial. Maybe Buzzfeed
can prove they are right, maybe Mueller can prove them wrong. But it's an emphatic denial
https://t.co/EI1J7XLCJe
. @Isikoff :
"There were red flags about the BuzzFeed story from the get-go." Notes it was inconsistent
with Cohen's guilty plea when he said he made false statements about Trump Tower to Congress
to be "consistent" with Trump, not at his direction. pic.twitter.com/tgDg6SNPpG
We at The Post also had riffs on the story our reporters hadn't confirmed. One noted Fox
downplayed it; another said it "if true, looks to be the most damning to date for Trump." The
industry needs to think deeply on how to cover others' reporting we can't confirm
independently. https://t.co/afzG5B8LAP
Washington Post says Mueller's denial of BuzzFeed News article is aimed at the full story:
"Mueller's denial, according to people familiar with the matter, aims to make clear that none
of those statements in the story are accurate." https://t.co/ene0yqe1mK
If you're one of the people tempted to believe the self-evidently laughable claim that
there's something "vague" or unclear about Mueller's statement, or that it just seeks to
quibble with a few semantic trivialities, read this @WashPost story about this https://t.co/0io99LyATS
pic.twitter.com/ca1TwPR3Og
You can spend hours parsing the Carr statement, but given how unusual it is for any DOJ
office to issue this sort of on the record denial, let alone this office, suspect it means
the story's core contention that they have evidence Trump told Cohen to lie is fundamentally
wrong.
New York Times throws a bit of cold water on BuzzFeed's explosive -- and now seriously
challenged -- report that Trump instructed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress: https://t.co/9N7MiHs7et
pic.twitter.com/7FJFT9D8fW
I can't speak to Buzzfeed's sourcing, but, for what it's worth, I declined to run with
parts of the narrative they conveyed based on a source central to the story repeatedly
disputing the idea that Trump directly issued orders of that kind.
1. Donald Trump Jr. Was Offered Advanced Access to the WikiLeaks Email Archive
(CNN/MSNBC)
The morning of December 9, 2017, launched
one of the most humiliating spectacles in the history of the U.S. media. With a tone so
grave and bombastic that it is impossible to overstate, CNN went on the air and announced a
major exclusive: Donald Trump, Jr. was offered by email advanced access to the trove of DNC and
Podesta emails published by WikiLeaks – meaning before those emails were made public.
Within an hour, MSNBC's Ken Dilanian, using a tone somehow even more unhinged, purported to
have "independently confirmed" this mammoth, blockbuster scoop, which, they said, would have
been the smoking gun showing collusion between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks over the hacked
emails (while the YouTube clips have been removed, you can still watch one of the amazing MSNBC
videos
here ).
There was, alas, just one small problem with this massive, blockbuster story: it was totally
and completely false. The email which Trump, Jr. received that directed him to the WikiLeaks
archive was sent after WikiLeaks published it online for the whole world to see, not before.
Rather than some super secretive operative giving Trump, Jr. advanced access, as both CNN and
MSNBC told the public for hours they had confirmed, it was instead just some totally pedestrian
message from a random member of the public suggesting Trump, Jr. review documents the whole
world was already talking about. All of the anonymous sources CNN and MSNBC cited somehow all
got the date of the email wrong.
To date, when asked how they both could have gotten such a massive story so completely wrong
in the same way, both CNN and MSNBC have adopted the posture of the CIA by maintaining complete
silence and refusing to explain how it could possibly be that all of their "multiple,
independent sources" got the date wrong on the email in the same way, to be as incriminating
– and false – as possible. Nor, needless to say, will they identify their sources
who, in concert, fed them such inflammatory and utterly false information.
Sadly, CNN and MSNBC have deleted most traces of the most humiliating videos from the
internet, including demanding that YouTube remove copies. But enough survives to document just
what a monumental, horrifying, and utterly inexcusable debacle this was. Particularly amazing
is the clip of the CNN reporter (see below) having to admit the error for the first time, as he
awkwardly struggles to pretend that it's not the massive, horrific debacle that it so obviously
is:
Knowingly soliciting or receiving anything of value from a foreign national for campaign
purposes violates the Federal Election Campaign Act. If it's worth over $2,000 then penalties
include fines & IMPRISONMENT. @DonaldJTrumpJr may be in bigly
trouble. #FridayFeeling
https://t.co/dRz6Ph17Er
CNN is leading the way in bashing BuzzFeed but it's worth remembering CNN had a
humiliation at least as big & bad: when they yelled that Trump Jr. had advanced access to
the WL archive (!): all based on a wrong date. They removed all the segments from YouTube,
but this remains: pic.twitter.com/0jiA50aIku
ABC News' Brian Ross is fired for
reporting Trump told Flynn to make contact with Russians when he was still a candidate;
in fact, Trump did that after he won.
The New York Times claimed Manafort provided
polling data to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a person "close to the Kremlin"; in fact, he
provided them to Ukrainians, not Russians.
Crowdstrike, the firm hired by the DNC, claimed they had evidence that Russia hacked
Ukrainian artillery apps;
they then retracted it .
Bloomberg and the WSJ reported Mueller subpoenaed Deustche Bank for Trump's financial
records; the NYT said
that never happened .
Rachel Maddow devoted 20 minutes at the start of her show to very melodramatically
claiming a highly sophisticated party tried to trick her by sending her a fake Top Secret
document modeled after the one published by the Intercept, and said it could only have come
from the U.S. Government (or the Intercept) since the person obtained the document before it
was published by us and thus must have had special access to it; in fact,
Maddow and NBC completely misread the metadata on the document ; the fake sent to Maddow
was created after we published the document, and was sent to her by a random member of the
public who took the document from the Intercept's site and doctored it to see if she'd fall
for an obvious scam. Maddow's entire timeline, on which her whole melodramatic conspiracy
theory rested, was fictitious.
The U.S. media and Democrats spent six months claiming that all "17 intelligence
agencies" agreed Russia was behind the hacks; the NYT finally
retracted that in June, 2017: "The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies --
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not
approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community."
AP claimed on February 2, 2018, that the Free Beacon commissioned the Steele Dossier;
they thereafter acknowledged that was false and
noted, instead: "Though the former spy, Christopher Steele, was hired by a firm that was
initially funded by the Washington Free Beacon, he did not begin work on the project until
after Democratic groups had begun funding it."
Widespread government and media claims that accused Russian agent Maria Butina offered
"sex for favors" were
totally false (and scurrilous).
After a Russian regional jet crashed on February 11, 2018, shortly after it took off from
Moscow, killing all 71 people aboard, Harvard Law Professor and frequent MSNBC contributor
Laurence Tribe
strongly implied Putin purposely caused the plane to go down in order to murder Sergei
Millian, a person vaguely linked to George Papadopoulos and Jared Kushner; in fact, Millian
was not on the plane nor, to date, has anyone claimed they had any evidence that Putin
ordered his own country's civilian passenger jet brought down.
"An obvious explanation was the ongoing Covid-19 epidemic."
That was just the convenient excuse. Every little totalitarian, like very humongous
totalitarian, knows to never let a crisis go to waste. And that goes double for a fake crisis
or an overblown crisis or managed crisis.
Globalist Totalitarianism – which could make the USSR at its worst seem almost
pastoral – intends to murder all populist opposition. Globalist Totalitarianism is much
more Brave New World than it is 1984. Globalist Totalitarianism intends for large swaths of
the hoi polloi to have easy access to becoming stoned, because the doped are very easy to
control in ways that matter to billionaires. Globalist Totalitarianism requires Sexual
Revolution in all its facets, because that too makes multitudes easy slaves to control.
Globalist Totalitarianism requires total control of mass media, big tech, big pharma, food
production and distribution. If the masses keep avoiding the propaganda, they can be starved
into submission and denied medicines. They even can be weeded out, their numbers cut
significantly, by illnesses created in labs owned and operated by the Globalists.
Historic nationalities, ethnicities, and folk cultures have no meaning, no rights, before
Globalist Totalitarianism. Masses of humans – slaves to the economic desires of the
Empire's Elites – are moved around the Empire as its Elites desire, both to produce
cheap labor and to disrupt, implode, any entity that could become more than a minor irritant
to the Empire's Elites.
Globalist Totalitarianism has been erected upon the frame created by the British Empire,
which created the nascent forms of globalist corporatism right down to corporations owning
entire nations and sub-continents: see the East India Company.
Case in point. America has a surveillance state but it refuses to use it to save lives.
Instead, it uses it to save Wall Street and protect the extractive elite from any TRUE REAL
threat. I relish the notion of this virus running rampant across America until it ravages,
and decimates actually, the Praetorian Guard Class, the managerial class if you will, that
licks the ass of the extractive elite for some bread crust, discarded steak fat and a Tesla.
I want to see them truly suffer for their sins.
After weeks cooped up at home following governors' orders to contain the coronavirus
outbreak, U.S. residents appear eager to get moving again. As more states began to relax
restrictions, about 25 million more people ventured outside their homes on an average day
last week than during the preceding six weeks, a New York Times analysis of cellphone
data found .
In nearly every part of the country, the share of people staying home dropped, in some
places by nearly 11 percentage points.
As the death toll from this pandemic rises in America with no end in sight, Wall Street,
as reflected in the DJIA, doesn't even blink and actually cheers. It doesn't get any sicker
than that. Wall Street sees the carnage as an opportunity to make more profit off of death
and the extractive elite see it as an opportunity to concentrate wealth even further and rid
the world of burdensome useless eaters. It's sick. It's sadistic. It's malevolent. It's evil.
It's our reality.
"The New York Times has been accused for a second time of stealing major scoops from Russian
journalists. One of those stories won the Times a Pulitzer Prize this May.
The journalists who have accused the Times of taking their work without credit also
happen to be the same liberal media crusaders against Vladimir Putin [my emphasis] that
Western correspondents at the Times and other mainstream outlets have cast as persecuted
heroes
As Yasha Levine further down the page says, the NYT takes whatever it wants from whomever has
got it, without giving anything back or acknowledging any help or assistance, if it thinks it can
get away with it because it believes that, like the Empire it serves, it is Exceptional.
Chancellor Angela Merkel that stupid? "Chancellor Angela Merkel used strong words on Wednesday condemning an "outrageous"
cyberattack by Russia's foreign intelligence service on the German Parliament, her personal
email account included. Russia, she said, was pursuing "a strategy of hybrid warfare."
Notable quotes:
"... That alleged attack happened in 2015. The attribution to Russia is as shoddy as all attributions of cyberattacks are. ..."
"... Intelligence officials had long suspected Russian operatives were behind the attack, but they took five years to collect the evidence, which was presented in a report given to Ms. Merkel's office just last week. ..."
"... This is really funny because we recently learned that the company which investigated the alleged DNC intrusion, CrowdStrike, had found no evidence , as in zero, that a Russian hacker group had targeted the DNC or that DNC emails were exfiltrated over the Internet: ..."
"... CrowdStrike, the private cyber-security firm that first accused Russia of hacking Democratic Party emails and served as a critical source for U.S. intelligence officials in the years-long Trump-Russia probe, acknowledged to Congress more than two years ago that it had no concrete evidence that Russian hackers stole emails from the Democratic National Committee's server. ..."
"... The DNC emails were most likely stolen by its local network administrator, Seth Rich , who provided them to Wikileaks before he was killed in a suspicious 'robbery' during which nothing was taken. ..."
"... The whole attribution of case of the stolen DNC emails to Russia is based on exactly nothing but intelligence rumors and CrowdStrike claims for which it had no evidence. As there is no evidence at all that the DNC was attacked by a Russian cybergroup what does that mean for the attribution of the attack on the German Bundestag to the very same group? ..."
The New York Times continues its anti-Russia campaign with a report about an old
cyberattack on German parliament which also targeted the parliament office of Chancellor Angela
Merkel.
Chancellor Angela Merkel used strong words on Wednesday condemning an "outrageous"
cyberattack by Russia's foreign intelligence service on the German Parliament, her personal
email account included. Russia, she said, was pursuing "a strategy of hybrid warfare."
But asked how Berlin intended to deal with recent revelations implicating the Russians,
Ms. Merkel was less forthcoming.
"We always reserve the right to take measures," she said in Parliament, then immediately
added, "Nevertheless, I will continue to strive for a good relationship with Russia, because
I believe that there is every reason to always continue these diplomatic efforts."
That alleged attack happened in 2015. The attribution to Russia is as shoddy as all
attributions of cyberattacks are.
Intelligence officials had long suspected Russian operatives were behind the attack, but they
took five years to collect the evidence, which was presented in a report given to Ms.
Merkel's office just last week.
Officials say the report traced the attack to the same Russian hacker group that targeted
the Democratic Party during the U.S. presidential election campaign in 2016.
This is really funny because we recently learned that the company which investigated the
alleged DNC intrusion, CrowdStrike,
had found no evidence , as in zero, that a Russian hacker group had targeted the DNC or
that DNC emails were exfiltrated over the Internet:
CrowdStrike, the private cyber-security firm that first accused Russia of hacking Democratic
Party emails and served as a critical source for U.S. intelligence officials in the
years-long Trump-Russia probe, acknowledged to Congress more than two years ago that it had
no concrete evidence that Russian hackers stole emails from the Democratic National
Committee's server.
...
[CrowdStrike President Shawn] Henry personally led the remediation and forensics analysis of
the DNC server after being warned of a breach in late April 2016; his work was paid for by
the DNC, which refused to turn over its server to the FBI. Asked for the date when alleged
Russian hackers stole data from the DNC server, Henry testified that CrowdStrike did not in
fact know if such a theft occurred at all : "We did not have concrete evidence that the data
was exfiltrated [moved electronically] from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was
exfiltrated," Henry said.
The DNC emails were most likely stolen by its local network administrator, Seth Rich , who provided
them to Wikileaks before he was killed in a suspicious 'robbery' during which nothing was
taken.
The whole attribution of case of the stolen DNC emails to Russia is based on exactly nothing
but intelligence rumors and CrowdStrike claims for which it had no evidence. As there is no
evidence at all that the DNC was attacked by a Russian cybergroup what does that mean for the
attribution of the attack on the German Bundestag to the very same group?
While the NYT also mentions that NSA actually snooped on Merkel's private phonecalls
it tries to keep the spotlight on Russia:
As such, Germany's democracy has been a target of very different kinds of Russian
intelligence operations, officials say. In December 2016, 900,000 Germans lost access to
internet and telephone services following a cyberattack traced to Russia.
That mass attack on internet home routers, which by the way happened in November 2016 not in
December, was done with the Mirai
worm :
More than 900,000 customers of German ISP Deutsche Telekom (DT) were knocked offline this
week after their Internet routers got infected by a new variant of a computer worm known as
Mirai. The malware wriggled inside the routers via a newly discovered vulnerability in a
feature that allows ISPs to remotely upgrade the firmware on the devices. But the new Mirai
malware turns that feature off once it infests a device, complicating DT's cleanup and
restoration efforts.
...
This new variant of Mirai builds on malware
source code released at the end of September . That leak came a little more a week after
a botnet based on Mirai was used in a record-sized
attack that caused KrebsOnSecurity to go offline for several
days . Since then, dozens of new Mirai botnets have emerged , all
competing for a finite pool of vulnerable IoT systems that can be infected.
The attack has not been attributed to Russia but to a British man who offered attacks as a
service.
He was arrested in February 2017:
A 29-year-old man has been arrested at Luton airport by the UK's National Crime Agency (NCA)
in connection with a massive internet attack that disrupted telephone, television and
internet services in Germany last November. As regular readers of We Live Security will
recall, over 900,000 Deutsche Telekom broadband customers were knocked offline last November
as an alleged attempt was made to hijack their routers into a destructive botnet.
...
The NCA arrested the British man under a European Arrest Warrant issued by Germany's Federal
Criminal Police Office (BKA) who have described the attack as a threat to Germany's national
communication infrastructure.
According to German prosecutors, the British man allegedly offered to sell access to the
botnet on the computer underground. Agencies are planning to extradite the man to Germany,
where – if convicted – he could face up to ten years imprisonment.
During the trial, Daniel admitted that he never intended for the routers to cease
functioning. He only wanted to silently control them so he can use them as part of a DDoS
botnet to increase his botnet firepower. As discussed earlier he also confessed being paid by
competitors to takedown Lonestar.
In Aug 2017 Daniel was
extradited back to the UK to face extortion charges after attempting to blackmail Lloyds
and Barclays banks. According to press reports, he asked the Lloyds to pay about
£75,000 in bitcoins for the attack to be called off.
The Mirai attack is widely known to have been attributed to Kaye. The case has been
discussed
at length . IT security journalist Brian Krebs, who's site was also attacked by a Mirai bot
net, has written several
stories about it. It was never 'traced to Russia' or attributed it to anyone else but Daniel
Kaye.
Besides that Kennhold writes of "Russia's foreign intelligence service, known as the
G.R.U.". The real Russian foreign intelligence services is the SVR. The military intelligence
agency of Russia was once called GRU but has been renamed to GU.
The New York Times just made up the claim about Russia hacking in Germany from
absolutely nothing. The whole piece was published without even the most basic research and fact
checking.
It seems that for the Times anything can be blamed on Russia completely independent
of what the actually facts say.
Posted by b on May 14, 2020 at 14:38 UTC |
Permalink
Along the same lines, it always bothered me that among all the (mostly contrived)
arguments about who might have been responsible for the alleged "hacking" of DNC as well as
Clinton's emails, we never heard mentioned one single time the one third party that we
absolutely KNOW had intercepted and collected all of those emails--the NSA! Never a peep
about how US intelligence services could be tempted to mischief when in possession of
everyone's sensitive, personal information.
The "Fancy Bear" group (also knowns as advanced persistent threat 28) that is claimed to be
behind the hacks is likely little more than the collection of hacking tools shared on the
open and hidden parts of RuNet or Russian-speaking Internet. Many of these Russian-speaking
hackers are
actually Ukrainians .
Some of the Russian hackers also worked for the FSB, like the members of Shaltai
Boltai group that were later arrested for treason. George Eliason claims Shaltai Boltai
actually worked for Ukrainians. For a short version of the story read this:
Cyberanalyst George Eliason has written some intriguing blogs recently claiming that the
"Fancy Bear" which hacked the DNC server in mid-2016 was in fact a branch of Ukrainian
intelligence linked to the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike. I invite you to have a go at
one of his recent essays...
Patrick
Armstrong , May 14 2020 15:27 utc |
3 Wow! You've done it again. I was just writing my Sitrep and thinking what an amazing
coincidence it is that, just as the Russian pipelaying ship arrived to finish Nord Stream,
Merkel is told that them nasty Russkies are doing nasty things. I come here and you've
already solved it. Yet another scoop. Congratulations.
The NYT has removed that sentence about the attack on internet/phone access:
"Correction: May 14, 2020
An earlier version of this article incorrectly attributed responsibility for a 2016
cyberattack in which 900,000 Germans lost access to internet and telephone services. The
attack was carried out by a British citizen, not Russia. The article also misstated when the
attack took place. It was in November, not December. The sentence has been removed from the
article. "
From this we can learn that anything can be blamed by MSM, completely independent of what the
facts are. It is not limited to allegations related to Russia or China, but any and all
claims by MSM that have no direct reference to provable fact.
great coverage b... thank you... facts don't matter.. what matters is taking down any
positive image of russia, or better - putting up a constantly negative one... of this the
intel and usa msm are consistent... the sad reality is a lot of people will believe this
bullshit too...
i was just reading paul robinsons blog last night -
#DEMOCRACY RIP AND THE NARCISSISM OF RUSSIAGATE .. even paul is starting to getting
pissed off on the insanity of the media towards russia which is rare from what i have read
from him!
@ 3 patrick armstrong.. keep up the good work!! thanks for your work..
There is already a correction made to the DT attack - someone reads MofA! Shame they don't
get more of their new interpretation form here.
Whole piece reads here like it started as a Merkel gets close to Russia piece, shown
around to colleagues and politicians for feedback, and a ton of fake "why Merkel actually
hates the Russians" nonsense was added in.
After all pretty much everyone has tapped Merkel's phone by now.
"... Sad but true. We are all given our illusions. In US its the illusion of democracy which is a fake democracy cloaking our totalitarian reality. In China they give the people the illusion of moving towards socialism, a fake socialism to be sure, never mind all the billionaire party members (and they don't have universal health care either, its insurance based) .The people have long accepted the reality of totalitarianism so they are one step ahead. ..."
Sad but true. We are all given our illusions. In US its the illusion of democracy which
is a fake democracy cloaking our totalitarian reality. In China they give the people the
illusion of moving towards socialism, a fake socialism to be sure, never mind all the
billionaire party members (and they don't have universal health care either, its insurance
based) .The people have long accepted the reality of totalitarianism so they are one step
ahead.
Since China doesn't have another party to blame they must blame external enemies like the
US and we happily play along with tarrifs paid for by us dumb sheep who cry out in
satisfaction "take that". Lol
A fake Cold War works for us too. Trump says we are in a race for 5G and AI/Robotics with
China. We must win or all is lost to China. Social credit scores, digital ID and digital
currency along with Total Information Awareness and Full Spectrum Dominance over the
herd.
Health effects of 5G will be blamed on CoVID. Fake Science is a great tool. Scientists
never lie, they can be trusted, just like Priests . They are the Priests of the New
Technocratic World Order. Global Warming and COVID- We must believe. They say Vaccines and 5G
are good for you, just like DDT and Tobacco were said to be Good by Scientists of another
time. We must believe. Have Faith and you will earn social credit bonus points.
Reality is Fake Wrestling. Kayfabe all the way baby. Who is the face and who is the heel?
We are free to choose. So who says we don't have freedom?
"... former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell admitted in a TV interview he views that the US should be in the business of "killing Russians and Iranians covertly" ). ..."
"... Ironically, Jeffrey's official title has been Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIL, but apparently the mission is now to essentially "give the Russians hell". His comments were made Tuesday during a video conference hosted by the neocon Hudson Institute : ..."
"... He also emphasized that the Syrian state would continue to be squeezed into submission as part of long-term US efforts (going back to at least 2011) to legitimize a Syria government in exile of sorts. This after the Trump administration recently piled new sanctions on Damascus. As University of Oklahoma professor and expert on the region Joshua Landis summarized of Jeffrey's remarks: "He pledged that the United States will continue to deny Syria - international funding, reconstruction, oil, banking, agriculture & recognition of government." ..."
Washington now says it's all about defeating the Russians . While it's not the first time
this has been thrown around in policy circles (recall that a year after Russia's 2015 entry
into Syria at Assad's invitation, former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell
admitted in a TV interview he views that the US should be in the business of "killing
Russians and Iranians covertly" ).
"My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians."
Ironically, Jeffrey's official title has been Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to
Defeat ISIL, but apparently the mission is now to essentially "give the Russians hell". His
comments were made Tuesday during a video conference hosted by the neocon Hudson Institute :
Asked why the American public should tolerate US involvement in Syria, Special Envoy James
Jeffrey points out the small US footprint in the fight against ISIS. "This isn't Afghanistan.
This isn't Vietnam. This isn't a quagmire. My job is to make it a quagmire for the
Russians."
He also emphasized that the Syrian state would continue to be squeezed into submission as
part of long-term US efforts (going back to at least 2011) to legitimize a Syria government in
exile of sorts. This after the Trump administration recently piled new sanctions on Damascus.
As University of Oklahoma professor and expert on the region Joshua Landis summarized of
Jeffrey's remarks: "He pledged that the United States will continue to deny Syria -
international funding, reconstruction, oil, banking, agriculture & recognition of
government."
"My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians."
Special US envoy to Syria - James Jeffery
He pledged that the United States will continue to deny Syria - international funding,
reconstruction, oil, banking, agriculture & recognition of government. https://t.co/MSAkQqAmdh
But no doubt both Putin and Assad have understood Washington's real proxy war interests all
along, which is why last year Russia delivered it's lethal S-300 into the hands of Assad (and
amid constant Israeli attacks). But no doubt both Putin and Assad have understood Washington's
real proxy war interests all along, which is why last year Russia delivered it's lethal S-300
into the hands of Assad (and amid constant Israeli attacks).
As for oil, currently Damascus is well supplied by the Iranians, eager to dump their stock
in fuel-starved Syria amid the global glut. Trump has previously voiced that part of US troops
"securing the oil fields" is to keep them out of the hands of Russia and Iran.
* * *
Recall the CIA's 2016 admission of what's really going on in terms of US action in
Syria:
FDR warned his son before his death of his understanding of the British takeover of American
foreign policy, but still could not reverse this agenda. His son recounted his father's ominous
insight:
"You know, any number of times the men in the State Department have tried to conceal
messages to me, delay them, hold them up somehow, just because some of those career diplomats
over there aren't in accord with what they know I think. They should be working for Winston.
As a matter of fact, a lot of the time, they are [working for Churchill]. Stop to think of
'em: any number of 'em are convinced that the way for America to conduct its foreign policy
is to find out what the British are doing and then copy that!" I was told six years ago, to
clean out that State Department. It's like the British Foreign Office ."
Before being fired from Truman's cabinet for his advocacy of US-Russia friendship during the
Cold War, Wallace stated:
"American fascism" which has come to be known in recent years as the Deep State. "Fascism
in the postwar inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon imperialism and eventually for
war with Russia. Already American fascists are talking and writing about this conflict and
using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and intolerances toward certain races,
creeds and classes."
In his 1946 Soviet Asia Mission , Wallace said " Before the blood of our boys is scarcely
dry on the field of battle, these enemies of peace try to lay the foundation for World War
III. These people must not succeed in their foul enterprise. We must offset their poison by
following the policies of Roosevelt in cultivating the friendship of Russia in peace as well
as in war."
"... Yes, we must have confidence in all of our 16,000 intelligence agencies because Frank Church exposed just how praiseworthy and trustworthy they are. ..."
Once upon a time in the United States there was a consensus among national politicians that
there were two areas where there should be a unified approach to policy. They were national
security and foreign policy, both of which involved other nations, which made desirable a
perception of unity on the part of the president and his cabinet, no matter who was in power.
That meant that dissent from individual politicians should never rise to the level of pitting
one party against another on the basic Establishment view of what was desirable in terms of
U.S. national interests.
That viewpoint has survived at least somewhat intact to this day, even weathering the
turmoil of Vietnam, but the apple cart has been somewhat upset by new players in the game,
namely the various federal bureaucracies, to include law enforcement, intelligence and the
Pentagon. The 2016 election demonstrated that the FBI and CIA in particular were willing to get
involved in the game of who should be president, and in so doing they compromised major foreign
policy and national security norms, which produced Russiagate as well as the wildly inflated
current claims being leveled against China and Russia and even Iran looking ahead to elections
in November.
As noted above, the Establishment view on foreign and national security policy was based on
the principle that there must always be a united front when dealing with situations that are
being closely watched by foreigners. If a cabinet secretary or the president says something
relating to foreign or military affairs it should be the unified view of both the
administration and the loyal opposition. Unfortunately, with President Donald Trump that
unanimity has broken down, largely because the chief executive either refuses to or is
incapable of staying on script. The most recent false step involved the origin of the corona
virus, with the intelligence community stating that there was no evidence that the virus was
"man made or genetically modified" in a lab followed by the president several hours later
contradicting that view asserting that he had a "high degree of confidence" that the
coronavirus originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China based on secret information
that he could not reveal .
There has also been reports that the Trump White House has in fact been pushing the
intelligence community (IC) to
"hunt for evidence" linking the virus to the Wuhan laboratory, suggesting that the entire
China gambit is mostly political, to have a scapegoat available in case the troubled handling
of the virus in the United States becomes a fiasco and therefore a political liability. This
pressure apparently prompted an additional statement from the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence saying: "The IC will continue to rigorously examine emerging information
and intelligence to determine whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals
or if it was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan."
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who has
claimed without providing any details that there is "overwhelming evidence" that
coronavirus came out of the Wuhan laboratory, is reportedly leading the push to demonize China.
He and other administration officials have expressed their frustration over the C.I.A.'s
apparent inability to come up with a definitive explanation for the outbreak's origin. C.I.A.
analysts have reportedly responded that there is no evidence to support any one theory with
"high confidence" and they are afraid that any equivocating response will immediately be
politicized. Some analysts noted that their close monitoring of communications regarding the
Wuhan lab suggest that the Chinese government itself does not regard the lab as a source of the
contagion.
To be sure, any intelligence community document directly blaming the Chinese government for
the outbreak would have a devastating impact on bilateral relations for years to come, a
consequence that Donald Trump apparently does not appreciate. And previous interactions
initiated by Trump administration officials suggest that Washington might use its preferred
weapon sanctions in an attempt to pressure other nations to also hold China accountable, which
would multiply the damage.
Given what is at stake in light of the White House pressure to prove what might very well be
unprovable, many in the intelligence community who actually value what they do and how they do
it are noticeably annoyed and some have even looked for allies in Congress, where they have
found support from the Pentagon over Administration decision making that is both Quixotic and
heavily politicized.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith of Washington
has responded to the concerns expressed to him by both the military and intelligence
communities, admitting that he is " worried about a culture developing" where many senior
officials are now making decision not on the merits of the case but rather out of fear that
they will upset the president if they do not choose correctly.
While the intelligence agencies are concerned over the fabrication of a false consensus over
the coronavirus, similar to what occurred regarding Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of
mass destruction in 2002-3, the Defense Department is more concerned that fundamental
mechanisms that have been in place since the Second World War are now under attack, including
how the military maintains discipline and punishes officers and enlisted men who have deviated
from established policies.
@Exile "public confidence in government" LOL -- arresting/jailing women for cutting hair
while flushing Child Rapists out of prison because they might catch the Flu that's the
current state of the "Government" in the USA .– look around, also look at the utter
Clowns in Congress who worked with the NWO Globalist Clowns in the FBI/DOJ and CIA to try and
stage a coup to overthrow the last election -- the esteem for the "Intelligence Community" of
this author is laughable, there is no "intelligence" in most of that "Community" but lots of
thugs, networked thieves and career criminals at work enriching themselves and working at
destroying the world and our freedoms as part of that enrichment process --
The CIA is little more than an ongoing Criminal Enterprise (including massive Drug
Dealing/Trafficking and Murder) and has been since its inception, before that their precursor
creeps at OSS murdered Gen. Patton because he was going to run for President to try and take
on/out the massive Communist infiltration in the USA Government that Stalin had working for
him, the actual assassin actually came out years later at some spook reunion and admitted
Bill Donovan had him do it, there's a book written about it . -- the Citizens of the USA
would be much better off without an "Intelligence Community" like the one that ALLOWED 911 to
happen, probably participated in it actually, and which profits off having forever Wars --
John Brennan was a career Officer and the Head/Director of the CIA. Does anyone need to say
anymore as to it given that fact?Disband it and prosecute each and everyone of them for their
previous crimes against humanity.
@Getaclue How about you get a clue instead of telling everyone else to get one. Correct,
intelligence agencies are malevolent, sadistic, undemocratic criminal scoundrels but then so
too is Donald Trump. They want him where he is right now, otherwise he would have been Six
Feet Under five years prior. The intelligence agencies never would have allowed Trump to
ascend if they didn't figure his presidency would be useful in some way. Trump, no doubt
unwittingly, is playing the role they want him to play but that doesn't make him any less
culpable.
Of course the Intel Agencies are going to stay far away from the microphone. They want to
hide in the shadows, because they know exactly where this virus was weaponized. Take your
pick – there are hundreds of BioWeapons labs that belong to the US, Britain, and Israel
– for sure. The only question in the Media [ any media} for the next 6 mos. should be
– who weaponized this virus and spread it. Maybe China, USA, Israel, Britain, and some
others – all should be blamed and their labs destroyed – wouldn't want to be
racist or discriminatory about it – so get rid of them all. Including the CIA ones in
the " higher institutions labs " like Dr. Liebers lab in Harvard .
The core problem is that Donald Trump is a wholly owned asset of the Likud party, but is
merely a figurehead. Serious decisions are being made by a cabal of Jewish appointees like
Steve Mnuchin and Jared Kushner and their organized crime connected partners.
Donald Trump is an undisciplined carnival barker who nevertheless is the only one who can
rally any support among the American population via his personality and false promises. So
the administration is constantly trying to put out fires set by the President's undisciplined
tongue and Twitter account.
Once upon a time in the United States there was a consensus among national politicians
that there were two areas where there should be a unified approach to policy. They were
national security and foreign policy, both of which involved other nations, which made
desirable a perception of unity on the part of the president and his cabinet, no matter who
was in power. That meant that dissent from individual politicians should never rise to the
level of pitting one party against another on the basic Establishment view of what was
desirable in terms of U.S. national interests.
I loved that opening, Mr. Giraldi. You exude pure nostalgia for those good old days of
unanimity on those things that really matter to our entrenched elites, e.g. bigger profits,
bribes, influence, careers. Like, say, 2004 when, after four years of rampant Ziocon lunacy
had destroyed both nearly defenseless Afghanistan and Iraq for no particular reason, the
loyal opposition candidate John Tweedledie Kerry and the incumbent George W. Tweedledum Bush
pretended to battle one another ferociously with exactly the same "national security" and
"foreign policy" platform, so neither one could possibly lose.
After all, we deplorables and our deep state had to stick together then for a Global War
on Terror. Thank heavens, that mysterious 911 caper had come out of the blue just in the nick
of time to replace the 40-year Cold War on the Soviet Union, after the bad Russians had
inconveniently turned into good non-communist Russians. But, of course, things got
complicated when some of CIA-friendly Al Qaeda terrorists then morphed into our occasional
ISIS allies in Syria and Iraq. Nevermind, time now for a new, improved enemy, like the
invisible germs said to be causing the media/government p(l)andemic now replacing freedom and
democracy with masks and lockdowns.
Gore Vidal touched on this quintessential trick of American governance by quoting the
first cold warrior, Harry Truman, who said it was easy, you just scare the pants off the
citizens with the dire threat of some foreign enemy, and the rest is easy. I'm told that
analysts in your old IC alphabet company even pinpointed the last century's biggest disaster
for U.S. political cohesion -- the untimely abdication of the Soviet enemy in 1990. Some
credible new threat had to be found pronto. Now that the terrorist thing hasn't panned out
and the second Russia menace has fizzled, I guess we'll just have to recruit China. Will that
be enough to restore precious Beltway policy unanimity in a bankrupt country looking more and
more like Humpty Dumpty after his fall?
That meant that dissent from individual politicians should never rise to the level of
pitting one party against another on the basic Establishment view of what was desirable in
terms of U.S. national interests.
"individual politicians" (the elected president of the United States) should not be
allowed to deviate from the "basic Establishment view" (Zionist domination of our federal
government)?
Are you the evil twin of the guy who just wrote an article on the USS Liberty?
what was desirable in terms of U.S. national interests
you gotta be fucking kidding me. In what bizarro universe has the ZUS federal government
EVER considered what was good for the American people or U.S. (with out the Z)
national interests?
The 2016 election demonstrated that the FBI and CIA in particular were willing to get
involved in the game of who should be president, and in so doing they compromised major
foreign policy and national security norms, which produced Russiagate
Yes, all true..
the Establishment view on foreign and national security policy was based on the
principle that there must always be a united front when dealing with situations that are
being closely watched by foreigners. If a cabinet secretary or the president says something
relating to foreign or military affairs it should be the unified view of both the
administration and the loyal opposition. Unfortunately, with President Donald Trump that
unanimity has broken down
*"Unfortunately"* ? With all due respect, are you out of your mind, Sir?
largely because the chief executive either refuses to or is incapable of staying on
script.
Perhaps the most succinctly stated defense of president Trump I've ever read. And you say
it in a disparaging way.
The most recent false step involved the origin of the corona virus, with the
intelligence community stating
Dude, since I guess you haven't been paying attention, "the intelligence community" of
this nation has less credibility than even the NYT, (if that's even possible).
Good Lord, is Mr. Giraldi angling to get his job back at the American Cuckservative?
blaming the Chinese government for the outbreak would have a devastating impact on
bilateral relations for years to come, a consequence that Donald Trump apparently does not
appreciate.
The Chinese government looks out for the interests of the Chinese government first, and
the Chinese people second. The interests of the American people are very low on their
list.
In fact, no one has had the interests of the American people on their list for decades,
and indeed, quite the contrary. And our close ties to China have not helped the lot of the
average American one whit, there again- quite the contrary. So perhaps Trump is right about a
more 'arms length' approach to sending our jobs and technology to China. China is not the
enemy, but for once, it would be amazing if our federal government stopped being the enemy of
the American people, which it OBVIOSLY has been now for at least as long as I've been
alive.
Washington might use its preferred weapon sanctions in an attempt to pressure other
nations to also hold China accountable, which would multiply the damage.
If it did so, and if history is any precedent, then it would be doing so for the same
motivation that it does every thing else, because Israel wants it to. Duh.
the White House pressure to prove what might very well be unprovable, many in the
intelligence community who actually value what they do and how they do it are noticeably
annoyed and some have even looked for allies in Congress, where they have found support
from the Pentagon over Administration decision making that is both Quixotic and heavily
politicized.
Mr. G, you worked for the CIA, and we here didn't, but that doesn't mean that we don't all
know very well indeed, exactly what it is that the IC does. (Tell lies and destabilize
governments and assassinate for the (((regime)))). Duh.
How many times have we heard 'all sixteen intelligence agencies all agree that 'babies
were taken out of incubators', or Saddam has WMD, or Assad attacked his own people, or Russia
hacked the election, or God knows how many times they've trotted out that tiresome
(shit-stained) mantra about what 'all sixteen intelligence agencies agrees upon'.
They're traitors and liars, Mr. G. Up and down the line. Scumbags of the very worst sort.
And you act like they still have a shred of credibility. It's astounding!
where many senior officials are now making decision not on the merits of the case
OK, what have you done with Phil, evil twin? Since when has the IC ever given a rat's ass
about the 'merits of the case'?!
They're whores, Sir. Have you ever heard of a guy named John F. Kennedy?
While the intelligence agencies are concerned over the fabrication of a false
consensus
Why, because for once their lies and fabrications aren't being believed anymore?
similar to what occurred regarding Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass
destruction in 2002-3, the Defense Department is more concerned that fundamental mechanisms
that have been in place since the Second World War are now under attack, including how the
military maintains discipline and punishes officers and enlisted men who have deviated from
established policies.
Ahhh..
OK, I'm finally starting to get it . Sorry for being so slow.
This is a sardonic mocking of the IC! And the entire lied-about narrative we've all
marinated since WWII. I of all people should have seen that coming.
Kudos Sir, you had me there for a while!
Navy Captain Brett Crozier, who was relieved of his command after he went public with
complains about the spread of coronavirus on his ship. In early April the president said "I
may just get involved."
Every decent person in America wanted Captain Crozier exonerated. Yep, this is an oblique,
veiled paean to the president.
Who'd a thunk it'd come from Dr. G?!
To be sure, Donald Trump is not about to change and if he is re-elected one can only
expect four more years of the same, but public confidence in government can only be
maintained if there is at least some belief that decision making is a rational process.
"public confidence in government', as if that exists. And since it hasn't in my lifetime,
Dr. G. is using his high-powered mind to psychologically reverse / point out that Trump is
the alternative to our current and long lasting "public confidence in government" and all the
respect we Americans have in our "intelligence community'.
It's pure genius.
His implying that what we all really need is to return to putting our faith in John
Brennan and James Comey, and things will return to 'normal'. Hehe.
My hat is off to you Sir.
His characterization of senior officials, many of whom he himself appointed, as "losers"
casts the entire government in a bad light. Whether the strategy of divide and conquer
within one's own administration will work out for Trump will certainly be decided in
November.
Not since Michael Moore's 'fuck you' video, has anyone tried so hard to "impugn" Donald
Trump, while effectively accomplishing the exact opposite.
MSM now run under control of intelligence agencies and use State Department of Foreign Office talking points, much like in the USSR, where this role was played by communist Party
Notable quotes:
"... Part of the problem is that newspapers have morphed into viewspapers. The distinction between reporting and comment has been blurred. Back in the 70s, leading publications only had one comment piece and an editorial. Their pages were packed with news items, with stories reported factually and without a 'bent'. ..."
"... Today, comment has taken over, but while there's no shortage of 'opinion', most of it is saying very much the same thing. I think we first saw this phenomenon in the lead up to the Iraq War. I was one of the very few mainstream commentators who ridiculed the claim that Iraq had WMDs. It was obvious to me that if the leaders of the UK and US genuinely believed Saddam possessed these terrible weapons, they wouldn't be planning to do the one thing which would provoke the Iraqi leader into using them, i.e. invade his country. Yet the Great WMDs Hoax, which a child of five could see through, was promoted by nearly all 'serious' journalists. The most vociferous media cheerleaders for the invasion faced no professional blowback, on the contrary, their careers have flourished. ..."
Trust in the written press in Britain is the lowest in 33 European countries. That's hardly surprising seeing how so many journalists
have become mere stenographers for, or lackeys of, the Establishment power elites. Just when you think the reputation of the UK media
couldn't sink any lower, it just did. An annual survey undertaken by EurobarometerEU, across 33 countries, puts the UK at the bottom,
with a net trust of -60. Yes that's right, minus 60 . It's a fall of 24 points since last year. Just 15 percent of Brits trust
their print media. But it's not the only survey showing a similar trend.
The attached graphic about trust in the written press, published last week, has not been widely reported in Britain. This is
a huge annual survey by @EurobarometerEU
across 33 countries. It's the ninth year out of the past ten that the UK has been last. We have a problem.
pic.twitter.com/8eYoQR7XZw
Newspapers came in rock bottom (with a rating of -50) in a YouGov poll on Sky where the question was asked, "How much do you
trust the following on Coronavirus?" And in case you think it's only the Sun we're talking about here, another poll showed that
distrust of so-called 'upmarket' papers was running at 52 percent.
How did we get here? I've got a collection of old newspapers and magazines dating back several decades. Part of the problem
is that newspapers have morphed into viewspapers. The distinction between reporting and comment has been blurred. Back in the 70s,
leading publications only had one comment piece and an editorial. Their pages were packed with news items, with stories reported
factually and without a 'bent'.
Today, comment has taken over, but while there's no shortage of 'opinion', most of it is saying very much the same thing.
I think we first saw this phenomenon in the lead up to the Iraq War. I was one of the very few mainstream commentators who ridiculed
the claim that Iraq had WMDs. It was obvious to me that if the leaders of the UK and US genuinely believed Saddam possessed these
terrible weapons, they wouldn't be planning to do the one thing which would provoke the Iraqi leader into using them, i.e. invade
his country. Yet the Great WMDs Hoax, which a child of five could see through, was promoted by nearly all 'serious' journalists.
The most vociferous media cheerleaders for the invasion faced no professional blowback, on the contrary, their careers have flourished.
As bad as the Iraq War propaganda was, things have got even worse since then. Obnoxious gatekeepers have ensured that the parameters
of what can and can't be said in print have narrowed still further.
In the mid-Noughties, I was writing regularly in the UK mainstream print media. So too was John Pilger. Our articles were popular
with readers, but not with the gatekeepers. When I
wrote a balanced, alternative
view on Belarus for the New Statesman in 2011, I came under fierce gatekeeper attack.
I forgot that on Belarus and many other issues, only one point of view was allowed. Silly me.
Only one thing can save UK print press
Today, the lack of diversity of opinion is one of the reasons why newspaper sales have crashed – (sales have
slumped by two-thirds in the past 20 years), and conversely why 'alternative' sites, and media outlets where a wide range of
opinions ARE heard have done so well. Who wants to pay money for a paper when the political views published in it range from pro-war
centrist-left, to pro-war centrist-right?
If there was a single newspaper or magazine column which examined forensically whether Labour really did have an anti-Semitism
'crisis' under Jeremy Corbyn, I must have missed it.
And apart from Mary Dejevsky in the i paper, where was the journalism examining the many inconsistencies in the official narrative
of the Skripal case? Why has 'Private Eye', which bills itself as 'anti-Establishment', not covered the ongoing Philip Cross Wikipedia
editing scandal ?
I'm sure the old 'Eye' of Richard Ingrams and Bron Waugh would have if Wikipedia had been around then.
And what about the Covid-19 coverage? Has any journalist asked the very simple question: if the virus is as bad as the government
says it is, and a domestic lockdown is necessary to stop its spread, why have flights continued to come into the country (including
from virus hotspots) unchecked?
Don't get me wrong, there are still some good columnists out there, but sadly you can count them on one hand.
The only thing that can save UK print media from total collapse is if there is a large-scale clear-out of the faux-left/neocon-dominated
commentariat and their replacement by writers who actually address the issues that readers are interested in. Newspapers used to
be published for their readers, now it seems most are published for people who write for other newspapers – and to enable 'Inside
the Tenters' to congratulate each other for their 'brilliant' articles on Twitter.
The smug, mutual back-slapping nonsense, seen at its worst at journalist 'award' ceremonies, has gone on for too long. We need
more old-style chain-smoking journos, not frightened of telling truth to power – and less smoke and mirrors.
Trust in British print media can be restored, but only if we go back to the future.
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
Neil Clark is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. His award winning blog can be found at www.neilclark66.blogspot.com.
He tweets on politics and world affairs @NeilClark66 is a journalist,
writer, broadcaster and blogger. His award winning blog can be found at www.neilclark66.blogspot.com. He tweets on politics and world
affairs @NeilClark66 6 May, 2020 17:39
Get short URL
75 years ago Germany surrendered to allied forces finally ending the ravages of the Second
World War.
Today, as the world celebrates the 75th anniversary of this victory, why not think very
seriously about finally winning that war once and for all?
If you're confused by this statement, then you might want to sit down and take a deep breath
before reading on. Within the next 12 minutes, you will likely discover a disturbing fact which
may frighten you a little bit: The allies never actually won World War II
Now please don't get me wrong. I am eternally thankful for the immortal souls who gave their
lives to put down the fascist machine during those bleak years but the fact is that a certain
something wasn't resolved on the 9th of May, 1945 which has a lot to do with the slow
re-emergence of a new form of fascism during the second half of the 20th century and the
renewed danger of a global bankers' dictatorship which the world faces again today.
It is my contention that it is only when we find the courage to really look at this problem
with sober eyes, that we will be able to truly honor our courageous forebears who devoted their
lives to winning a peace for their children, grandchildren and humanity more broadly.
The
Ugly Truth of WWII
I'll stop beating around the Bush now and just say it: Adolph Hitler or Benito Mussolini
were never "their own men".
The machines they led were never fully under their sovereign control and the financing they
used as fuel in their effort to dominate the world did not come from the Banks of Italy or
Germany. The technologies they used in petrochemicals, rubber, and computing didn't come from
Germany or Italy, and the governing scientific ideology of eugenics that drove so many of the
horrors of Germany's racial purification practices never originated in the minds of German
thinkers or from German institutions.
Were it not for a powerful network of financiers and industrialists of the 1920s-1940s with
names such as Rockefeller, Warburg, Montague Norman, Osborn, Morgan, Harriman or Dulles, then
it can safely be said that fascism would never have been possible as a "solution" to the
economic woes of the post-WWI order. To prove this point, let us take the strange case of
Prescott Bush as a useful entry point.
The patriarch of the same Bush dynasty that gave the world two disastrous American
presidents (and nearly a third had Donald Trump not annihilated Jeb at the last minute in 2016)
made a name for himself funding Nazism alongside his business partners Averell Harrimen and
Averell's younger brother E. Roland Harriman (the latter who was to recruit Prescott to Skull
and Bones while both studying at Yale). Not only did Prescott, acting as director of Brown
Brothers Harriman, provide valuable loans to keep the bankrupt Nazi party afloat during
Hitler's loss of support in 1932 when the German population voted into office the anti-Fascist
General Kurt von Schleicher as Chancellor, but was even found guilty for "Trading with the
enemy" as director of Union Banking Corporation in 1942!
That's right! As demonstrated in the 1992 Unauthorized Biography of
George Bush , eleven months after America entered WWII, the Federal Government naturally
conducted an investigation of all Nazi banking operations in the USA and wondered why Prescott
continued to direct a bank which was so deeply enmeshed with Fritz Thyssen's Bank voor Handel
en Scheepvart of the Netherlands. Thyssen for those who are un-aware is the German industrial
magnate famous for writing the book "I Paid Hitler".
The bank itself was tied to a German combine called Steel Works of the German Steel Trust which
controlled 50.8% of Nazi Germany's pig iron, 41.4% of its universal plate, 38.5% of its
galvanized steel, 45.5% of its pipes and 35% of its explosives. Under Vesting Order 248,
the U.S. federal government seized all of Prescott's properties on October 22, 1942.
The U.S.-German Steel combine was only one small part of a broader operation as
Rockefeller's Standard Oil had created a new international cartel alongside IG Farben (the
fourth largest company in the world) in 1929 under the Young Plan . Owen Young was a JP
Morgan asset who headed General Electric and instituted a German debt repayment plan in 1928
that gave rise to the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) and consolidated an international
cartel of industrialists and financiers on behalf of the City of London and Wall Street. The
largest of these cartels saw Henry Ford's German operations merging with IG Farben, Dupont
industries, Britain's Shell and Rockefeller's Standard Oil. The 1928 cartel agreement also made
it possible for Standard Oil to pass off all patents and technologies for the creation of
synthetic gasoline from coal to IG Farben thus allowing Germany to rise from producing merely
300 000 tons of natural petroleum in 1934 to an incredible 6.5 million tons (85% of its total)
during WWII! Had this patent/technology transfer not taken place, it is a fact that the modern
mechanized warfare that characterized WWII could never have occurred.
Two years before the Young Plan began, JP Morgan had already
given a $100 million loan to Mussolini's newly established fascist regime in Italy- with
Democratic Party kingmaker Thomas Lamont playing the role of Prescott Bush in Wall Street's
Italian operation. It wasn't only JP Morgan who loved Mussolini's brand of corporate fascism,
but Time Magazine's Henry Luce
unapologetically gushed over Il Duce putting Mussolini on the cover of Time eight times
between 1923 and 1943 while relentlessly promoting fascism as the "economic miracle solution
for America" (which he also did in his other two magazines Fortune and Life). Many desperate
Americans, still traumatized from the long and painful depression begun in 1929, had
increasingly embraced the poisonous idea that an American fascism would put food on the table
and finally find help them find work.
A few words should be said of Brown Brothers Harriman.
Bush's Nazi bank itself was the spawn of an earlier 1931 merger which took place between
Montagu Norman's family bank (Brown Brothers) and Harriman, Bush and Co. Montague Norman was
the Governor of the Bank of England from 1920 to 1944, leader of the Anglo-German Fellowship
Trust and controller of Germany's Hjalmar Schacht (Reichsbank president from 1923-1930 and
Minister of Economy from 1934-1937). Norman was also the primary controller of the Bank of
International Settlements (BIS) from its creation in 1930 throughout the entirety of
WWII.
The Central Bank of Central Banks
Although the BIS was established under the Young Plan and nominally steered by Schacht as a
mechanism for debt repayments from WWI, the Swiss-based "Central Bank of Central Banks" was the
key mechanism for international financiers to fund the Nazi machine. The fact that the BIS was
under the total control of Montagu Norman was revealed by Dutch Central Banker Johan Beyen
who said "Norman's prestige was overwhelming. As the apostle of central bank cooperation,
he made the central banker into a kind of arch-priest of monetary religion. The BIS was, in
fact, his creation."
The founding members of the Board included the private central banks of Britain, France,
Germany, Italy and Belgium as well as a coterie of 3 private American banks (JP Morgan, First
National of Chicago, and First National of New York). The three American banks merged after the
war and are today known as Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase.
In its founding constitution, the BIS, its directors and staff were given immunity from all
sovereign national laws and not even authorities in Switzerland were permitted to enter its
premises.
This story was conveyed powerfully in a 1998 History Channel documentary entitled Banking
with Hitler.
A Word on Eugenics
Nazi support in the build up to, and during WWII didn't end with finance and industrial
might, but extended to the governing scientific ideology of the third Reich: Eugenics (aka: the
science of Social Darwinism as developed by Thomas Huxley's X Club associate Herbert Spencer
and Darwin's cousin sir Francis Galton decades earlier). In 1932, New York hosted the Third
Eugenics Conference co-sponsored by William Draper Jr (JP Morgan banker, head of General Motors
and leading figure of Dillon Read and co) and the Harriman family. This conference brought
together leading eugenicists from around the world who came to study America's successful
application of eugenics laws which had begun in 1907 under the enthusiastic patronage of
Theodore Roosevelt. Hiding behind the respectable veneer of "science" these high priests of
science discussed the new age of "directed evolution of man" which would soon be made possible
under a global scientific dictatorship.
Speaking at the conference, leading British Fascist Fairfield Osborn said that eugenics:
"aids and encourages the survival and multiplication of the fittest; indirectly, it would
check and discourage the multiplication of the unfitted. As to the latter, in the United States
alone, it is widely recognized that there are millions of people who are acting as dragnets or
sheet anchors on the progress of the ship of state While some highly competent people are
unemployed, the mass of unemployment is among the less competent, who are first selected for
suspension, while the few highly competent people are retained because they are still
indispensable. In nature, these less-fitted individuals would gradually disappear, but in
civilization, we are keeping them in the community in the hopes that in brighter days, they may
all find employment. This is only another instance of humane civilization going directly
against the order of nature and encouraging the survival of the un-fittest".
The dark days of the great depression were good years for bigotry and ignorance as eugenics
laws were applied to two Canadian provinces ,
and widely spread across Europe and America with 30 U.S. states applying eugenics laws to
sterilize the unfit. Eugenics' successful growth was due in large measure to the fierce
financial support of the Rockefeller Foundation and the science magazine Nature which had been
created in 1865 by T.H. Huxley's X Club. The Rockefeller Foundation went onto fund
German eugenics and most specifically the rising star of human improvement Joseph
Mengele.
The Nazi Frankenstein Monster is Aborted
Describing his January 29, 1935 meeting with Hitler, Round Table controller Lord Lothian
quoted the Fuhrer's vision for Aryan co-direction of the New World Order saying:
"Germany, England, France, Italy, America and Scandinavia should arrive at some agreement
whereby they would prevent their nationals from assisting in the industrializing of countries
such as China, and India. It is suicidal to promote the establishment in the agricultural
countries of Asia of manufacturing industries"
While it is obvious that much more can be said on the topic, the Fascist machine didn't
fully behave the way the Dr. Frankensteins in London wished, as Hitler began to realize that
his powerful military machine gave Germany the power to lead the New World Order rather than
play second fiddle as mere enforcers on behalf of their Anglo masters in Britain. While many
London and Wall Street oligarchs were willing to adapt to this new reality, a decision was made
to abort the plan, and try to fight another day.
To do this a scandal was concocted to justify the abdication of
pro-Nazi King Edward VIII in 1936 and an appeasing Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was
replaced with Winston Churchill in 1940. While Sir Winston was a life long racist,
eugenicist and even
Mussolini-admirer, he was first and foremost a devout British Imperialist and as such would
fight tooth and nail to save the prestige of the Empire if it were threatened. Which he
did.
The Fascists vs Franklin Roosevelt
Within America itself, the pro-fascist Wall Street establishment had been loosing a war that
began the day anti-fascist President Franklin Roosevelt was elected in 1932. Not only had their
attempted February 1933
assassination failed , their 1934 coup d'etat plans
were also thwarted by a patriotic General named Smedley Darlington Butler. To make matters
worse, their efforts to keep America out of the war in the hopes of co-leading the New World
Order alongside Germany, France and Italy was also falling apart. A As I outlined in my recent
article
How to Crush a Bankers' Dictatorship , between 1933-1939, FDR had imposed sweeping reforms
on the banking sector, thwarted a major attempt to create a global Bankers' dictatorship under
the Bank of International Settlements, and mobilized a broad recovery under the New Deal.
By 1941, Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor polarized the American psyche so deeply that
resisting America's entry into WWII as Wall Street's American Liberty League had been doing up
until then, became political suicide. Wall Street's corporatist organizations were called out
by FDR during a powerful
1938 speech as the president reminded the Congress of the true nature of fascism:
"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the
growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state
itself. That, in its essence, is fascism – ownership of government by an individual, by a
group, or by any other controlling private power Among us today a concentration of private
power without equal in history is growing. This concentration is seriously impairing the
economic effectiveness of private enterprise as a way of providing employment for labor and
capital and as a way of assuring a more equitable distribution of income and earnings among the
people of the nation as a whole."
While America's entry into WWII proved a decisive factor in the destruction of the fascist
machine,
the dream shared by Franklin Roosevelt, Henry Wallace and many of FDR's closest allies
across America, Canada, Europe, China and Russia for a world governed by large-scale
development, and win-win cooperation did not come to pass.
Even though FDR's ally Harry Dexter White led in the fight to shut down the Bank of
International Settlements during the July 1944 Bretton Woods conference, the passage of White's
resolutions to dissolve BIS and audit its books were never put into action. While White,
who was to become the first head of the IMF, defended FDR's program to create a new
anti-imperial system of finance, Fabian
Society leader, and devout eugenicist John Maynard Keynes
defended the Bank and pushed instead to redefine the post-war system around a one world
currency called the Bancor, controlled by the Bank of England and BIS.
The Fascist
Resurgence in the Post-War World
By the end of 1945, the Truman Doctrine and
Anglo-American "special relationship" replaced
FDR's anti-colonial vision, while an anti-communist witch hunt turned America into a
fascist police state under FBI surveillance. Everyone friendly to Russia was targeted for
destruction and the first to feel that targeting were FDR's close allies Henry Wallace and
Harry Dexter White whose 1948 death while campaigning for Wallace's presidential bid put an end
to anti-colonialists running the IMF.
In the decades after WWII, those same financiers who brought the world fascism went straight
back to work infiltrating FDR's Bretton Woods Institutions such as the IMF and World Bank,
turning them from tools of development, into tools of enslavement. This process was fully
exposed in the 2004 book Confessions of an
Economic Hit man by John Perkins.
The European banking houses representing the old nobility of the empire continued through
this reconquering of the west without punishment. By 1971, the man whom Perkins exposed as the
chief economic hit man George Schultz, orchestrated the removal of the U.S. dollar from the
Gold-reserve, fixed exchange rate system director of the Office of Management of Budget and in
the same year, the
Rothschild Inter-Alpha Group of banks was created to usher in a new age of globalization.
This 1971 floating of the dollar ushered in a new paradigm of consumerism, post-industrialism,
and de-regulation which transformed the once productive western nations into speculative
"post-truth" basket cases convinced that casino principles, bubbles and windmills were
substitutes for agro-industrial economic practices.
So here we are in 2020 celebrating victory over fascism.
The children and grandchildren of those heroes of 1945 now find themselves attached to the
biggest financial collapse in history with $1.5 quadrillion of fictitious capital ripe to
explode under a new global hyperinflation akin to that which destroyed
Weimar in 1923 , but this time global. The Bank of International Settlements that should
have been dissolved in 1945 today controls the Financial Stability Board and thus regulates the
world derivatives trade which has become the weapon of mass destruction that has been triggered
to unleash more chaos upon the world than Hitler could have ever dreamed.
The saving grace today is that the anti-fascist spirit of Franklin Roosevelt is alive in the
form of modern anti-imperialists Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and a growing array of nations
united under the umbrella of the New Deal of the 21st Century which has come
to be called the "Belt and Road Initiative".
Had Prescott's grandson Jeb (or Prescott's spiritual grand daughter Hillary) found
themselves in the position of President of the USA at this moment, it is unlikely that I would
be writing this now, as I'm fairly certain WWIII would have already been launched. However,
with President Trump having successfully survived nearly four years of Deep State subversion,
and having called repeatedly for a positive alliance with Russia and China, a chance still
exists to take the types of emergency actions needed at this moment of existential crisis to do
what FDR had always intended, and win World War II.
"... While this elite Pulitzer jury praised the New York Times for "at great risk, exposing the predations of Vladimir Putin's regime," it is not exactly clear what that "risk" is supposed to entail – because the major US newspaper appears to have stolen at least part of its reporting from Russian journalists . ..."
"... On May 4, journalist Roman Badanin published a Facebook post accusing the Times of ripping off a story he had released months before without credit. Badanin is the founder and editor-in-chief of the liberal anti-Putin news website Proekt , known as The Project in English. ..."
"... This report is eerily similar to a report published by the New York Times eight months later, in November , titled " How Russia Meddles Abroad for Profit : Cash, Trolls and a Cult Leader." This story, which was filed in Madagascar, does not once link to or credit Proekt's original reporting . ..."
"... Another anti-Putin Russian news website, Meduza, published an article on May 7 drawing attention to these allegations, titled " 'Fuck the Pulitzer -- I just want a hyperlink' : Russian journalists say 'The New York Times' should have acknowledged their investigative work in the newspaper's award-winning reports about the Putin regime's 'predations.'" ..."
"... Meduza interviewed Badanin, who said the New York Times "report about Madagascar from November 2019 repeats all the main and even secondary conclusions from our reporting about Madagascar and Africa generally between March and April last year." ..."
"... Badanin was also given a Stanford John S. Knight international fellowship in journalism. Stanford University has established itself as an outpost for Russian pro-Western liberals, and its journalist fellowship program provides institutional support for dissidents in countries targeted by Washington for regime change. ..."
"... The Times even featured Badanin prominently in the header image of the story -- just two years before the same newspaper would go on to rip off his reporting. ..."
The New York Times has been accused for a second time of stealing major scoops from Russian
journalists . One of those stories won the Times a Pulitzer Prize this May.
The journalists who have accused the Times of taking their work without credit also happen
to be the same liberal media crusaders against Vladimir Putin that Western correspondents at
the Times and other mainstream outlets have cast as persecuted heroes. The Pulitzer Prize Board is comprised of a who's who
of media aristocrats and Ivy League bigwigs. Given the elite backgrounds of the judges, it is
hardly a surprise that they rewarded reporting reinforcing the narrative of the new US Cold War
against official enemies like Russia and China .
Stephen Kinzer, a former New York Times correspondent who has since become a critic of US
foreign policy, noted that the three finalists in the Pulitzer Prize in international reporting
"were one story about how evil Russia is and two about how evil China is. These choices
encourage reporters to write stories that reinforce rather than question Washington's
foreign-policy narrative."
The finalists nominated in this category were Reuters and the New York Times for two
separate sets of stories.
The US newspaper of record ended up winning the 2020 award in international
reporting , for what the Pulitzer jury described as "a set of enthralling stories, reported
at great risk, exposing the predations of Vladimir Putin's regime."
The 3 finalists in the #PulitzerPrize2020
"international reporting" category were one story about how evil #Russia is and two
about how evil #China is. These
choices encourage reporters to write stories that reinforce rather than question Washington's
foreign-policy narative.
The Times was nominated again as a finalist for what the jury called its "gripping accounts
that disclosed China's top-secret efforts to repress millions of Muslims through a system of
labor camps, brutality and surveillance."
The staff of Reuters was selected as the third finalist for its reporting in support of
anti-China
protesters in Hong
Kong . (The photography staff of Reuters ended up winning the Pulitzer Prize in breaking
news photography for the same coverage.)
Among the five members of the Pulitzer jury
who selected these finalists was Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of the neoliberal
magazine The Atlantic and a former volunteer in the Israeli army who worked as a guard at a prison camp
where Palestinians who rose up in the First Intifada were interned.
Joining Goldberg on the jury was Susan Chira, a former New York Times editor.
While this elite Pulitzer jury praised the New York Times for "at great risk, exposing the
predations of Vladimir Putin's regime," it is not exactly clear what that "risk" is supposed to
entail – because the major US newspaper appears to have stolen at least part of its
reporting from Russian journalists .
On May 4, journalist Roman Badanin published a Facebook
post accusing the Times of ripping off a story he had released months before without
credit. Badanin is the founder and editor-in-chief of the liberal anti-Putin news website
Proekt , known as The Project in
English.
"I have no illusions about the real role of Russian journalism in the world, but I have to
note: the two The New York Times's investigations, for which this honored newspaper won the
Pulitzer prize yesterday, repeat the findings of The Project's articles published a few months
before," Badanin wrote on Facebook.
"I would also like to note that the winners did not put a single link to the English version
of our article, even when, for example, 8 months after The Project, they told about the
activities of Eugene Prigozhin's emissaries in Madagascar," he added.
Badanin linked to an article he published, both in Russian and English, back in March 2019
titled " Master and Chef : How
Evgeny Prigozhin led the Russian offensive in Africa." The story details how the businessman
Evgenу Prigozhin, who is sanctioned by the US government, has been promoting business
opportunities in Africa. The piece focuses specifically on Madagascar, where Russia also has a
military agreement.
This report is eerily similar to a report published by the New York Times eight months
later, in November , titled " How Russia
Meddles Abroad for Profit : Cash, Trolls and a Cult Leader." This story, which was filed in
Madagascar, does not once link to or credit Proekt's original reporting .
Another anti-Putin Russian news website, Meduza, published an article on May 7 drawing
attention to these allegations, titled " 'Fuck the
Pulitzer -- I just want a hyperlink' : Russian journalists say 'The New York Times' should
have acknowledged their investigative work in the newspaper's award-winning reports about the
Putin regime's 'predations.'"
Meduza interviewed Badanin, who said the New York Times "report about Madagascar from
November 2019 repeats all the main and even secondary conclusions from our reporting about
Madagascar and Africa generally between March and April last year."
While Badanin did not outright accuse the Times of plagiarism, he was frustrated that
"nowhere in the story did they acknowledge that we'd already reported on this topic," and said
it was either a "professional issue" or an "ethical problem."
A New York Times spokesperson denied that Proekt's reporting was used in any way. And the
Times reporter who authored this report from Madagascar, Michael Schwirtz , responded
dismissively to the accusations in a Twitter thread full of sarcastic quips.
Another
anti-Putin Russian activist accuses the New York Times of lifting his reporting
Michael Schwirtz authored another New York Times article in December that was cited by the
Pulitzer jury for the 2020 prize. This piece, "How a Poisoning
in Bulgaria Exposed Russian Assassins in Europe," is also suspiciously similar to reporting
published before by yet another anti-Putin website, called The Insider .
The Insider is edited by the Western-backed, diehard anti-Putin activist Roman Dobrokhotov.
In response to Schwirtz's Twitter thread, Dobrohotov angrily asked why The Insider's reports
were not credited as well. Schwirtz denied having used information from the previous
stories.
Schwirtz's Twitter thread tagged four Russian accounts: Proekt, The Insider, Dobrokhotov,
and Yasha Levine, the last of whom is an occasional contributor to The Grayzone and the author of " Surveillance Valley ."
Time to learn the hard truth: The New York Times -- like the Empire it represents --
doesn't give a fuck about you. It'll take whatever it wants, give nothing in return, and
suffer no consequences. And who'll believe you Russians anyway? https://t.co/V1YtZ7K6OB
"Time to learn the hard truth: The New York Times -- like the Empire it represents --
doesn't give a fuck about you. It'll take whatever it wants, give nothing in return, and
suffer no consequences. And who'll believe you Russians anyway?"
"The reverence with which liberal Russian journalists have treated the New York Times has
always been baffling to me," Levine continued. "But that's what you get when you're a colonial
subject like Russia. You fetishize the master. That reverence is starting to wear off, but it's
still there."
New York Times was also accused of stealing Russian journalists' reporting
back in 2017
This is not even the first time that the US newspaper of record has been accused of stealing
reporting from Russian journalists.
Back in 2017, the New York Times won the Pulitzer Prize in international reporting for its
reports on "Vladimir Putin's efforts to project Russia's power abroad."
At the time, journalists from the anti-Putin website Meduza accused the Times of ripping off
their reporting. The website Global Voices highlighted the controversy, in an article titled
"Russian Journalists Say One of
NYT's Pulitzer-Winning Stories Was Stolen ."
Meduza reported Daniil Turovsky accused New York Times Moscow correspondent Andrew E. Kramer
of lifting his reporting. Kramer actually took the time to respond in a Facebook comment,
acknowledging that his report was based on the Russian journalist's.
"Daniil, I spoke with you while preparing this article and explained that I intended to
follow in the footsteps of your fine work, that I would credit Meduza, as I did, and thanked
you for your help," Kramer said.
This did not satisfy Meduza, which also reminded readers in its latest 2020 article that the
Times had ripped off its 2017 reporting.
The NYT times has been honored with a Pulitzer Prize for "exposing the predations of
Vladimir Putin's regime" in 2019, but several top investigative journalists in Russia say the
U.S. newspaper ignored their groundbreaking work in this area -- again. https://t.co/R4WZdqHDp4
The Grayzone has also experienced this kind of shameless journalistic theft. In March 2019,
the New York Times released a report acknowledging that the so-called "humanitarian aid" convoy
that the US government tried to ram across the Venezuelan border in a February coup attempt had
been set on
fire not by government forces, but rather Washington-backed right-wing opposition
hooligans.
At the time of this February 23 putsch attempt, the Times had initially joined US
politicians like Senator Marco Rubio and the majority of the corporate media in blaming
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. But The Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal, who was
reporting in Venezuela, published a report
showing that all of the available evidence pointed to the opposition being responsible.
When the Times finally admitted this fact weeks later, it made no mention whatsoever of
Blumenthal's reporting.
Glenn Greenwald was the only high-profile journalist to credit Blumenthal and The
Grayzone.
New York Times had ironically heroized these Russian journalists before
stealing their reporting
Further compounding this staggering hypocrisy is the fact that the New York Times has in
fact published numerous articles lionizing these anti-Putin Russian journalists, while
simultaneously ripping off their work.
Proekt founder and editor Roman Badanin is not some kind of crypto pro-Kremlin activist
– far from it. He has spent years working within mainstream outlets, and was previously
the editor-in-chief of the decidedly anti-Putin Russian edition of Forbes magazine.
Badanin does friendly interviews with US-based neoconservative think tanks like the
Free Russia Foundation , a
right-wing anti-Putin lobbying group that appointed regime-changer Michael Weiss as its
director for special investigations.
In an
interview conducted by Valeria Jegisman , a neoconservative
anti-Russian activist who worked as a spokesperson for the government of Estonia and now works
at the US government's propaganda arm Voice of America, group accused the Kremlin of spreading
false information, claiming "Russia will continue its disinformation tactics."
Badanin also called for "the West" to "support independent media projects with non-profit
funding," stating clearly: "I think that what the West can do is to continue to support
independent media in the most transparent and clear way, and to stop being afraid of the
million tricks that the Russian authorities come up with to force the West to abandon these
investments."
The Russian journalist's pro-Western perspective has been rewarded. Badanin was honored by
the European Press Prize , a
program backed by Western governments and the top corporate media outlets in Europe,
particularly The Guardian and Reuters.
Badanin was also given a Stanford John S. Knight international fellowship in journalism.
Stanford University has established itself as an outpost for Russian pro-Western liberals, and
its journalist fellowship program provides institutional support for dissidents in countries
targeted by Washington for regime change.
Badanin's extensive links to Western regime-change institutions should not come as a
surprise to the New York Times; it has in fact honored him in numerous articles.
In 2017, the Times published an entire article framed around Badanin. Reporter Jim Rutenberg
explained, "I wanted to better understand President Trump's America So I
went to Russia ."
In Moscow, Rutenberg met with Badanin at the headquarters of the anti-Putin station TV Rain,
which he described as a "warehouse complex here, populated by young people with beards,
tattoos, piercings and colored hair. (Brooklyn hipster imperialism knows no bounds.)"
While praising Badanin and TV Rain, the Times also noted that the channel published a poll
suggesting that the Soviet Union "should have abandoned Leningrad to the Nazis to save
lives."
The Times even featured Badanin prominently in the header image of the story -- just two
years before the same newspaper would go on to rip off his reporting.
The New York Times also reported on Roman Badanin in
2016 and
2011 . It is abundantly clear the newspaper knew who he was.
The Gray Lady's willingness to snatch Badanin's reporting shows how little respect
newspapers like the New York Times actually have for the anti-Putin journalists they claim to
lionize . For the jet-setting correspondents of Western corporate media outlets, liberal
Russian reporters are just tools to advance their own ambitions.
To pretend that these people were "apolitical professionals" is absurd and Giraldi
knows it.
You can take that to the bank, Sir.
I hope he has the guts to dismiss (without medals or handshakes) a large percentage of
the senior intel community executives. Ditto for Trump and the military.
Every single thinking person of sound charactor with hopes for their children, agrees with
you.
And no doubt so does Dr. G. He just has a very sardonic way of saying it.
We've had traitors and scumbags running the CIA ever since the coup on November 22,
1963.
They've brought narcotics to this nation's young people, while fomenting wars and strife.
They've worked hand and hand with the (((media))) to lie to the American public, (and beyond,
see Ulfkotte, Udo).
Our 'intelligence community' knew about the USS Liberty, and helped to cover it up.
It was involved with the assassination of JFK at the highest levels. George H. Bush was
one of them, and we all remember his 'babies from the incubators'.
Worst of all, it was the Intelligence Community that helped the neocons perpetrate and
then cover up 9/11.
Anyone who could pretend that they are patriots (I almost couldn't even write that word,
it's an abomination to use it and the IC in the same sentence), are either dumber than a box
of rocks, or lying.
How am I wrong about that?
Who, in their right mind, would suggest that the CIA / FBI / ATF / DEA are anything other
than out-of-control thugs, especially after Waco and Ruby Ridge? And especially after
9/11.
They tried to take down a duly elected president of the United States. And I would
consider that a hanging offence, if true.
From what Mr. G has said in this article:
The 2016 election demonstrated that the FBI and CIA in particular were willing to get
involved in the game of who should be president, and in so doing they compromised major
foreign policy and national security norms, which produced Russiagate
It is true, and we all know it.
I suspect that Mr. G. knows a lot of former and current members of the CIA and others in
the IC.
And that is why he's trying to make it sound like he hates Trump as much as they no doubt
do. But I love the way he went about it, by pitting Trump's status and an outsider to the
Establishment, against the entrenched forces of the IC and Pentagon, to point out why the
deepstate hates him and wants him destroyed.
Just imagine how the former Secretary of the Navy feels about Trump today.
He joins Comey and Brenan and McCabe and Stzrok and Muller and Vindman and all those
entrenched diplomats and other scum who abused the levers of federal law enforcement power
for their own personal and political agendas going back at least to the Bush/Clinton
years.
And all of them are fuming with apoplectic rage at Trump, who's exposed the rot, and has
taken down a host of deepstate rats.
Hate Trump all you want, but how can you not at least applaud him for that?
|
Ethan Paul dismantles H.R.
McMaster's "analysis"
of the Chinese government and shows how McMaster abuses the idea of strategic empathy for his
own ends:
But the reality is that McMaster, and others committed to great power competition, is
actually playing the role of Johnson and McNamara. This shines through clearest in McMaster's
selective, and ultimately flawed, application of strategic empathy.
Just as Johnson and McNamara used the Joint Chiefs as political props, soliciting their
advice or endorsement only when it could legitimize policy conclusions they had already come
to, McMaster uses strategic empathy as a symbolic exercise in self-validation. By conceiving
of China's perspective solely in terms of its tumultuous history and the Communist Party's
pathological pursuit of power and control, McMaster presents only those biproducts of
strategic empathy that confirm his policy conclusions (i.e. an intuitive grasp of China's
apparent drive to reassert itself as the "Middle Kingdom" at the expense of the United
States).
McMaster calls for "strategic empathy" in understanding how the Chinese government sees the
world, but he then stacks the deck by asserting that the government in question sees the world
in exactly the way that China hawks want to believe that they see it. That suggests that
McMaster wasn't trying terribly hard to see the world as they do. McMaster's article has been
likened to Kennan's seminal
article on Soviet foreign policy at the start of the Cold War, but the comparison only serves
to highlight how lacking McMaster's argument is and how inappropriate a similar containment
strategy would be today. Where Kennan rooted his analysis of Soviet conduct in a lifetime of
expertise in Russian history and language and his experience as a diplomat in Moscow, McMaster
bases his assessment of Chinese conduct on one visit to Beijing, a superficial survey of
Chinese history, and some boilerplate ideological claims about communism. McMaster's article
prompted some strong criticism along these lines when it came out:
I have heard from other colleagues that several CN scholars met w/ McMaster before he
wrote this (while working on his book) and corrected him on many issues. He apparently
ignored all of their views. This is what we face people: a simple, deceptive narrative is
more seductive.
McMaster's narrative is all the more deceptive because he claims to want to understand the
official Chinese government view, but he just substitutes the standard hawkish caricature. Near
the end of the article, he asserts, "Without effective pushback from the United States and
like-minded nations, China will become even more aggressive in promoting its statist economy
and authoritarian political model." It is possible that this could happen, but McMaster treats
it as a given without offering much proof that this is so. McMaster makes a mistake common to
China hawks that assumes that every other great power must have the same missionary,
world-spanning goals that they have. Suppose instead that the Chinese government is not
interested in that, but has a more limited strategy aimed at securing itself and establishing
itself as the leading power in its region.
Paul does a fine job of using McMaster's earlier work on the Vietnam War to expose the flaws
in his thinking about China. McMaster has often been praised for his criticism of the
military's top leaders over their role in running the war in Vietnam, but this usually
overlooks that McMaster was really arguing for a much more aggressive war effort. He faulted
the Joint Chiefs for "dereliction" because they didn't insist on escalation. Paul observes:
McMaster's tale of Vietnam is, counterintuitively, one of enduring confidence in the
U.S.'s ability to do good in the world and conquer all potential challengers, if only it
finds the will to overcome the temptations of political cowardice and stamp out bureaucratic
ineptitude. This same message runs through McMaster's tale about China: "If we compete
aggressively," and "no longer adhere to a view of China based mainly on Western aspirations,"
McMaster says, "we have reason for confidence."
McMaster would have the U.S. view China in the worst possible light as an implacable
adversary. Following this recommendation will guarantee decades of heightened tensions and
increased risks of conflict. McMaster's dangerous China hawkishness calls to mind something
that Jim Mattis said about him regarding a different
issue when they served together in the Trump administration: "Oh my God, that moron is going to
get us all killed." His aggressiveness towards China is not driven by an assessment of the
threat from China, but comes from his tendency to advocate for aggressive measures
everywhere.
As Paul notes, McMaster is minimizing the dangers and risks that his preferred policy of
confrontation entails. In that respect, he is making the same error that American leaders made
in Vietnam:
Like Johnson and McNamara before him, McMaster is misleading both the public and himself
about the costs, consequences, and likelihood for success of the path he is committed to
pursuing, and in so doing is laying the groundwork for yet another national tragedy.
McMaster's China argument is reminiscent of other arguments made by imperialists in the
past, and he relies on many of the same shoddy assumptions that they did. Like British
Russophobes in the mid-19th century, McMaster decided on a policy of aggressive containment and
then searched for rationalizations that might justify it. Jack Snyder described this in his
classic study
Myths of Empire thirty years ago:
Russia is portrayed as a unitary, rational actor with unlimited aims of conquest, but
fortunately averse to risk and weak if stopped soon enough. (p. 168)
McMaster uses the same "paper tiger image" to portray China as an unstoppable aggressor that
can nonetheless be stopped at minimal risk. He wants us to believe that China is at once
implacable but easily deterred, insatiable but quick to back off under pressure. We have seen
the same contradictory arguments from hawks on other issues, but it is particularly dangerous
to promote such a misleading image of a nuclear-armed major power. about the author
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in the
New York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review ,
Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and
Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the
University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter .
"... Presidential determinations based on secret (and often false) information were sufficient to legally absolve any killings or calamities abroad. ..."
"... In 1999, Clinton unilaterally attacked Serbia, killing up to 1,500 Serb civilians in a 78 day bombing campaign justified to force the Serb government to embrace human rights and ethnic tolerance. Serbia had taken no aggression against the United States, but that did not deter Clinton from bombing Serb marketplaces, hospitals, factories, bridges, and the nation's largest television station (which was supposedly guilty of broadcasting anti-NATO propaganda). The House of Representatives took a vote and failed to support Clinton's war effort, and 31 congressmen sued Clinton for violating the War Powers Act. A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit after deciding that the congressmen did not have legal standing to sue. Most of the U.S. media ignored dead Serb women and children and instead portrayed the bombing as a triumph of American benevolence. ..."
"... In 2011, Obama decided to bomb Libya because the U.S. disapproved of its ruler, Muammar Gaddafi. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton notified Congress that the White House "would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission." Plagiarizing the Bush administration, the Obama administration indicated that congressional restraints would be "an unconstitutional encroachment on executive power." ..."
Fifty years ago, President Richard Nixon popped up on national television on a
Thursday night to proudly announce that he invaded Cambodia. At that time, Nixon was selling
himself as a peacemaker, promising to withdraw U.S. troops from the Vietnam War. But after the
sixth time that Nixon watched the movie "Patton," he was overwhelmed by martial fervor and
could not resist sending U.S. troops crashing into another nation.
Presidents had announced military action prior to Nixon's Cambodia surprise but there was a
surreal element to Nixon's declaration that helped launch a new era of presidential
grandstanding. Ever since then, presidents have routinely gone on television to announce
foreign attacks that almost always provoke widespread applause -- at least initially.
Back in 1970, congressional Democrats were outraged and denounced Nixon for launching an
illegal war. In his televised speech, Nixon also warned that "the forces of totalitarianism and
anarchy will threaten free nations and free institutions throughout the world." Four days after
Nixon's speech, Ohio National Guard troops suppressed the anarchist threat by gunning down
thirteen antiwar protestors and bystanders on the campus of Kent State University, leaving four
students dead.
Three years after Nixon's surprise invasion, Congress passed the War Powers Act which
required the president to get authorization from Congress after committing U.S. troops to any
combat situation that lasted more than 60 days. Congress was seeking to check out-of-control
presidential war-making. But the law has failed to deter U.S. attacks abroad in the subsequent
decades.
In 1998, President Bill Clinton launched a missile strike against Sudan after U.S. embassies
in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists. The U.S. government never produced any
evidence linking the targets in Sudan to the terrorist attacks. The owners of the El-Shifa
Pharmaceutical Industries plant -- the largest pharmaceutical factory in East Africa -- sued
for compensation after Clinton's attack demolished their facility. Eleven years later, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit effectively dismissed the case:
"President Clinton, in his capacity as commander in chief, fired missiles at a target of his
choosing to pursue a military objective he had determined was in the national interest. Under
the Constitution, this decision is immune from judicial review." Presidential determinations
based on secret (and often false) information were sufficient to legally absolve any killings
or calamities abroad.
In 1999, Clinton unilaterally attacked Serbia, killing up to 1,500 Serb civilians in a 78
day bombing campaign justified to force the Serb government to embrace human rights and ethnic
tolerance. Serbia had taken no aggression against the United States, but that did not deter
Clinton from bombing Serb marketplaces, hospitals, factories, bridges, and the nation's largest
television station (which was supposedly guilty of broadcasting anti-NATO propaganda). The
House of Representatives took a vote and failed to support Clinton's war effort, and 31
congressmen sued Clinton for violating the War Powers Act. A federal judge dismissed the
lawsuit after deciding that the congressmen did not have legal standing to sue. Most of the
U.S. media ignored dead Serb women and children and instead portrayed the bombing as a triumph
of American benevolence.
After the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush acted entitled to attack anywhere to "rid
the world of evil." Congress speedily passed an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)
which the Bush administration and subsequent presidents have asserted authorizes U.S. attacks
on bad guys on any square mile on earth. Congressional and judicial restraints on Bush
administration killing and torturing were practically nonexistent.
Bush's excesses spurred a brief resurgence of antiwar protests which largely vanished after
the election of President Barack Obama, who quickly received a Nobel Peace Prize after taking
office. That honorific did not dissuade Obama from bombing seven nations, often based on secret
evidence accompanied by false denials of the civilian casualties inflicted by American bombings
of weddings and other bad photo ops.
In 2011, Obama decided to bomb Libya because the U.S. disapproved of its ruler, Muammar
Gaddafi. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton notified Congress that the White House "would forge
ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the
mission." Plagiarizing the Bush administration, the Obama administration indicated that
congressional restraints would be "an unconstitutional encroachment on executive power." Obama
"had the constitutional authority" to attack Libya "because he could reasonably determine that
such use of force was in the national interest," according to the Justice Department's Office
of Legal Counsel. Yale professor Bruce Ackerman lamented that "history will say that the War
Powers Act was condemned to a quiet death by a president who had solemnly pledged, on the
campaign trail, to put an end to indiscriminate warmaking."
On the campaign trail in 2016, Donald Trump denounced his opponent as "Trigger Happy
Hillary" for her enthusiasm for foreign warring. But shortly after taking office, Trump reaped
his greatest inside-the-Beltway applause for launching cruise missile strikes against the
Syrian government after allegations the Assad regime had used chemical weapons.
The following year, the Trump administration joined France and Britain in bombing Syria
after another alleged chemical weapons attack. Several officials with the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons leaked information showing that the chemical weapons
accusations against the Syria government were false or contrived but that was irrelevant to the
legality of the U.S. attack.
Why? Because the Justice Department ruled that President Trump could "lawfully" attack Syria
"because he
had reasonably determined that the use of force would be in the national interest." That
legal vindication for attacking Syria cited a Justice Department analysis on Cambodia from 1970
that stated that presidents could engage U.S. forces in hostilities abroad based on a "long
continued practice on the part of the Executive, acquiesced in by the Congress." The Justice
Department stressed that "no U.S. airplanes crossed into Syrian air-space" and that "the actual
attack lasted only a few minutes." So the bombs didn't count? If a foreign government used the
same argument to shrug off a few missiles launched at Washington D.C., no one in America would
be swayed that the foreign regime had not committed an act of war. But it's different when the
U.S. president orders killings.
In the decades since Nixon's Cambodia speech, presidents have avoided repeating his
reference to America being perceived as "a pitiful, helpless giant." But too many presidents
have repeated his refrain that failing to bomb abroad would mean that "our will and character"
were tested and failed. Unfortunately, the anniversary of Nixon's invasion of Cambodia passed
with little or no recognition that the unchecked power of American presidents remains a grave
threat to world peace.
About Jim Bovard Jim Bovard is the author
of Public Policy Hooligan (2012), Attention Deficit Democracy (2006), Lost Rights: The
Destruction of American Liberty (1994), and 7 other books. He is a member of the USA Today
Board of Contributors and has also written for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal,
Playboy, Washington Post, and other publications. His articles have been publicly denounced by
the chief of the FBI, the Postmaster General, the Secretary of HUD, and the heads of the DEA,
FEMA, and EEOC and numerous federal agencies.
They are not only making the election over resentment against the Russian-speaking
population, but the fact that many are Jewish.
I find it amazing to see someone who is Jewish, like George Soros, allying with
anti-Semitic and even neo-Nazi movements in Latvia, Estonia, and most recently, of course,
Ukraine. It's an irony that you could not have anticipated deductively. If you had written
this plot in a futuristic novel twenty years ago, no one would have believed that politics
could turn more on national and linguistic identity politics than economic self-interest. The
issue is whether you are Latvian or are Russian-Jewish, not whether you want to untax
yourself and make? Voting is along ethnic lines, not whether Latvians really want to be
forced to emigrate to find work instead of making Latvia what it could have been: an
successful economy free of debt. Everybody could have gotten their homes free instead of
giving real estate only to the kleptocrats.
@Mefobills
> "I find it amazing to see someone who is Jewish, like George Soros, allying with
anti-Semitic and even neo-Nazi movements in Latvia, Estonia, and most recently, of course,
Ukraine."
What is anti-semitic about Ukrainian nationalists? What is Nazi about them? They lick
Kolomoyski's ass. They elect Zelenski the Jewish clown. They are fine with their women's
whoring themselves in the universities and in Poland. What gives?
> "Voting is along ethnic lines, not whether Latvians really want to be forced to
emigrate to find work instead of making Latvia what it could have been: an successful economy
free of debt."
One word: NazBol. Not popular. I guess, we'll die then. Because nationalists would rather
lick Negros' anuses than be racist. Our nations are retarded, suicidal, and worship a Jew on
a cross, would you expect a sense of self-preservation of them?
Our race in its current state is far more boring than the Muslims. You have no kings, no
leaders, no politics, no parties. Only Christianity. You cannot act, you cannot think when
your skull's content has rotted away, and Christianity has taken the brain's place.
"There is a disconnect between what average people feel as threats to their security and
what the Beltway does," said Khanna, "I don't dismiss traditional challenges. Obviously you
have Russian aggression in Ukraine and Georgia, and Russian election interference. Obviously,
you have the rise of China authoritarian capitalism and their foray into Africa and their
potential disruption of the navigation of the seas."
Khanna said his constituents understand the challenges posed by Russia and China, but they
want the country to balance these priorities against the need to prepare for future pandemics,
the effects of climate change and the risks posed by cyberattacks and emerging
technologies.
For years, the former threats have dominated American national security strategy - and
federal spending priorities. "We have a $740 billion Pentagon budget," Khanna said. "That's
$130 billion more than where Obama had it. To put that into context, that $130 billion
could triple the NIH budget" and boost funds for the CDC and FEMA.
"In other words, if Trump had put that money into our public health, we would not have had
this pandemic to the extent that we have," he continued. "We would have had testing earlier. We
possibly could have had a faster track to a cure or to a vaccine."
Concern over this programmatic imbalance could also dog passage of the upcoming National
Defense Authorization Act. Khanna said that progressives are likely to withhold support if the
bill does not "show very compelling reasons" spending increases are tied directly to fighting
the coronavirus pandemic. Asked if he thought moderate Democrats could join with Republicans to
force the bill through the House, Khanna replied that he was "not dismissing" the possibility
but warned that they would be "writing off a lot of the progressive base and the independent
base."
Khanna says that he has learned from last year, when all the measures passed by the House
were stripped out in conference with the Republican-controlled Senate. "Fool me once, shame on
you. Fool me twice, shame on us. We're not going to pass a bill without an iron commitment that
they're going to keep some of those top priorities." Included in his list are
prohibitions for any unauthorized war with North Korea and with Iran, both passed last year
by the House and stripped by the Senate.
Khanna hopes the House will serve as a proving ground for new ideas about the relationship
between military spending and the nation's safety. "We need to have a new approach to national
security in the 21st century," he said. "We need people in our generation who are not
derivative thinkers, recycling what they learned from the Cold War, but who are willing to be
original."
"I don't underestimate the status quo," Khanna concluded. "We can be optimistic and then end
up defaulting to the same thinking and same people. But I'm hopeful that this crisis really
will make us re-examine some of these questions."
"That's our challenge."
The entire interview with Rep. Khanna is available here on Press The Button starting at
10pm tonight.
Joe Cirincione is the president and Zack Brown a policy associate at Ploughshares Fund, a
global security foundation.
Representative Ro Khanna (D.-CA) recently laid down some new rules for the Pentagon budget:
Fund public health over weapons; freeze defense programs at current levels; resist Senate
pressure to cave on House priorities; and develop a "modern, expansive definition of national
security that includes the risk of pandemics and climate change." High on his list of possible
cuts are the massive increases for new nuclear weapons proposed by President Donald Trump,
including a freeze on the new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).
High on his list of
possible cuts are the massive increases for new nuclear weapons proposed by President Donald
Trump, including a freeze on the new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). He will also
press for sound national security policies to be included in the annual Pentagon spending bill
and for the House leadership to defend these priorities.
"One place we're looking is to limit the modernization of ICBMs," he said in an interview on
the national security podcast, Press The Button . Instead, Khanna
wants Congress to "put that money into coronavirus research, or vaccine research, or developing
manufacturing capacity for masks. I think those types of red lines are not only possible but
would be politically very popular."
Khanna's views carry great weight with his colleagues and within national security circles.
Serving his second term in the House, he is the first vice-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus , a member of the
House Armed Services
Committee , and was co-chair for Sen. Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign.
His opposition to the new missile comes just weeks after the U.S. Air Force announced it
seeks to
accelerate the missile program marked by cost overruns and a controversial
bidding process that left Northrop Grumman as the sole contractor. The new missile could
cost as much as
$150 billion . Air Force program managers are speeding "to get things awarded on contract
as quickly as possible,"
noted budget expert Todd Harrison, "so that becomes harder to reverse if there's a new
administration."
Khanna called the land-based leg of the nuclear triad "one of the greatest threats of
nuclear war," noting that former Secretary of Defense James Mattis once
testified to their "false alarm danger." He said he is working with another former defense
secretary, William Perry, who has
termed these missiles "some of the most dangerous weapons in the world," and called for
their phase-out.
Khanna's new rules could thwart the furious lobbying by defense contractors for
billions of dollars in the next COVID aid package. He says these funds should be put into
more critical areas and that defense contractors should get "not a dime." "We should not be
increasing funding for industries that don't need it, that aren't critical to coronavirus, that
aren't critical to our national security, that are just going to the defense industrial base,"
Khanna said. "It's just not the priority right now."
Khanna picked up some heavyweight support for this position when Rep. Adam Smith (D.-WA),
the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee,
announced last Wednesday that he, too, was opposed to new funds for defense
contractors.
"The defense [budget] last year was $738 billion," said Smith. "I'm not saying that there
aren't needs within the Department of Defense, I'm saying they have a lot of money and ought to
spend that money to meet those needs." A letter by 62 national organizations to the House
leadership last week also
opposed any additional funds to the Pentagon this year.
This opposition by a leader of the Progressive Caucus and by the highest-ranking national
security Democrat in Congress, moreover, comes
amid growing calls for a fundamental rethink of U.S. national security in response to the
pandemic.
... ... ...
For years, the former threats have dominated American national security
strategy - and federal spending priorities. "We have a $740 billion Pentagon budget," Khanna
said. "That's
$130 billion more than where Obama had it. To put that into context, that $130 billion
could triple the NIH budget" and boost funds for the CDC and FEMA.
"In other words, if Trump had put that money into our public health, we would not have had
this pandemic to the extent that we have," he continued. "We would have had testing earlier. We
possibly could have had a faster track to a cure or to a vaccine."
Concern over this programmatic imbalance could also dog passage of the upcoming National
Defense Authorization Act. Khanna said that progressives are likely to withhold support if the
bill does not "show very compelling reasons" spending increases are tied directly to fighting
the coronavirus pandemic. Asked if he thought moderate Democrats could join with Republicans to
force the bill through the House, Khanna replied that he was "not dismissing" the possibility
but warned that they would be "writing off a lot of the progressive base and the independent
base."
Khanna says that he has learned from last year, when all the measures passed by the House
were stripped out in conference with the Republican-controlled Senate. "Fool me once, shame on
you. Fool me twice, shame on us. We're not going to pass a bill without an iron commitment that
they're going to keep some of those top priorities." Included in his list are
prohibitions for any unauthorized war with North Korea and with Iran, both passed last year
by the House and stripped by the Senate.
Khanna hopes the House will serve as a proving ground for new ideas about the relationship
between military spending and the nation's safety. "We need to have a new approach to national
security in the 21st century," he said. "We need people in our generation who are not
derivative thinkers, recycling what they learned from the Cold War, but who are willing to be
original."
"I don't underestimate the status quo," Khanna concluded. "We can be optimistic and then end
up defaulting to the same thinking and same people. But I'm hopeful that this crisis really
will make us re-examine some of these questions."
"That's our challenge."
The entire interview with Rep. Khanna is available here on Press The Button starting at
10pm tonight.
"... In December 1917, Europe was immersed in the First World War -- one of the most vicious, insane wars the world had ever witnessed. After learning about the high casualty toll and the horrific nature of trench warfare, which included the use of poison gas, Britain's prime minister, David Lloyd George, confided in a private conversation to C. P. Scott, editor of the Manchester Guardian: ..."
"... "If people really knew [the truth], the war would be stopped tomorrow. But of course, they don't know, and can't know ." ..."
"... Sadly, we seem to have not learned from history that, once the state is asked by the citizenry to respond to a danger, it will do so with a drastic course of action -- with rights-restricting rules that will never be removed once imposed. This is exactly how societies become despotisms. ..."
"... What happened to the action plan when it was applied to the on-its-heels real-life scenario? Unsurprisingly, it was fully implemented and made fully operational. So, thanks to Event 201's meticulous pandemic planning and WHO's replication of it, the power of the police state is rising to unprecedented levels. Our global overlords and their CDC and WHO and MSM lackeys have succeeded in generating fear in the planet's populace. This pandemic panic has, in turn, caused people to voluntarily, though unwittingly, surrender their hard-won freedoms. These freedoms are articulated in the constitutions of countries around the world, including the US Constitution, with its Bill of Rights -- notably the First Amendment. These documents are now nothing more than meaningless pieces of paper. They may as well be blank. ..."
In December 1917, Europe was immersed in the First World War -- one of the most vicious,
insane wars the world had ever witnessed. After learning about the high casualty toll and the
horrific nature of trench warfare, which included the use of poison gas, Britain's prime
minister, David Lloyd George, confided in a private conversation to C. P. Scott, editor of the
Manchester Guardian:
"If people really knew [the truth], the war would be stopped tomorrow. But of course,
they don't know, and can't
know ."
Just over a century later, here we are, yet again, immersed in a global war. However, this
war, which is ostensibly sold to all of us as a battle to "stop the spread of the coronavirus,"
is in reality a war devised by "the powers-that-shouldn't-be" to remove the last remnants of
humanity's inherent freedoms and liberties.
And, just like all of the previous criminal wars throughout human history -- the First World
War, the Second World War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and every other subsequent conflict
-- if people around the world knew the truth about this war, it would come to a screeching halt
overnight.
Through all of my years of research in matters relating to war, I have come to understand
one very important thing: When human societies lose their freedom, it's usually not because the
monarch, the state, or some dictator has overtly taken it away. Rather, it is lost because too
many people willingly surrender their freedom in return for protection from some perceived
(real or imagined) menace.
That menace is typically manufactured by the state and is designed to stir up such a torrent
of fear in the mind of citi zens that they pressure their politicians to implement measures
against the fabricated threat.
Unfortunately, it rarely occurs to the public to ask:
Are we simply reacting to an orchestrated threat?
Will the protective measures we're demanding of our leaders actually work?
Or will "the cure" being offered to us be worse than "the disease"?
Sadly, we seem to have not learned from history that, once the state is asked by the
citizenry to respond to a danger, it will do so with a drastic course of action -- with
rights-restricting rules that will never be removed once imposed. This is exactly how
societies become despotisms.
To be sure, there is a seasonal influenza, a coronavirus, currently sweeping around the
world, just as the flu does every year, like clockwork. And, yes, this particular coronavirus
seems to pose a serious health hazard to the elderly and to anyone with underlying medical
issues. However, one crucial question has being avoided by officials and the public alike: Is
this outbreak of an infectious disease called COVID-19 serious enough to warrant the draconian
countermeasures that all governments -- with the exception of Sweden -- have initiated?
Those counteractions have done a number on communities everywhere:
collapsing local economies and, in a ripple effect, the world economy
sending millions upon millions of people to the unemployment line
imprisoning millions of honest, hard-working citizens in their homes
bankrupting countless mid-size and small businesses (and destroying the dreams and
livelihoods of their owners)
bringing out of the woodwork rules-obsessed busybodies who take delight in snitching on
neighbours and strangers alike for not "social distancing"
unearthing every petty tyrant whose main mission in life is to ensure that every
mask-less person is arrested and carted off to jail
policing quarantined areas with drones
tracking and surveilling all human beings who are ambulatory and have cell phones (if
ants carried mobile phones into and out of their mounds, they'd doubtless be subject to
triangulation tracking)
increasing stress and the incidence of flaring tempers among the homebound, which has
resulted in a sharp escalation of domestic violence
saddling future generations with massive debt that can lead debtors into deep depression,
permanent homelessness, possible suicide
Medical professionals are observing the entire state of affairs with increasing alarm. They
are questioning the official coronavirus infection rates and noting the detrimental effects of
the lockdown. Examples abound.
Take Dr. Erickson , co-owner of Accelerated Urgent Care in Kern County, California, who,
with his partner, Dr. Massihi, has gone on record saying that, in contrast to the high numbers
of people contracting this coronavirus, there has been only "a small amount of death . . .
similar to what we have seen every year with the seasonal
flu ."
Stanford University epidemiologist and professor of medicine John Ioannidis has made the
same observation. In an April 17
interview , Dr. Ioannidis he claimed that "COVID-19 has an infection fatality rate that is
in the same ballpark as seasonal influenza." Moreover, he said, the devastation and deaths
caused by the imposed lockdown on the entire world economy "can be far worse than anything the
coronavirus can
do ." Based on a study he conducted, Dr. Ioannides said that "the data collected so far on
how many people are infected and how the epidemic is evolving are utterly
unreliable ."
Indeed, we have seen ample evidence of this "utterly unreliable" data -- less
euphemistically known as manipulated data -- coming out of Italy. Professor Walter
Ricciardi, scientific advisor to Italy's minister of health, referred to a report produced by
the Italian COVID-19 Surveillance Group and observed that "
only 12 per cent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus,
while 88 per cent of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity -- many had two or
three." The report cited by Prof. Ricciardi pointed out that half of the patients who died had
three or more other underlying diseases at the time of
death .
In the United States, meanwhile, the death toll figures attributed to the virus are no more
accurate. Doctors are being told to write on death certificates that the cause of death is "
presumed " to be COVID-19 or that COVID-19 "contributed" to the death , when, in fact,
there is absolutely no proof that COVID-19 caused the death, nor did any lab test indicate a
COVID-19 positive.
The United Nations' Geneva-based World Health Organization (WHO), which has been entrusted
to be an impartial global health guardian, has proven itself no better than national
governments at truthfully disseminating critical information. WHO's questionable statistics on
COVID-19 only serve to cement its reputation as an organization that, since 2009, has been
plagued by corruption, conflict-of-interest scandals linked to Big Pharma, and a lack of
transparency. Few citizens are familiar with the WHO's transgressions, and even fewer
understand how it is financed.
So let me briefly explain the latter. The WHO's principal advisory group for vaccines and
immunization is called the Scientific Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE). This team of so-called
"experts" is dominated by individuals who receive significant funding from either the major
vaccine makers, from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, or from Wellcome Trust. In his
informative article, "Can We Trust the WHO?" author F. William Engdahl
writes that, in the latest posting by WHO:
". . . of the 15 scientific members of SAGE, no fewer than 8 had declared interest, by
law, of potential conflicts. In almost every case the significant financial funder of these 8
SAGE members included the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Merck & Co. (MSD), Gavi,
the Vaccine Alliance (a Gates-funded vaccine group), BMGF Global Health Scientific Advisory
Committee, Pfizer, Novovax, GSK, Novartis, Gilead, and other leading pharma
vaccine players ."
Moreover, unlike in its early years, when the WHO was primarily funded by UN member
governments, today it receives funding from a "public-private partnership," which vaccine
companies dominate. The WHO's financial audit for 2017 indicates that by "far the largest
private or non-governmental
funders of WHO are the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation together with the Gates-funded
GAVI Vaccine Alliance, the Gates-initiated Global Fund to fight AIDS." That year, the Gates
Foundation alone donated a staggering $324,654,317 to the WHO, second only to the US
government, which contributed
$401 million . According to statistics posted in 2018, "the second-largest funder after the
US government is still the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which provides 9.8 per cent of
the
WHO's funds ."
In light of these relationships, it is not surprising that WHO data on COVID-19 has been
found to contain repeated errors -- false positives -- and inconsistencies, all of which it
refuses to correct. As a result, Oxford University and various countries have ceased using WHO
data on coronavirus infection rates.
Because of the inaccurate and incomplete data that WHO has been collecting from around the
world, we will never know exactly how many people have died from the virus.
Of course, in order to successfully prosecute their war on our civil liberties, these global
overlords must maintain a monopoly on the information that shapes their official narrative.
If they were to release videos of empty hospitals or reveal the very low mortality rates
actually associated with the virus, they would not be able to foster the element of fear
required to keep the public credulously accepting their every pronouncement and obeying their
every edict. It is this single factor of fear, fomented by false information emanating from
"trusted sources," which is the vital element our health-state/police-state nannies rely upon
as they deliberately, calculatingly fan the flames of the collective hysteria that has engulfed
the world.
Why do I say "deliberately, calculatingly"? Because, by now, most readers have undoubtedly
seen the smoking gun proof that the COVID-19 pandemic is in fact a plan demic. That
smoking gun took the form of a simulation exercise called Event 201.
More aptly termed a drill, Event 201 was held in mid-October of last year, just weeks before
the reports of the first recorded case of a contagious novel coronavirus disease starting
seeping out of Wuhan, China. Sponsored by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the John
Hopkins Center for Health, and the World Economic Forum, this tabletop exercise simulated "a
series of dramatic, scenario-based facilitated discussions, confronting difficult, true-to-life
dilemmas associated with response to a hypothetical, but scientifically plausible,
pandemic ." That its sponsors have the gall to insist there is no connection between their
exercise (I mean "drill") and the near-simultaneous unrolling of the actual "live" event
(dubbed COVID-19) speaks to their hubris -- and their hypocrisy.
At best, maybe 10 percent of the entire simulation was devoted to actually helping
people infected with the coronavirus. The remainder of the exercise was concerned with how
officials would disseminate information and maintain all-important control of the official
narrative -- including the statistical narrative. Predictably, the participants discussed
strategies for how to silence the misinformation and disinformation that would surely spread in
the wake of this "hypothetical" pandemic. In other words, they were super-intent on shutting
down any and all information, whether leaked or hacked or accidentally discovered, that was not
sanctioned by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), by WHO officials, and by MSM corporate
stenographers.
Key talking points included an elaborate plan of action for governments that would enable
them to work in cooperation with social media giants like Facebook and Google and Twitter.
Specifically, governments were told how they could troll social media sites and request that
any voices countering the official narrative be removed; how they could silence independent
journalists, while elevating their own so-called "authoritative voices"; and how they could
join forces with Big Pharma companies like Johnson & Johnson to develop a vaccine to ward
off the coronavirus .
What happened to the action plan when it was applied to the on-its-heels real-life
scenario? Unsurprisingly, it was fully implemented and made fully operational. So, thanks to
Event 201's meticulous pandemic planning and WHO's replication of it, the power of the police
state is rising to unprecedented levels. Our global overlords and their CDC and WHO and MSM
lackeys have succeeded in generating fear in the planet's populace. This pandemic panic has, in
turn, caused people to voluntarily, though unwittingly, surrender their hard-won freedoms.
These freedoms are articulated in the constitutions of countries around the world, including
the US Constitution, with its Bill of Rights -- notably the First Amendment. These documents
are now nothing more than meaningless pieces of paper. They may as well be blank.
A few for instances: Facebook is removing all voices that counter the official COVID-19
narrative from its platform. Google is monitoring (read: snooping) to check up on whether
people are "social distancing." The Clinton Global Initiative is promoting another Orwellian
concept called "
contact tracing " (read: total government surveillance grid), which involves monitoring,
tracing, and, if need be, quarantining the entire US population. The plan is being sold to the
American population as a critical component of a universal healthcare system, when, in reality,
if implemented, it will be nothing more than a marketing ploy to disguise the arrival of George
Orwell's 1984 .
Throughout the US, companies like
VSBLTY and public-private partnerships are spreading a ubiquitous surveillance network of
CCTV cameras with the ability to measure heartbeat and social distancing without any legal
or legislative restraint -- a true police state dystopia.
Power-grabbing governments the world over have locked down their societies and are dreaming
up legislation to stop the spread of "dangerous misinformation" about the pandemic. British MP
Damian Collins, for one, is calling for just such measures to silence free speech in the UK. In
Canada, Privy Council President Dominic LeBlanc has admitted that the Canadian government is
"considering introducing legislation to make it an offence to knowingly spread misinformation
that could harm
people ."
Not to be outdone, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has announced the creation of "a
new United Nations Communication Response initiative to flood the Internet with facts and
science while countering the growing scourge of
misinformation ." In addition, the Secretary- General, like Canada's Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau and various other leaders, is advising us precisely where to place our trust: in
vaccines.
Vaccines are not the answer. If the mandatory vaccination agenda is ever implemented
by these globalist kingpins, the coup against our fundamental rights and freedoms will be
complete. Our governments -- or, more likely, a one world government! -- will force-vaccinate
us with our own unique digital ID and chip that, once in place, will further heighten their
surveillance of and tighten their control over all human beings. At that point, the police
state will be complete and will be here to stay.
Contrary to what Trudeau believes, the way that governments have implemented oppressive
edicts to combat the hyped virus is not the "new-normal." Their actions are hardly
normal, whether old or new.
Precisely the opposite is true: This is the forever abnormal.
Abnormal because, whether the virus was developed in a bioweapons lab or if it is the annual
seasonal influenza, it is a manufactured crisis designed to infuse us with fear, induce us to
willingly surrender our freedoms, and steer us away from seeing the ever-scarier, underlying
agenda of a technocratic takeover by the New (or Flu!) World Order. (Think AI, 5G, Internet of
Things, digital body chips,
Data Fusion Centers , the NSA's
Project Prism , ad infinitum ).
This collective insanity will come to an end only if we all leave behind the MSM nest of
lies and seek out sources -- independent online and in-print investigative journalists like
James Corbett, F. William Engdahl, Derrick Broze, Ryan Cristián, Patrick Wood, Jon
Rappoport, and countless others -- who have been probing for (and finding and relaying) the
truth about world events for anywhere from a decade to several dozen years. We must cease
buying into propaganda and accept only provable facts from dependable sites -- the ones that
are called "fake news" by the real fakers and fearmongers.
To men like David Lloyd George and his ilk, we reply: Yes, we will learn the truth, and with
this knowledge we will stop the war on our liberty and our lives!
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
David Skripac has a Bachelor of Technology degree in Aerospace Engineering. He served
as a Captain in the Canadian Forces for nine years. During his two tours of duty in the Air
Force he flew extensively in the former Yugoslavia as well as in Somalia, Rwanda, Ethiopia, and
Djibouti.
"... The person trying to tell the truth is forced to defend, 'Communist China' (Tom Cotton thinks that is one word), Russia, or Iran and to the U.S. public this is toxic. ..."
"... Someday it just won't matter anymore. We will have deceived ourselves for so long that we have squandered so much of our power that no one will pay attention to us. ..."
"... Intelligence is a rare commodity in American politics and diplomacy even more elusive so the consequences of malicious rumours are never weighed nor assessed ..."
"... Intelligence is a rare commodity in American politics and diplomacy even more elusive so the consequences of malicious rumours are never weighed nor assessed ..."
For brevity, I always post that our IC (Intelligence Community) is masterful in shaping
U.S. public opinion and causing problems for targeted countries but terrible in collecting
and analyzing Intel that would benefit the U.S. The truth of course, is more complicated.
There is a remnant that is doing their jobs properly but is shut out from higher level
offices. But I cannot give long disclaimers at the start of my posts, (I'm not talking about
the men and women ...) where 50 words later I finally start to make my point. It's boring,
sounds insincere, and defensive.
This is yet another effective defense mechanism that protects the troublemakers in our IC
bureaucracy.
1. The person trying to tell the truth is forced to defend, 'Communist China' (Tom Cotton
thinks that is one word), Russia, or Iran and to the U.S. public this is toxic.
2. These rogues get to use the remaining good people as human shields.
3. They know their customers, it gives the politicians a way to turn themselves into
wartime leaders rather than having to answer for their shortcomings.
Someday it just won't matter anymore. We will have deceived ourselves for so long that
we have squandered so much of our power that no one will pay attention to us.
/div> Intelligence is a rare commodity in American politics and diplomacy even
more elusive so the consequences of malicious rumours are never weighed nor assessed . The
American public are easily enough fooled being constantly fed a racist diet, especially
Sinophobia, Russophopia and Iranophobia and the drumbeats for war, financial or military, are
easily banged to raise the public's blood pressure....but what about the consequences? America
can win neither, even with he assistance of a few vassal states. What happens if, and when,
normal service is resumed? If they managed to succeed with any of their hair-brained ideas,
what are the consequences for American companies in China, rare earth minerals, the IT
industries etc etc. Guard your words wisely for they can never be retracted.
Posted by: Séamus Ó Néill , May 1 2020 13:46 utc |
13
Intelligence is a rare commodity in American politics and diplomacy even more elusive so
the consequences of malicious rumours are never weighed nor assessed . The American
public are easily enough fooled being constantly fed a racist diet, especially Sinophobia,
Russophopia and Iranophobia and the drumbeats for war, financial or military, are easily
banged to raise the public's blood pressure....but what about the consequences? America can
win neither, even with he assistance of a few vassal states. What happens if, and when,
normal service is resumed? If they managed to succeed with any of their hair-brained ideas,
what are the consequences for American companies in China, rare earth minerals, the IT
industries etc etc. Guard your words wisely for they can never be retracted.
Posted by: Séamus Ó Néill | May 1 2020 13:46 utc |
13
I think there is very good intelligence in the US. so much data is collected and there are
many analysts to go over the data and present their forecasts. The World Factbook is an
example of collected intelligence made available to the unwashed masses.
what you are thinking is that this information should be used to your benefit. that is
where it goes wrong. the big players are able to access and exploit that mass of data and use
it to their benefit.
Billmon used to say that this is a feature, not a bug.
"Not precluded" are also a Fort Detrick origin and contagion taken to Wuhan by the US
military, staying at a hotel where most of the first cluster of patients was identified. So
why wouldn't you always mention both in the same breath?
First hollywood movie I am aware of that deals with pandemics and has Fort Detrick front and
center was "Outbreak" 1995. In this film, the "Expert" played by D. Huffman uncovers a plot
by a rogue 2 star general sitting on the serum from another outbreak years ago, and how he
witheld this information and the serum to "protect their bioweapon". There is also a very
overt background sub-plot about Dod and CDC being at odds.
DoD is not listed in the credits for Outbreak. Many of the scenes are supposed to take
place in CDC and Fort Detrick.
--
Last hollywood movie was "Contagion" 2011. In this film, which pretty much anticipates
Covid-19 madness but with an actually scary virus, the "Expert" in charge tells the DHS man
that "Nature has already weaponized them!".
So this lie about the little bitty part "function gain" man-made mutations being the
critical bit for "weaponizing" viruses is turned on its head. It was "Nature" after all. A
wet market, you know.
Contagion does list DoD in its credits. Vincent C. Oglivie as US DoD Liason and Project
Officer.
Just some 'fun' trivia for us to while away our lives. Remember that consipirational
thought is abberational thought. Have a shot of Victory Gin and relex!
It is quite simple. A government that can classify any information it wants hidden has zero
credibility.
It is no coincidence that the entire concept of conspiracy theorism was created by the CIA
as an ad hominem attack against JFK truthers. Evidence suggests that not only did the CIA
orchestrate Kennedy's murder, but was partly motivated to do so...
... ... ...
Now, something happened on 9/11 that had never before happened in history: a steel framed
skyscraper collapsed into its own footprint due to fire. I am talking about WTC7, which was
not even hit by a plane. Incredibly, the BBC reported this collapse before it happened. This
has been labeled an innocent mistake, but how do you mistakenly report something that is
widely considered to be physically impossible before it actually happens?
The degree to which government "by and for the people" cannot create consensus is the measure
of its failure to represent the people. The government is not trusted because it is
undemocratic. Rule By Secrecy is the rule.
Where did the Patriot Act come from? This abridgment of liberty appeared seemingly out of
nowhere in October 2001. No representative of the people actually read it and yet it was
voted into law. ( Hint: Joe Biden is principally responsible for the Patriot Act )
The surveillance state is well established in our midst and in our minds and the need to
promote the general welfare by defending against pandemics will entail more surveillance and
more constraints on personal liberty. The degree to which the government must rely on secrecy
and denial of the Bill of Rights to remain in power is the degree to which it will earn the
fear & loathing of the people and simple mistrust will become violence. When Elon Musk,
one of our favorite oligarchs, attacks government for its handling of the pandemic,
government should worry.
We've been involved with the Cabinet Office Rapid Response Unit, with our 77th Brigade
helping to quash rumours from misinformation, but also to counter disinformation. Between
three and four thousand of our people have been involved, with around twenty thousand
available the whole time at high readiness.
To understand the implications of this statement, we have to go back to 2018, when Carter
gave a speech to the Royal United Services Institute.
"In our 77th Brigade," he said, "... we have got some remarkable talent when it comes to
social media, production design, and indeed Arabic poetry. Those sorts of skills we can't
afford to retain in the Regular component but they are the means of us delivering capability
in a much more imaginative way than we might have been able to do in the past."
77th Brigade
Previously known as the 'Security Assistance Group', 77th Brigade was stood up in 2015 as
part of ' Army
2020 '. The Security Assistance Group had been established following the amalgamation of
the Media Operations Group, 15 Psychological Operations Group, Security Capacity Building Team,
and the Military Stabilisation and Support Group.
77th Brigade is described
on their website as being about 'information and outreach'. But what does that mean?
General Carter again:
We also, though, need to continue to improve our ability to fight on this new battlefield,
and I think it's important that we build on the excellent foundation we've created for
Information Warfare through our 77th Brigade, which is now giving us the capability to
compete in the war of narratives at the tactical level. [Emphasis mine]
It is in this context, then, that Carter's words from last week's livestream should be
viewed. Carter has acknowledged that the British military is waging war on a section of its own
population.
'Rapid Response Unit'
Carter mentioned working with the Cabinet Office's ' Rapid Response Unit '. Established in
April 2018 and also known as the 'fake news unit', the Rapid Response Unit was given an initial
six months' funding. It brought together a "team of analysts, data scientists and media and
digital experts," armed with cutting-edge software, to "work round the clock to monitor online
breaking news stories and social media discussion."
According to the RRU's head, Alex Aiken:
The unit's round the clock monitoring service has identified several stories of concern
during the pilot, ranging from the chemical weapons attack in Syria to domestic stories
relating to the NHS and crime.
For example, following the Syria airstrikes, the unit identified that a number of false
narratives from alternative news sources were gaining traction online. These "alt-news"
sources are biased and rely on sensationalism rather than facts to pique readers'
interest.
Due to the way that search engine algorithms work, when people searched for information on
the strikes, these unreliable sources were appearing above official UK government
information. In fact, no government information was appearing on the first 15 pages of Google
results. We know that search is an excellent indicator of intention. It can reflect bias in
information received from elsewhere.
The unit therefore ensured those using search terms that indicated bias – such as
'false flag' – were presented with factual information on the UK's response. The RRU
improved the ranking from below 200 to number 1 within a matter of hours.
The Rapid Response Unit was given permanent funding in February 2019 .
Three months following the establishment of the Rapid Response Unit, Theresa May attended
the G7 summit in Quebec, Canada.
There she announced the establishment of "a new Rapid Response Mechanism ", following
Britain's proposal for "a new, more formalised approach to tackling foreign interference across
the G7" at the G7 Foreign Minister's meeting the previous month.
The agreement sends "a strong message that interference by Russia and other foreign states
would not be tolerated," she said.
"The Rapid Response Mechanism," she continued, "will support preventative and protective
cooperation between G7 countries, as well as post-incident responses", including:
Co-ordinated attribution of hostile activity
Joint work to assert a common narrative and response
The UK government's Rapid Response, then, is to create international agreement on a common
narrative (via the 'mechanism'), and then wage an information war on its own people to make
sure that narrative is protected in the media (via the 'unit').
Fusion
During Carter's 2018 RUSI speech, he explained the role of the mainstream press in "setting
up a well-informed public debate". He spoke about "political warfare" being war by other means,
and he said that winning that war would require a "fusion" approach.
Here, he is referring to the Fusion Doctrine, which was launched during the Theresa May
regime, as part of the 2015
National Security Capability Review .
"Many capabilities," it said, "that can contribute to national security lie outside
traditional national security departments and so we need stronger partnerships across
government and with the private and third sectors."
It should come as no surprise, then, that the Cabinet Office's Rapid Response Unit is not
only working with the military's 77th Brigade, but is "
leading on the 'rebuttal of false narratives' as part of the unit [that also] involves the
Home Office, DCMS, Number 10 and other agencies."
The Corona-Narrative
General Carter said his 77th Brigade is "helping to quash rumours from misinformation, but
also to counter disinformation."
What misinformation and disinformation is 77th Brigade helping to quash? How much of the '
disinformation ' originates from
77th Brigade in the first place?
'Monitoring and evaluating the information environment within boundaries or operational
area'
They not only 'counter' disinformation, but also watch social media, analysing how
disinformation, including their own, spreads; mapping the internet and the networks of people
sharing content between each other.
And for that, they have thousands deployed, and tens of thousands in reserve, not only in
77th Brigade directly, but right across government and the third sector.
...In fact Kennedy was a particularly nasty warmongering President who had run for office
on a programme of increasing military expenditure to 'catch up'(cue laughter in The Kremlin)
with Soviet expenditure on arms. (To understand the poignancy of Eisenhower's Farewell
Address with its warnings against militarism and the corrupting influence of the MIC, it is
important to see it in the context of Kennedy's hawkishness.)
He had not only ordered the invasion of Cuba but authorised dozens of attempts to
assassinate Fidel and other key figures in the still very recent revolution. As to Vietnam it
was Kennedy who first ordered large numbers of troops into the country, who authorised the
assassination of Diem and presided over the build up which his successor (murderer?) LBJ
turned into a slow moving genocide.
What is common to all three groups-those who believe that Kennedy was killed to prevent
him from making peace and changing the course of Cold War history; those who believe that
9/11 was a false flag operation carried out by agents of the US government; and those who
regard the Covid-19 pandemic as a fraud and a smokescreen behind which a raft of new measures
designed to reduce humanity to the level of tamed animals is being implemented- is that all
of those promoting these ideas seem to believe that the mere publication of the "truth" will
lead to fundamental changes.
There is no conception of building a movement consisting of people, no notion of a political
party, parliamentary or otherwise, no notion of taking any action-apart from that which comes
from right wing militias etc sponsored by the most reactionary elements in society, and
approved by Bolsonaro and Trump.
For years it has been a feature of the comment section of this blog that it has brought
together critics of The Establishment not only from the left but from the right. And, on the
whole, this cross fertilisation has proved fruitful: the left has told the right, what nobody
else ever did, that those who rule this society are members of a class which owes its power
to its control over the means of production. And that both the media and the
educational/indoctrination system are propagandists for a method of exploitation motivated
entirely by immediate greed. A system which denies the ability of humanity to control its
destiny and worships a god blind to any considerations but the satisfaction of short term
desire.
The right, for its part, has told us that this society defies not just those utopian
conceptions of the future for which socialists have long been suckers but, more importantly,
millennia of traditional societies. Societies grounded in families, clans, communities, with
time tested rules of behaviour that deserve to be conserved unless there is very good reason
given for changing them.
Instead of the superficial progressivism of the liberal 'left'- one of whose roots goes
back to the crimes of the Jacobins- which sees in the utter corruption of late
capitalist/imperialism a model for the rest of the world to emulate- voices from the past
have reminded us that capitalism destroyed a great deal, which we ought to be rediscovering,
when it wiped out traditional societies from Surrey to Sumatra, from the Great Barrier Reef
to the ice caps.
While the liberal 'left' has been fascinated by the possibilities of men castrating
themselves and women transforming themselves into husbands and other fin de siecle aspects of
a bourgeoisie unable to come to grips with realities, the right has reminded us that, for
nine tenths of the human race,
economic survival-the next meal- is the cardinal question.
In a sense it has been a neat reversal from the dialogue which preceded it in which the
left were proponents of material realities while the right were obsessed with mystical and
religious nonsense hypnotising starving masses and preventing them from taking the practical,
communal, steps towards self liberation.
As to the current divide. Surely we have now reached the stage at which we can ask what
the argument is all about? If there are millions out of work and in danger of actual
starvation does it matter why-whether the capitalists wrecked their economy or the economy
collapsed because it could not survive a month or two of shut down? The important point is
what needs to be done, firstly to bring society back from the brink of disaster and secondly
to rebuild in such a way that future generations will be insulated from the perils of one
harvest failure, one brief interruption in the economic cycle and, thirdly, to democratise a
society in which there is genuine dispute as to who is making the decisions upon which our
lives depend.
One of trademarks of Trump administration is his that he despises international law and
relies on "might makes right" principle all the time. In a way he is a one trick pony, typical
unhinged bully.
In a way Pompeo is the fact of Trump administration foreign policy, and it is not pretty
It is mostly, though not only, Trump related or libertarian pseudo "alt media" behind "just
the flu" theories or "China unleashed virus to attack US".
There is a small military/zionist cabal at the White House that is pushing for that
information war in order to prop up the dying US empire as well as US oligarhic business
interests, and to secure Trump reelection prospects.
It is enough to see how Zerohedge have been turned into full blown imperialist media with
many "evil China" outbursts every day.
Beware of Trumptards infiltrating alt media to prop up the dying US Empire and its
business interests.
Trump is the biggest US imperialist for the last 30 years. He made a good job at deceiving
many anti-system voices.
His WTO attacks are too part of US efforts to take over the organisation. His has no
problem with international institutions as long as they are US empire controlled (such as
OPCW, WADA, etc.)
Trump-tards and related libertarians (Zerohedge etc.) made their choice on the side
of global US imperialism (driven by their hidden racism, hence the evil "chinks" making a
good enemy) and are now the enemy of the multipolar world.
Trump is scum. He turned on Russia and Assange after he got into the White House and did
far more against Russia than even Obama. I say that as someone who initially made the mistake
to support him.
"... These seeming paradoxes illustrate that the idea of totalitarianism is a useless tool in assessing the decency of governance in any twenty-first-century state. If we are to survive in this brave new world, in which technology makes it ever easier for governments to manipulate individual decisions, but in which we also demand that the state take an ever-larger role in ensuring our safety from ourselves, we must acknowledge that the Manichean worldview implied in the term totalitarianism is an outdated relic of the Cold War. ..."
Last Thursday, Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman issued a
warning in the New
York Times . "The pandemic will eventually end," he wrote, "but democracy, once lost, may never come back. And we're much closer
to losing our democracy than many people realize." Citing the Wisconsin election debacle -- the Supreme Court ruled that voters would
have to vote in person, risking their health -- Krugman argued that Donald Trump and the Republican Party are using the crisis for
their own, authoritarian ends.
This is the perennial critique of Trump: that he is a totalitarian at heart and, if given the chance, 'would want to establish
total control over society.'
Krugman is not alone. As early as last month, when cases of COVID-19 first began to surge in the United States, Masha Gessen
wrote in the New Yorker that the virus was fueling "Trump's autocratic instincts." They argued, "We have long known
that Trump has totalitarian instincts . . . the coronavirus has brought us a step closer." This is indeed the once and future critique
of the Trump presidency: that Trump is a totalitarian at heart and, if given the chance, "would want to establish total control over
a mobilized society." A few days ago, Salon
published an article arguing that the president is using the virus to prepare "the ground for a totalitarian dictatorship." Even
Meghan McCain, as unlikely a person as any to agree with Gessen,
indicated recently that Trump has "always been a sort of totalitarian president" and that he might use the virus to "play on
the American public's fears in a draconian way and possibly do something akin to the Patriot Act."
These critiques make ample use of the term totalitarianism -- "that most horrible of inventions of the twentieth century," in
Gessen's summation . They and other commentators also use it to describe Fidel Castro's Cuba to Vladimir Putin's Russia, which
Gessen left in 2013. As right-wing populism has surged around the world in recent years, the term has had something of a renaissance.
Hannah Arendt's 1951 classic The Origins of Totalitarianism became a best seller again after
Donald Trump's election in November 2016.
This uptick in the term's use runs counter to the trend among historians, for whom the idea of totalitarianism carries increasingly
little weight. Many of us see the term primarily as polemical, used more to discredit governments than to offer meaningful analyses
of them. Scholars often prefer the much broader term authoritarianism, which denotes any form of government that concentrates political
power in the hands of an unaccountable elite. But the fact that historians who study such governments eschew the term totalitarianism,
even as it enjoys wide public currency, points not only to a disconnect between the academy and the general public, but also to a
problem that Americans have in thinking about dictatorship. And it underscores our collective uncertainty about the proper role of
government in crises such as these.
Historians increasingly see the term totalitarian as polemical, used more to discredit governments than to offer meaningful
analyses of them.
The terms totalitarian and totalitarianism have a winding history. In 1922 King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy appointed Benito
Mussolini, leader of the Italian fascist party, as prime minister. In subsequent years, Mussolini established an authoritarian government
that provided a roadmap for other twentieth century dictators, including Adolf Hitler, and made the term fascist an enduring descriptor
of right-wing authoritarianism. A year after Mussolini's appointment, Giovanni Amendola, a journalist and politician opposed to fascism,
used the term totalitario , or totalitarian, to describe how the fascists presented two largely identical party lists at
a local election, thereby preserving the form of competitive democracy (i.e., offering voters a choice), while, in reality, gutting
it. Other writers soon took up the idea and it became a more generic descriptor of the fascist state's dictatorial powers. Mussolini
himself eventually adopted the term to characterize his government, writing that it described a regime of "all within the state,
none outside the state, none against the state." In the next two decades, the terms began to circulate internationally. Amendola
used them in 1925 to compare Mussolini's government and the young Soviet regime in Moscow. Academics in the English-speaking world
began to employ them in the 1920s and '30s in similar comparative contexts.
In a sign of how much the meaning of the words drifted, however, those who later adopted them into political philosophy did not
necessarily consider fascist Italy to have been totalitarian. Hannah Arendt, for instance, dismissed Mussolini's movement: "The true
goal of Fascism was only to seize power and establish the Fascist 'elite' as uncontested ruler over the country." Even now, scholars
point to the survival of pre-fascist government and bureaucratic structures, as well as lower levels of terror and violence directed
against the populace, as evidence that Mussolini's Italy was not genuinely totalitarian.
Instead, Arendt considered totalitarianism to be a way of understanding fundamental similarities between Stalinism and Hitlerism,
despite their diametrical opposition on the political spectrum. This archetypal comparison remains the bedrock of studies of totalitarian
dictatorship. In Origins of Totalitarianism , Arendt laid out what she saw as its internal dynamic:
Totalitarianism is never content to rule by external means, namely, through the state and a machinery of violence; thanks to
its peculiar ideology and the role assigned to it in this apparatus of coercion, totalitarianism has discovered a means of dominating
and terrorizing human beings from within.
This state of affairs, which Arendt diagnosed as the result of an increasingly atomized society, bears a striking resemblance
to the state described in George Orwell's 1984 (another bestseller in the Trump era). Airstrip One, as Orwell renamed Great
Britain, is dominated by an omniscient Big Brother who sees, hears, and knows all. Through a reform of language, Airstrip One even
tries to make it impossible to think illegal thoughts. Newspeak, it is hoped, "shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because
there will be no words in which to express it." Orwell and Arendt considered the obliteration of the private and internal life of
individuals to be the ne plus ultra of totalitarian rule.
Of course, what Arendt and Orwell described are systems of government that have never actually existed. Neither Nazism nor Stalinism
succeeded in controlling or dominating its citizens from within. Moreover, while later scholarship has partially borne out Arendt's
analysis of National Socialism, her understanding of Stalinist rule has proved less insightful.
The other classic account of totalitarianism is Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy , published in 1956 by Carl Friedrich
and Zbigniew Brzezinski. In it, the political scientists developed a six-point list of criteria by which to recognize totalitarianism:
it has an "elaborate ideology," relies on a mass party, uses terror, claims a monopoly on communication as well as on violence, and
controls the economy. Like Arendt, Friedrich and Brzezinski believed totalitarianism to be a new phenomenon -- to take Gessen's words,
an invention of the twentieth century. Their goal was to understand structural similarities between different modern dictatorships.
Even Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union -- the two archetypal examples -- were so different that historians wonder if their
comparison as totalitarian really yields interesting insights.
While scholars critiqued Friedrich and Brzezinski's model -- for example, its one-size-fits-all list fails to appreciate these
regimes' dynamism -- the debate over the usefulness of the term totalitarianism continued. In the decades since, historians and political
scientists have gone back and forth, defining the concept in new ways and showing how those definitions fail in one way or another.
But, at base, these definitions have typically assumed, in the words of historian Ian Kershaw, a "total claim" made on the part
of the totalitarian state over those it rules. That is, Arendt's basic characterization -- that totalitarian regimes aspire to total
control over the public, private, and internal lives of their citizens -- continues to inform scholarly debate.
Arendt's, I would venture, is also the term's folk definition: that is, in people's minds, totalitarianism distinguishes a subset
of authoritarian regimes that seek to (and perhaps even sometimes succeed at) dominating the individual in every conceivable way.
China's new social credit score, which curtails the rights of people who engage in so-called antisocial behaviors, is a current example
of this sort of thing. It is also a clear illustration of the role technology plays in totalitarian fantasies. But China's government
also has many other characteristics, such as a market economy, that traditional understandings of totalitarianism explicitly reject.
This pared-down definition of totalitarianism is still only of dubious utility. Even Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union --
the two archetypal examples -- were so different that historians wonder if their comparison as "totalitarian" really yields interesting
insights. Studies of everyday life in both countries have underscored the limits of the totalitarian model. These revisionist histories,
in the words of Soviet historian Sheila Fitzpatrick, "introduced into Soviet history the notions of bureaucratic and professional
interest groups and institutional and center-periphery conflict, and they were particularly successful at demonstrating inputs from
middle levels of the administrative hierarchy and professional groups. They were alert to what would now be called questions of agency."
Similarly nuanced approaches to Nazism have uncovered ways power worked within the regime that throw the totalitarian hypothesis
into doubt.
In my own area of research, Germany after World War II, totalitarianism plays a fraught role. During the Cold War and its immediate
aftermath, politicians, journalists, and scholars all painted East Germany as a totalitarian government on par with the Nazi state.
But that characterization is simply wrong. For instance, the East German and Nazi secret police forces, the Stasi and the Gestapo,
functioned in fundamentally different ways. The Gestapo was a relatively small organization that relied on thousands of spontaneous
denunciations. It practiced brutal torture and was embedded in a system of extralegal justice that was responsible for the murder
of hundreds of thousands of German citizens (not to mention the millions more killed in the Holocaust). The Stasi was quite different.
It employed a vast bureaucracy -- three times larger than the Gestapo in a population four times smaller -- and cultivated an even
larger network of collaborators. Around 5 percent of East Germans are estimated to have worked for the Stasi at some point, blurring
the lines between persecutors and persecuted. Against those unlucky enough to wind up in a Stasi prison, the secret police employed
methods of psychological torture. But it never induced the same level of terror as did the Gestapo. Nor was it responsible for anywhere
near the same number of deaths. For most East Germans, the Stasi's presence was more of a nuisance -- a "scratchy undershirt," historian
Paul Betts argues.
Of course, the Stasi's ubiquity and its vast surveillance apparatus have equally been taken as proof that the totalitarian hypothesis
does indeed apply to East Germany. But there is ample evidence that East Germans enjoyed robust private lives, along with a sense
of individual self. East Germans wrote millions of petitions to their government, for instance, complaining about everything from
vacations to apartments. They showed up to quiz members of parliament about government policy. When the regime tried to outlaw public
nudity in the 1950s, as historian Josie McLellan has described, East Germans disobeyed, protested, and eventually forced the government
to relent. Kristen Ghodsee, among others, has
contended
that in many ways life was better for women in Eastern Bloc countries than in the West. And the dictatorship never tried to bring
the Protestant Church, to which millions of East Germans belonged, under its full control. My
own research
reveals that gay liberation activists were able to pressure the dictatorship to make significant policy changes.
In short, whatever criteria one uses to define totalitarianism, East Germany does not fit. It was a dictatorship, but certainly
not a totalitarian one. In fact, the classification of East Germany has proved such a nettlesome problem, it has spawned a veritable
cottage industry of neologisms. Scholars describe it, variously, as a welfare dictatorship, a participatory dictatorship, a thoroughly
dominated society, a modern dictatorship, a tutelary state, and a late totalitarian patriarchal and surveillance state.
If the obliteration of the wall between public and private is the defining characteristic of totalitarianism, can any contemporary
society be described as other than totalitarian?
This brings us back to current usage. The problem is that the term totalitarian fulfills two quite different purposes. The first,
as just discussed, is taxonomic: for scholars, it has helped frame an effort to understand the nature of various twentieth-century
regimes. And in this function, it finally seems to be reaching the end of its useful life.
But the term's other purpose is ideological and pejorative, the outgrowth of a Cold War desire to classify fascist and communist
dictatorships as essentially the same phenomenon. To catalog a state as totalitarian it to say it is radically other, sealed off
from the liberal, capitalist, democratic order that we take to be normal. When we call a state totalitarian, we are saying that its
goals are of a categorically different sort than those of our own government -- that it seeks, as Gessen suggests, to destroy human
dignity.
The ideological work that the term totalitarian performs is significant, providing a sleight-of-hand by which to both condemn
foreign regimes and deflect criticism of the regime at home. By claiming that dictatorship and democracy are not simply opposed but
categorically different, it disables us from recognizing the democratic parts of dictatorial rule and the authoritarian aspects of
democratic rule, and thus renders us less capable of effectively diagnosing problems in our own society.
We love to denounce foreign dictatorships. George W. Bush invented the "
Axis of Evil ," for example, to provide a ready
supply of villains. These "totalitarian" regimes -- Iran, Iraq, and North Korea -- we were told, all threatened our freedoms. But
the grouping was always nonsensical, as the regimes bore few similarities to one another. While Iran, in particular, is authoritarian,
it also bears hallmarks of pluralistic democracy. Pointing out the latter does not diminish the former -- rather it helps us understand
how and why the Islamic Republic has shown such tenacity and staying power. To simply call such regimes totalitarian not only misses
the point, but also whitewashes American complicity in creating and propping up authoritarian regimes -- Iran not least of all. Indeed,
the United States supported a number of the past century's most brutal right-wing dictatorships.
Moreover, by thinking of totalitarianism as something that happens elsewhere, in illiberal, undemocratic places, we ignore the
ways in which our government can and has behaved in authoritarian ways within our own country. Black Americans experienced conditions
of dictatorial rule in the Jim Crow South and under slavery, to name but the most prominent examples.
The language of totalitarianism thus obscures how dictatorship and democracy exist on the same spectrum. It is imperative that
we come to a clearer understanding of the fact that hybrid forms of government exist which combine elements of both. These managed
democracies, to take political theorist Sheldon Wolin's term -- from Putin's Russia, to Viktor Orbán's Hungary, to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's
Turkey -- have hallmarks of democratic republics and use a combination of new and old methods to enforce something akin
to one-party rule. These states are certainly not totalitarian, but neither are they democracies.
Likewise, the Republican Party's efforts to manage U.S. democracy through gerrymandering and voter suppression is similar to Putin's,
Orbán's, and Erdoğan's tactics of securing political power. Its strategies push the republic further toward the authoritarian end
of the political spectrum. And, indeed, the sophisticated data-mining techniques of
Cambridge Analytica , which assisted
the 2016 Trump campaign to manipulate voter choices, would have made the Stasi, the Gestapo, or the NKVD green with envy.
In fact, if the obliteration of the wall between public and private is the defining characteristic of totalitarianism, can any
contemporary society be described as anything other than totalitarian? What, after all, does agency mean in a world in which Facebook
aspires to know what we want before we know it ourselves or in a country in which the NSA collects vast troves of data on our own
citizens? To my mind, totalitarianism's usefulness as a distinctive category of government simply evaporates when we begin to look
at all the ways in which technology has compromised individual privacy and agency in the twenty-first century.
Fear of totalitarianism gives the right cover to denounce measures to control the virus: if freedom means freedom from government,
then the worst government is one that makes a total claim on its citizens, even in the interest of saving them from a plague.
Use of the term also prevents us from thinking productively about COVID-19 and how governments ought to respond to it. For a state
of quarantine necessarily forces everyone to give up -- whether voluntarily or no -- their rights of movement, assembly, and, to
some extent, expression. It requires the private choices individuals make -- whether to have friends over for dinner, go on a morning
jog, or buy groceries -- to become public in painful and sometimes even embarrassing ways. Technology companies are
starting to employ their products' tracking features to trace the virus's spread, an application that many
worry
poses an unacceptable breach of privacy.
Yet, the destruction of the private sphere in the interest of the public good is precisely what theorists tell us lies at the
heart of totalitarianism. Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben made precisely this point,
arguing recently that the extraordinary
response to COVID-19 is totalitarian: "The disproportionate reaction . . . is quite blatant. It is almost as if with terrorism exhausted
as a cause for exceptional measures, the invention of an epidemic offered the ideal pretext for scaling them up beyond any limitation."
Of course, we now know the measures the Italian government introduced went neither far nor fast enough. Now there are over 160,000
confirmed cases in Italy and over 20,000 confirmed deaths from the virus.
The confusion the idea of totalitarianism sows over responses in the United States has also been evident since last month. On
March 22, right-wing commentator Andrew Napolitano
asserted
that measures to combat COVID-19 were motivated by "totalitarian impulses." Meanwhile, state officials have been busy
postponing primary
elections, a measure that under normal circumstances would undoubtedly be denounced as totalitarian in nature.
If we are going to arrive at a more sophisticated answer to the question of how to govern democratically in the twenty-first century,
we must begin by acknowledging that all modern governments attempt to control and influence the lives of their citizens, and all
governments make use of exceptional powers to combat crises. The problem with the idea of totalitarianism is that it makes no accommodation
for the reasons behind such exercise of coercive power.
It is, of course, quite right to worry about Donald Trump's response to the virus. His dilly-dallying, his narcissism, and his
inability to take responsibility for anything may
cost
one hundred thousand or more lives. Commentators like Krugman are correct, insofar as Trump and his cronies are indeed trying to
use the crisis to cement their authority. But the ways they are going about it are not totalitarian in any sense of the word. In
fact, the idea of totalitarianism, as commentators such as Napolitano reveal, gives the radical right cover to denounce measures
to control the virus. It is the last stage in the late-twentieth-century neoliberal critique of government: if freedom is only ever
freedom from government interference, then the worst form of government is that which makes a total claim on its citizens, even in
the interest of saving them from a plague. Thinking in terms of totalitarianism -- instead of the broader and more flexible term
authoritarianism -- leads one into such frustrating mental thickets, in which democratic policies can plausibly be denounced as totalitarian.
These seeming paradoxes illustrate that the idea of totalitarianism is a useless tool in assessing the decency of governance
in any twenty-first-century state. If we are to survive in this brave new world, in which technology makes it ever easier for governments
to manipulate individual decisions, but in which we also demand that the state take an ever-larger role in ensuring our safety from
ourselves, we must acknowledge that the Manichean worldview implied in the term totalitarianism is an outdated relic of the Cold
War.
"... I guess when an administration has shown over and over again that it does not respect, international law, domestic law, the US constitution, logic, meaning or the English Language then it can say anything and do anything. ..."
"... The power of the United States is rapidly fading. The country is on the eve of a massive social crisis, as its ruling class fails even to understand the extent of the system's failure. ..."
"... Israel is nobody's real need. Zionism is a philosophical oddity stranded by the tides of history, a mid Victorian nonsense entirely composed of racism and silly ideas about human inequality. ..."
... is that akin to the portion of a George Carlin comedy sketch ?
"From 1778 to 1871, the United States government
entered into more than 500 treaties with
the Native American tribes; all of these treaties have since been violated
in some way or outright broken by the US government,
while at least one treaty was violated
or broken by Native American tribes."
The EU rapprochement with Iran is all about the huge market the EU wants. Their interest in
the JCPOA was always about Iran developing, and the EU benefiting for its trade and
investment potential.
Crippling Iran again with snapback sanctions certainly would end Iran-EU relations for a
decade or longer.
With the EU economy in the toilet due to the pandemic, now more than ever the EU needs
Iran free of sanctions, not laden with crippling new ones.
Only one country benefits from the economic strangulation of Iran--Israel.
In these times of memory holes, sometimes it pays to remember:
As much as I'd like to be optimistic that justice might actually be served for both
Epstein and his myriad clients/co-conspirators, I think the powers-that-be will again
squash this - or liquidate Epstein - before things get out of hand for them.
The American justice system has been corrupted in much the same way the political
system has been, and it's primary objective is to protect the rulers from the common
folk, not to actually deliver true justice.
I'll watch with anticipation, but I haven't had any satisfaction from either a
political or justice perspective since at least the 2000 coup d'etat, so I won't hold my
breath this time.
Economist Michael Hudson explains how American imperialism has created a global free lunch,
where the US makes foreign countries pay for its wars, and even their own military
occupation.
This is part of Tom's description of the Article on Pompeo, Esper and the gang of 1986
(west pointers). They are well embedded. In fact, one class from West Point, that of 1986, from which both Secretary of Defense
Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo graduated, is essentially everywhere in a
distinctly militarized (if still officially civilian) and wildly hawkish Washington in the
Trumpian moment.
In case you missed it the first time, I repeat this link from the beginning of April,
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176686/tomgram%3A_danny_sjursen%2C_trump%27s_own_military_mafia_/
-----------------
Red Ryder | Apr 27 2020 17:07 utc | 14
One addition there. The EU lost "market share" in Iran due to US sanctions. (As
they did with Russia). What they would like to do is to get it back. (France was one
of the bigger losers)
Before any aggression, the United States want Iran to be hermetically sealed with sanction
just like Iraq was before our invasion. Everybody knows the US's intentions because we've
seen it before. There will be NO domestic support for war on Iran as Americans die due to
no public healthcare and massive unemployment and poverty. Iran and the Middle East view a
war on Iran as an Israeli wet dream. Israel is viewed as the intellectual author of
aggression against Iran, and Iran will respond appropriately. So, is AIPAC willing to get
Israel destroyed? Is AIPAC on a suicide mission? Looks that way.
Israel and Saudi Arabia are de facto allies aiming to carve up the entire Middle East
between them. Forget about Sunni / Shia / Hebrew, that is a manufactured excuse to war for
resources (oil first, then water).
Proof? Mutual "enemies" (oil-rich Iran and Syria, which is the nexus for pipelines) and
mutual ally (Uncle Sam). Also not a single complaint from Israel over the $100b US-Saudi
Arms deal. As to Palestine, that is a human rights issue and has no weight because water is
not recognized as a strategic resource (yet).
I guess when an administration has shown over and over again that it does not respect,
international law, domestic law, the US constitution, logic, meaning or the English
Language then it can say anything and do anything.
"The Iranians are not helping the Palestinians one iota. They are splitting the
opposition."
Glasshopper@29
Whoever has been helping Hezbollah has been helping the Palestinians. And whoever has
been holding Syria together, despite the pressure of the imperialists and their sunni-state
puppets, has also been helping the Palestinians by bringing some kind of balance into
regional power calculations.
It is imperative that Iran continues not only to provide political support to the
Palestinian cause but to democratise the Gulf, to the extent of bringing about the demise
of the autocracies, and the Arabian world generally.
Israel has already exerted its maximum influence. The power of the United States is
rapidly fading. The country is on the eve of a massive social crisis, as its ruling class
fails even to understand the extent of the system's failure. (There will be no war to
divert attention from the crisis.) And Israel will be left to solve its own problems as its
'allies' find themselves increasingly pre-occupied with real problems.
Supporting Israel and building it up as an imperialist base has been part of an era in
which the empire was hegemonic and thus able to define international events in terms of
domestic politics.
That era has ended. The USA is still powerful but it is no longer anything more than one
of the major participants in geopolitical competition. Even to maintain its position it is
going to have to do, what other powers have done and concentrate its resources on its real
needs.
Israel is nobody's real need. Zionism is a philosophical oddity stranded by the
tides of history, a mid Victorian nonsense entirely composed of racism and silly ideas
about human inequality. Israel has one choice, to divest itself of its fascist
government and its fascistic culture and seek accommodation within the neighbourhood or to
wither away as its population emigrates leaving only the committed fascists to play with
Armageddon.
Long before that happens the imperialists will have taken its weapons away from it.
It may very well be the case that the ordinary Iranian is no more committed to fighting
on behalf of Palestinians than the average American is committed to risking all, or
anything, for the sake of Israel. But Iran's commitment to Palestine is a powerful
political statement and one that counters the divisive tactics of the wahhabis and their
imperial friends. Iran has taken up the mantle that Nasser briefly wore, in the vanguard of
a muslim and Arab nationalist movement. This makes it very difficult for the sunni tyrants
actually to commit forces to defend Israel or attack Iran. Their duplicity is a measure of
their own weakness.
Does anyone imagine that the pro-Israeli policies pursued by the Sauds are actually
popular? The Gulf and Saudi policies of sucking up to Israel are far more damaging to them
than Iran's stance is to it.
The United States announced its withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(JCPOA), also known as the "Iran nuclear deal" or the "Iran deal", on May 8, 2018.
This document discusses the legal rationale for the US withdrawal from tje JCPOA in
detail:
Iran should sign a peace deal with the Israelis.
Posted by: Glasshopper | Apr 27 2020 16:42 utc | 8
Some people should stick to what they do well, like hopping on glass. A simple
observation: peace deal with "the Israelis" is not possible. Gulfie princes tried. No
cigar. They genuinely tried to be nice with Israel, out of "anti-Semitic delusion that Jews
control USA". I conjecture that Glasshopper made a similar assumption -- why would Iran
consider a "peace deal with the Israelis" if its direct conflict is with USA (and the
Gulfies)? How it would help them unless "Jews control USA"?
As a mental experiment, let Grasshopper sketch a putative "deal with Israelis". Kushner
plan?
@70 BraveNewWorld, you haven't added up the numbers correctly. Take China, Russia and Iran
out of the equation leaves you with five (including the EU as a whole, which is not a
given). Take the USA out as well and it doesn't matter how sycophantic the Europeans are,
Pompeo can only muster four votes.
And he needs five to refer the issue to the UNSC.
That's why Pompous wants to waddle his way back in: no matter which way he looks at
this, without the USA sitting at the table he is one-short.
Actually, I've just read the JCPOA and UNSC Resolution 2231 and neither has any mention of
a "majority vote" requirement for a referral to the UNSC for a vote on "snapping back"
sanctions. It appears that any one JCPOA participant can refer the issue of alleged
non-compliance to the UNSC, provided that they first exhaust the Joint Commission dispute
mechanism.
But I do note this in the JCPOA (my bold): "Upon receipt of the notification from the
complaining participant, as described above, including a description of the good-faith
efforts the participant made to exhaust the dispute resolution process specified in this
JCPOA , the UN Security Council, in accordance with its procedures, shall vote on a
resolution to continue the sanctions lifting"
Seems to me that there is a procedural "out" there for the UN Secretariat i.e. it may
use that highlighted section to decide that the participant is a vexatious litigant whose
participation in the Joint Commission was not in good faith, ergo, the UN can refuse to
even take receipt of the complaint.
Everything else then becomes moot.
The USA would raise merry-hell, sure, it would. But that would be no more outrageous a
ploy by the UN than was the USA's own argument that it can have its cake and eat it
too.
After all, if a participant to the JCPOA referred its complaint to the UNSC without
first going through the Joint Commission then it is a given that the UNSC is under no
obligation to receive that complaint. No question.
So why can't the UNSC also refuse to accept a complaint when it is clear that the
complainant has not gone through the Joint Commission process in "good faith"?
One for the lawyers and ambassadors to argue, I would suggest, but it is not a given
that the USA can ram this through even if everyone were to agree that it were still a
participant in the JCPOA.
@61 Arch: "This document discusses the legal rationale for the US withdrawal from tje JCPOA
in detail"
Arch, the crux of that CRS legal paper boils down to this:
.."under current domestic law, the President may possess authority to terminate U.S.
participation in the JCPOA and to re-impose U.S. sanctions on Iran, either through
executive order or by declining to renew statutory waivers"..
All the other fluff in that paper is inconsequential compared to this question posed by
that quote: can the US claim to be half-pregnant?
I suspect not.
Note that at the time the CRS paper was written (May 2018) it did have a valid point
i.e. while Trump *had* refused to re-certify Iranian compliance, he had *not* reimposed US
sanctions on Iran, and so the CRS paper could credibly argue that Trump wasn't pregnant, he
just talking dirty to the Congress.
But that was then, and this is now, and - as b points out - Executive Order 13846 is the
smoking gun because in it Trump is OFFICIALLY stating that he has decided to " cease the
participation of the United States in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action ".
That EO is clearly the killing blow to Pompeo's nonsense, and even the CRS legal paper
you linked to would agree.
As I see it, the historical problem with European fascism has been that when push comes to
shove the knife comes out and its either give in to enforced collaboration or take a
stabbing, it's your choice. Even if that means helping murder millions of your neighbours
or being murdered. As Celan said "Der Tod ist ein Meister aus Deutschland."
The US has been enforcing a morally sanitised Disney Adult version of this old world
order since at least the 2003 Supreme Crime of Aggression against Iraq. Sooner or later as
this global pandemic, political, and financial crisis unfolds, the US leaders will be
forced to choose whether or not the UN is a viable vehicle through which to continue the
elite lunatic project for planetary full spectrum dominance of 21st C financial and
military affairs.
So I reckon the Pentagon at some point either gets to finally execute the long awaited
'Operation Conquer Persia' or the politicians and their chickenhawk ideologues will back
off again and continue the death by a thousand cuts of the last 40 years. I'd probably bet
the latter but that's the trouble with genuine psychopaths, push comes to shove they will
go for it if they think they'll get away with it.
This last 2 decades has been like watching a reality TV series about a fat drunken
psychopath with a bloody knife going around and stabbing people at a party, but now the
psycho is starting to stagger and everyone in the house is watchful trying to keep their
distance. House rules are that anyone starts an actual fight to the death with the psycho
then everyone dies!
I more or less trust that if we ever get there, a multipolar world order won't collapse
into outright fascism but we're closer to collapse every year, especially from this year
on, and most especially in the Persian Gulf.
In current US political system, it is not necessary to propose a valid claim, or proposal
or argument - they intend to act from a position of authority. They know where you live.
I am a retired Teamster in Syracuse, New York, who joined the civil rights, antiwar, and
environmental movements as a teenager in the San Francisco Bay Area in the 1960s. In 1984, I
co-founded the Green Party. In 2010, I was the first U.S. candidate to campaign for a Green
New Deal in the first of three campaigns for New York governor that won Green Party ballot
lines.
To end the climate crisis, I have detailed an Ecosocialist Green New Deal to create 38
million new jobs, 100% clean energy, and zero carbon emissions by 2030.
To end poverty and economic insecurity, I propose an Economic Bill of Rights: job
guarantee, guaranteed minimum income, affordable housing, improved Medicare for all,
tuition-free public education pre–K to college, and secure retirement by doubling
Social Security.
To end endless wars, I support 75% military spending cuts, U.S. troops home, diplomacy,
international law, human rights, and a Global Green New Deal.
To end the new nuclear arms race, I favor no first use, minimum credible deterrent, and
ratification of the new Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty.
I support unions, $20 minimum wage, worker co-ops, public banks, public energy, public
railroads, progressive taxation, net neutrality, internet privacy, ending mass surveillance,
no nukes, no fracking, abortion rights, student and medical debt relief, decriminalizing
drugs, ending mass incarceration, police under community control, immigrant amnesty,
African-American reparations, Indian and Mexican-American treaty rights, whistleblower and
political prisoner pardons, and presidential elections by National Popular Vote using
Ranked-Choice Voting. [Ranked Choice Voting is a huge fraud -- which many well-meaning people
fall for]
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We live at a time when the terrors of life suggests the world has descended into darkness.
The COVID-19 crisis has created a dystopian nightmare which floods our screens and media with
images of fear. Bodies, doorknobs, cardboard packages, plastic bags, and the breath we exhale
and anything else that offers the virus a resting place is comparable to a bomb ready to
explode resulting in massive suffering and untold deaths. We can no longer shake hands, embrace
our friends, use public transportation, sit in a coffee shop, or walk down the street without
experiencing real anxiety and fear. We are told by politicians, media pundits, and others that
everyday life has taken on the character of a war zone.
The metaphor of war has a deep sense of urgency and has a long rhetorical history in times
of crisis. Militarization has become a central feature of the pandemic age and points to the
dominance of warlike values in society. More specifically, Michael Geyer defines it as the
'contradictory and tense social process in which civil society organizes itself for the
production of violence' (Geyer, 1989: 9). Geyer was writing about the militarization of Europe
between 1914-1945, but his description seems even more relevant today. This is clear in the way
right-wing politicians such as Trump promote the increasing militarization of language, public
spaces, and bodies. Terms such as 'war footing', 'mounting an assault', and 'rallying the
troops' have been normalized in the face of the pandemic crisis. At the same time,
the language of war privileges the proliferation of surveillance capitalism, the defense of
borders, and the suspension of civil liberties.
As the virus brings the engines of capitalism to a halt, the discourse of war takes on a new
significance as a medical term that highlights the struggles to grapple with underfunded public
health care systems, the lack of resources for testing, the surge towards downward mobility,
expanding unemployment and the ongoing, heart-wrenching, efforts to provide protective
essentials for front line and emergency workers. At the heart of this epic tragedy is an
understated political struggle to reverse and amend decades of a war waged by neoliberal
capitalism against the welfare state, essential social provisions, public goods, and the social
contract. The failure of this oppressive death-dealing form of casino capitalism can be heard
as Arundhati Roy observes
in:
the stories of overwhelmed hospitals in the US, of underpaid, overworked nurses having to
make masks out of garbage bin liners and old raincoats, risking everything to bring succor to
the sick. About states being forced to bid against each other for ventilators, about doctors'
dilemmas over which patient should get one and which left to die.
The language of war is used by the mandarins of power to both address the indiscriminate
viral pandemic that has brought capitalism to its knees and to reinforce and expand the
political formations and global financial system that are incapable of dealing with the
pandemic. Rather than using rage, emotion, and fear to sharpen our understanding of the
conditions that abetted this global plague and what it might mean to address it and prevent it
in the future, the ruling elite in a number of right wing countries such as the U.S. and Brazil
use the discourse of war either to remove such questions from public debate or dismisses them
as acts of bad faith in a time of crisis. Amartya Sen is right in
arguing that '[o]vercoming a pandemic may look like fighting a war, but the real need is
far from that'.
Instead the language of war creates an echo chamber produced in both the highest circles of
power and the right-wing cultural apparatuses that serve to turn trauma, exhaustion, and
mourning into a fog of conspiracy theories, state repression, and a deepening abyss of darkness
that ' serves the
ends of those in power' . Edward Snowden is right in warning that governments will use the
pandemic crisis to expand their attack on civil liberties, roll back constitutional rights,
repress dissent and create what he calls an '
architecture of oppression' . He
writes :
As authoritarianism spreads, as emergency laws proliferate, as we sacrifice our rights, we
also sacrifice our capability to arrest the slide into a less liberal and less free world. Do
you truly believe that when the first wave, this second wave, the 16th wave of the
coronavirus is a long-forgotten memory, that these capabilities will not be kept? That these
datasets will not be kept? No matter how it is being used, what' is being built is the
architecture of oppression.
There is no doubt that the Covid-19 crisis will test the limits of democracy worldwide.
Right-wing movements, neo-Nazis, authoritarian politicians, religious fundamentalists and a
host of other extremists are energized by what Slavoj Zizek
calls the 'ideological viruses [lying] dormant in our societies'. These include closing of
borders, the quarantining of so-called enemies, the claim that undocumented immigrants spread
the virus, the demand for increased police power, and the rush by religious fundamentalists to
relegate women to the home to assume their 'traditional' gendered role.
On the economic level and under the cover of fear, the U.S. in particular, is transferring
what Jonathan
Cook refers to as:
huge sums of public money to the biggest corporations. Politicians controlled by big
business and media owned by big business are pushing through this corporate robbery without
scrutiny – and for reasons that should be self-explanatory. They know our attention is
too overwhelmed by the virus for us to assess intentionally mystifying arguments about the
supposed economic benefits, about yet more illusory trickle-down.
This constitutes a politics of 'opportunistic authoritarianism' and is already in play in a
number of countries that are using the cover of enforcing public health measures to enforce a
range of anti-democratic policies and wave of repression. The pandemic has made clear that
market mechanisms cannot address the depth and scope of the current crisis. The failure of
neoliberalism not only reveals a profound sense of despair and moral void at the heart of
casino capitalism, but also makes clear that the spell of neoliberalism is broken and as such
is in the midst of a legitimation crisis. The coronavirus pandemic has both made clear that the
neoliberal notion that all problems are a matter of individual responsibility and that each of
us are defined exclusively by our self-interest has completely broken down as the effects of
neoliberalism's failure to deal with the pandemic unfold in shortages in crucial medical
equipment, lack of testing, and failed public health services, largely due to austerity
measures.
One consequence the failed neoliberal state is an uptake in levels of oppression in order to
prevent the emergence of massive protests movements and radical forms of collective resistance.
The suspension of civil rights, repression of dissent, upending of constitutional liberties,
and the massive use of state surveillance in the service of anti-democratic ends has become
normalized. Many of the countries driven by austerity policies and a culture of cruelty are
using the pandemic crisis as a way shaping their modes of governance by drawing from what
activist Ejeris Dixon calls elements of a '
fascist emergency playbook' . These
include :
Use the emergency to restrict civil liberties -- particularly rights regarding movement,
protest, freedom of the press, a right to a trial and freedom to gather. Use the emergency to
suspend governmental institutions, consolidate power, reduce institutional checks and
balances, and reduce access to elections and other forms of participatory governance. Promote
a sense of fear and individual helplessness, particularly in relationship to the state, to
reduce outcry and to create a culture where people consent to the power of the fascist state;
Replace democratic institutions with autocratic institutions using the emergency as
justification. Create scapegoats for the emergency, such as immigrants, people of color,
disabled people, ethnic and religious minorities, to distract public attention away from the
failures of the state and the loss of civil liberties .
The evidence for the spread of this ideological virus and its apparatuses and polices of
repression are no longer simply dormant fears of those fearful of the rise of authoritarian
movements and modes of governance. For instance, Viktor Orbán, Hungary's prime minister
passed
a bill that gave him 'sweeping emergency powers for an indefinite period of time .The
measures were invoked as part of the government's response to the global pandemic'. What is
becoming obvious is that the pandemic crisis produces mass anxiety that enables governments to
turn a medical crisis into a political opportunity for leaders across the globe to push through
dictatorial powers with little resistance.
For instance, as Selam
Gebrekidan observes : 'In Britain, ministers have what a critic called 'eye-watering' power
to detain people and close borders. Israel's prime minister has shut down courts and begun an
intrusive surveillance of citizens. Chile has sent the military to public squares once occupied
by protesters. Bolivia has postponed elections'. In the Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte,
who has flagrantly violated civil rights in the past, was given emergency powers by the
congress. Under the cloak of invoking public health measures because of the threat posed by the
coronavirus plague, China has broken up protests in Hong Kong and arrested many of its leaders.
In the United States, Trump's Justice Department has asked
Congress 'for the ability to ask chief judges to detain people indefinitely without trial
during emergencies -- part of a push for new powers that comes as the coronavirus spreads
through the United States'.
In the U.S. Trump blames the media for spreading fake news about the virus, attacks
reporters who ask critical questions, packs the courts with federal sycophants, dehumanizes
undocumented immigrants by labeling them as carriers of the virus, and claims that he has
'total authority' to reopen the economy, however dangerous the policy, in the face of the
coronavirus pandemic. In this instance, Trump markets fear to endorse elements of white
supremacy, ultra-nationalism, and social cleansing while unleashing the mobilizing passions of
fascism. He supports voter suppression and has publicly stated that making it easier to vote
for many Americans such as blacks and other minorities of color would
mean 'you would never have a Republican elected in this country again'. In the midst of
economic hardships and widespread suffering due to the raging pandemic, Trump has tapped into a
combination of fear and a cathartic cruelty while emboldening a savage lawlessness aimed at the
most vulnerable populations. How else to explain his calling the coronavirus the '
Chinese virus' , regardless of the violence it enables by right wingers against
Asian-Americans, or his call to reopen the economy to hastily knowing that thousands could die
as a result, mostly the elderly, poor, and other vulnerable.
Militarizing the Media and the Politics of Pandemic Pedagogy
In the age of the pandemic, culture has been militarized. Donald Trump and the right-wing
media in the United States have both politicized and weaponized the coronavirus pandemic. They
have weaponized it by using a state of emergency to promote Trump's political attacks on
critics, the press, journalists, and politicians who have questioned his bungling response to
the pandemic crisis. They have politicized it by introducing a series of policies under the
rubric of a state of exception that diverts bailout money to the ruling elite, militarizes
public space, increases the power of the police, wages attacks on undocumented immigrants as a
public health threat, and promotes voter suppression. In addition Trump has further
strengthened the surveillance state, fired public servants for participating in the impeachment
process, and initially claimed that the virus was a hoax perpetuated by the media and Democrats
who were trying to undermine Trump's re-election.
Trump's language of dehumanization coupled with his appalling ignorance and toxic
incompetence appears as a perfect fit for the media spectacle that he has made a central
feature of his presidency. Trump's 'anti-intellectualism has been simmering in the United
States for decades and has now fully boiled over' and when incorporated as a central feature of
the right-wing social media becomes 'a tremendously successful tool of hegemonic control,
manipulation, and false consciousness'. Trump's apocalyptic rhetoric appears to match the tenor
of the moment as there is a surge in right-wing extremism, anti-Semitism, explosive racism, and
a culture of lies, immediacy, and cruelty. What we are witnessing as the pandemic intensifies
in the United States, and in some other countries across the globe, is the increasing threat of
authoritarian regimes that both use the media to normalize their actions and wage war against
dissidents and others struggling to preserve democratic ideas and principles.
Given his experience in the realms of Reality TV and celebrity culture,
Trump is driven by mutually reinforcing registers of spectacular fits of self-promotion,
joy in producing troves of Orwellian doublespeak, and the ratings his media coverage receives.
One of the insults he throws out at reporters in his coronavirus
briefings is that their networks have low ratings as if that is a measure of the relevance
of the question being asked. Unlike any other president, Trump has used the mainstream media
and social media to mobilize his followers, attack his enemies, and produce a twitter universe
of misinformation, lies, and civic illiteracy. He has championed the right-wing media by both
echoing their positions on a number of issues and using them to air his own. The conservative
media such as Fox News has been enormously complicitous in justifying Trump's call for the
Justice Department to dig up dirt on his political rivals, including the impeachable offense of
extorting the Ukrainian government through the promise to withhold military aid if they did not
launch an investigation into his political rival, Joe Biden. Moreover, they have supported his
instigation of armed rebellions via his tweets urging his followers to liberate Minnesota,
Michigan, and Virginia by refusing to comply with stay-at-home orders and
social distancing restrictions . Ironically, he is urging anti-social distancing protests
that violate his own federal guidelines.
Trump has used the police powers of the state, especially ICE to round up children and
separate them from their parents at the border. Placing loyalty above expertise, he surrounds
himself with incompetent sycophants, and makes policy decisions from his gut, often in
opposition to the advice of public health experts. All of this is echoed and supported by the
conservative and right wing eco-system, especially Fox News, Breitbart News, and what appears
to be a legion of right wing commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, who falsely claimed the virus
is a common cold and Laura Ingraham, who deceitfully compared Covid-19 to the flu. Fox News not
only produced conspiracy theories such as the claim the virus was the product of the 'deep
state' and was being used by Democrats to prevent Trump from being re-elected, it also produced
misinformation about the virus and represented what 74 journalism professors and leading
journalists described as ' a danger to
public health' . Like most authoritarians, Trump does everything to control the truth by
flooding the media with lies, denouncing scientific evidence, and critical judgment as fake
news. The latter is a direct attack on the free press, critical journalists, and the notion
that the search for the truth is crucial to any valid and shared notion of citizenship.
The crisis of politics is now matched by a mainstream and corporate controlled digital media
and screen culture that revels in political theater, embraces ignorance, fractured narratives,
and racial hysteria (cf. Butsch, 2019). In addition, it authorizes and produces a culture of
sensationalism designed to increase ratings and profits at the expense of truth. As a
disimagination machine and form of pandemic pedagogy, it undermines a complex rendering of
social problems and suppresses a culture of dissent and informed judgments. This pandemic
pedagogy functions so as to shape human agency, desire, and modes of identification both in the
logic of consumerism while privileging a hyper form of masculinity and legitimating a
friend/enemy distinction. We live in an age in which theater and the spectacle of performance
empty politics of any moral substance and contribute to the revival of an updated version of
fascist politics. Thoughtlessness has become a national ideal as the corporate controlled media
mirror the Trump administration demand that reality be echoed rather than be analyzed,
interrogated and critically comprehended. Politics is now leaden with bombast, words strung
together to shock, numb the mind, and images overwrought with self-serving sense of riotousness
and anger. Trump shamelessly reinforces such a politics by showing propaganda videos at
presidential news conferences.
What is distinct about this historical period, especially under the Trump regime, is what
Susan Sontag has called a form of aesthetic fascism with
its contempt of 'all that is reflective, critical, and pluralistic'. One distinctive element of
the current moment is the rise of what we call hard and soft disimagination machines. The hard
disimagination machines, such as Fox News, conservative talk radio, and Breitbart media,
function as overt and unapologetic propaganda machines that trade in nativism,
misrepresentations, and racist hysteria, all wrapped in the cloak of a regressive view of
patriotism.
As
Joel Bleifuss points out , Fox News , in particular, is 'blatant in its contempt for
the truth, and engages nightly in the 'ritual of burying the truth in 'memory holes' and
spinning a new version of reality [that keeps] the spirit of 1984 alive and well . This, the
most-watched cable news network, functions in its fealty to Trump like a real-world Ministry of
Truth from George Orwell's 1984 , where bureaucrats 'rectify' the historical record to
conform to Big Brother's decrees'. Trump's fascist politics and fantasies of
racial purity could not succeed without the disimagination machines, pedagogical
apparatuses, and the practitioners needed to make his 'vision not merely real but grotesquely
normal'. What Trump makes clear is that the weaponization of language into a discourse of
racism and hate is deeply indebted to a politics of forgetting and is a crucial tool in the
battle to undermine historical consciousness and memory itself.
The soft disimagination machines or liberal mainstream media such as NBC Nightly News,
MSNBC, and the established press function largely to cater to Trump's Twitter universe,
celebrity culture, and the cut throat ethos of the market, all the while isolating social
issues, individualizing social problems, and making the workings of power superficially
visible. This is obvious in their mainstream's continuous
coverage of his daily press briefings, which as Oscar Zambrano puts it 'is like watching a
disease in progress that is infecting us all: a parallel to coronavirus' (Zambrano, 2020).
Unfortunately, high ratings are more important than refusing to participate in Trump
disinformation spectacles. Politics as a spectacle saturates the senses with noise, cheap
melodrama, lies, and buffoonery. This is not to suggest that the spectacle that now shapes
politics as pure theater is meant merely to entertain and distract.
On the contrary, the current spectacle, most recently evident in the midst of the
coronavirus crisis functions as a war machine, functioning largely to nurture the notion of war
as a permanent social relation, the primary organizing principle of society and politics merely
one of its means or guises. War has now become the operative and defining feature of language
and the matrix for all relations of power.
The militarization of the media, and culture itself, now function as a form of social and
historical amnesia. That is, in both form and content it separates the past from a politics
that in its current form has turned deadly in its attack on the values and institutions crucial
to a functioning democracy. In this instance, echoes of a fascist past remain hidden, invisible
beneath the histrionic shouting and disinformation campaigns that rail against alleged 'enemies
of the state' and 'fake news', which is a euphemism for dissent, holding power accountable, and
an oppositional media. A flair for the overly dramatic eliminates the distinction between fact
and fiction, lies and the truth.
Under such circumstances, the spectacle of militarization functions as part of a culture of
distraction, division, and fragmentation, all the while refusing to pose the question of how
the United States shares elements of a fascist politics that connects it to a number of other
authoritarian countries such as Brazil, Turkey, Hungary, and Poland. All of these countries in
the midst of the pandemic have embraced a form of fascist aesthetics and politics that combines
a cruel culture of neoliberal austerity with the discourses of hate, nativism, and state
repression. The militarization of culture and the media in its current forms can only appeal to
the state of exception, death, and war. Under such circumstances, the relationship between
civil liberties and democracy, politics and death, and justice and injustice is lost. War
should be a
source of alarm, not pride , and its linguistic repositories should be actively
demilitarized.
Conclusion
Under the Trump regime, historical amnesia is used as a weapon of (mis)education, politics,
and power and is waged primarily through the militarization and weaponization of the media.
This constitutes a form of pandemic pedagogy -- a pedagogical virus that erodes the modes of
agency, values, and civic institutions central to a robust democracy. The notion that the past
is a burden that must be forgotten is a center piece of authoritarian regimes, one that allows
public memory to wither and the threads of fascism to become normalized. While some critics
eschew the comparison of Trump with the Nazi era, it is crucial to recognize the alarming signs
in this administration that echo a fascist politics of the past. As
Jonathan Freedland points out , 'the signs are there, if only we can bear to look'.
Rejecting the Trump-Nazi comparison makes it easier to believe that we have nothing to learn
from history and to take comfort in the assumption that it cannot happen once again. Democracy
cannot survive if it ignores the lessons of the past, reduces education to mass conformity,
celebrates civic illiteracy, and makes consumerism the only obligation of citizenship. Max
Horkheimer added a more specific register to the relationship between fascism and capitalism in
his
comment 'If you don't want to talk about capitalism then you had better keep quiet about
fascism.'
The lessons to be learned from the pandemic crisis have to exceed making visible the lies,
misinformation, and corruption at the heart of the Trump regime. Such an approach fails to
address the most serious of Trump's crimes. Moreover, it fails to examine a number of political
threads that together constitute elements common to a global crisis in the age of the pandemic.
The global response to the pandemic crisis by a number of authoritarian states when viewed as
part of a broader crisis of democracy needs to be analyzed by connecting ideological, economic,
and cultural threads that weave through often isolated issues such as white nationalism, the
rise of a Republican Party dominated by right-wing extremists, the collapse of the two party
system, and the ascent of a corporate controlled media as a disimagination machine and the
proliferation of corrosive systems of power and dehumanization.
Crucial to any politics of resistance is the necessity to take seriously the notion that
education is central to politics itself, and that social problems have to be critically
understood before people can act as a force for empowerment and liberation. This suggests
analyzing Trump's use of politics as a militarized spectacle not in isolation from the larger
social totality -- as simply one of incompetence, for instance- but as part of a more
comprehensive political project in which updated forms of authoritarianism and contemporary
versions of fascism are being mobilized and gaining traction both in the United States and
across the globe. Federico Mayor, the former director general of UNESCO once stated that 'You
cannot expect anything from uneducated citizens except unstable democracy'. In the current
historical moment and age of Trump, it might be more appropriate to say that what can be
expected from a society in which ignorance is a virtue and civic literacy and education are
viewed as a liability, one cannot expect anything but fascism.
The pandemic crisis should be a rallying cry to create massive collective resistance against
both the Republican and Democratic Parties and the naked brutality of the political and
economic system they have supported since the 1970s. That is, the criminogenic response to the
crisis on the part of the Trump administration should become a call to arms, if not a model on
a global level, for a massive protest movement that moves beyond the ritual of trying Trump and
other authoritarian politicians for an abuse of power. Instead, such a movement should become a
call to put on trial a capitalist system while fighting for structural and ideological reforms
that will usher in a radical and socialist democracy worthy of the struggle.
What is crucial to remember is no democracy cannot survive without an informed citizenry.
Moreover, solidarity among individuals cannot be assumed and must fought for as part of a wider
struggle to break down the walls ideological and material repression that isolate,
depoliticize, and pit individuals and groups against each other. Community and a robust public
sphere cannot be built on the bonds of shared fears, isolation, and oppression. Authoritarian
governments will work to contain both any semblance of democratic politics and any attempts at
large scale transformations of society. Power lies in more than understanding and the ability
to disrupt, it also lies in a vision of a future that does not imitate the present and the
courage to collectively struggle to bring a radical democratic socialist vision into
fruition.
References.
Butsch, R. (2019). Screen Culture: A Global History . London: Polity.
Geyer, M. (1989). 'The Militarization of Europe, 1914-1945', in J. R. Gillis (ed)
Militarization of the Western World . New Brunswick: NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Zambrano. O. (2020). Personal correspondence. March 20.
This article first appeared on E-International Relations .Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Henry Giroux –
Ourania FilippakouHenry A. Giroux currently holds the McMaster University Chair for
Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department and is the
Paulo Freire Distinguished Scholar in Critical Pedagogy. His most recent books include
American
Nightmare: Facing the Challenge of Fascism (City Lights, 2018), On Critical Pedagogy , 2nd
edition (Bloomsbury, 2020); The Terror of the
Unforeseen (Los Angeles Review of books, 2019), and Neoliberalism's
War on Higher Education , 2nd edition (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2020).Ourania
Filippakou is Reader and Director of Teaching and Learning in the Department of Education at
Brunel University London. Her most recent book, co-authored with Ted Tapper, is '
Creating the Future? The 1960s New English Universities ' (Dordrecht: Springer, 2019). Her
forthcoming books are: 'Higher education and the Crisis of Europe' (2021) and 'Restructuring
Knowledge in Higher Education' (with Ted Tapper) both to be published by Routledge. She is
co-editor of the British Educational Research Journal
Dangerous pathogens are captured in the wild and made deadlier in government biowarfare labs. Did that happen here?
There has been no scientific finding that the novel coronavirus was bioengineered, but its origins are not entirely clear. Deadly
pathogens discovered in the wild are sometimes studied in labs – and sometimes made more dangerous. That possibility, and other plausible
scenarios, have been incorrectly dismissed in remarks by some scientists and government officials, and in the coverage of most major
media outlets.
Regardless of the source of this pandemic, there is considerable documentation that a global biological arms race going on outside
of public view could produce even more deadly pandemics in the future.
While much of the media and political establishment have minimized the threat from such lab work, some hawks on the American right
like Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark ., have singled out Chinese biodefense researchers as uniquely dangerous.
The current dynamics of the biological arms race have been driven by US government decisions that extend back decades. In December
2009, Reuters
reported that the Obama administration was refusing even to negotiate the possible monitoring of biological weapons.
Much of the left in the US now appears unwilling to scrutinize the origin of the pandemic – or the wider issue of biowarfare –
perhaps because portions of the anti-Chinese right have been so vocal in making unfounded allegations.
Governments that participate in such biological weapon research generally distinguish between "biowarfare" and "biodefense,"
as if to paint such "defense" programs as necessary. But this is rhetorical sleight-of-hand; the two concepts are largely indistinguishable.
"Biodefense" implies tacit biowarfare, breeding more dangerous pathogens for the alleged purpose of finding a way to fight
them. While this work appears to have succeeded in creating deadly and infectious agents, including deadlier flu strains, such "defense"
research is impotent in its ability to defend us from this pandemic.
The legal scholar who drafted the main US law on the subject, Francis Boyle, warned in his 2005 book "
Biowarfare and Terrorism " that an "illegal biological arms
race with potentially catastrophic consequences" was underway, largely driven by the US government.
For years,
many scientists have raised concerns regarding bioweapons/biodefense lab work, and specifically about the fact that huge increases
in funding have taken place since 9/11. This was especially true after the anthrax-by-mail attacks that killed five people in the
weeks after 9/11, which the FBI ultimately blamed on a US government biodefense scientist. A 2013 study found that biodefense funding
since 2001 had totaled at least $78 billion
, and more has surely been spent since then. This has led to a
proliferation of laboratories , scientists and new organisms,
effectively setting off a biological arms race.
Following the Ebola outbreak in west Africa in 2014, the US government
paused
funding for what are known as "gain-of-function" research on certain organisms. This work actually seeks to make deadly pathogens
deadlier, in some cases making pathogens airborne that previously were not. With little notice outside the field,
the pause on such research was lifted
in late 2017 .
During this pause, exceptions for funding were made for dangerous gain-of-function lab work. This included work jointly done by
US scientists from the University of North Carolina, Harvard and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This work – which had funding from
USAID and EcoHealth Alliance not originally acknowledged – was published in
2015 in Nature Medicine .
A different Nature Medicine article about the origin of the current pandemic, authored by five scientists and
published on March 17, has been touted by major media
outlet and some officials – including current National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins – as definitively disproving
a lab origin for the novel coronavirus. That journal article, titled "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2," stated unequivocally: "Our
analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus." This is a subtly misleading
sentence. While the scientists state that there is no known laboratory "signature" in the SARS-Cov-2 RNA, their argument fails to
take account of other lab methods that could have created coronavirus mutations without leaving such a signature.
Indeed, there is also the question of conflict of interest in the Nature Medicine article. Some of the authors of that article,
as well as a February 2020
Lancet letter condemning
"conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin" – which seemed calculated to minimize outside scrutiny
of biodefense lab work – have troubling ties to the biodefense complex, as well as to the US government. Notably, neither of these
articles makes clear that a virus can have a natural origin and then be captured and studied in a controlled laboratory setting before
being let loose, either intentionally or accidentally – which is clearly a possibility in the case of the coronavirus.
Facts as "rumors"
This reporter raised questions about the subject at a news conference with a Center for Disease Control (CDC) representative
at the now-shuttered National Press Club on Feb. 11. I asked if it was a "complete coincidence" that the pandemic had started in
Wuhan, the only place in China with a declared biosafety level 4 (BSL4) laboratory. BSL4 laboratories have the most stringent safety
mechanisms, but handle the most deadly pathogens. As I mentioned, it was odd that the ostensible origin of the novel coronavirus
was bat caves in Yunnan province – more than 1,000 miles from Wuhan. I noted that "gain-of-function" lab work can results in more
deadly pathogens, and that major labs, including
some in the US, have had accidental releases .
CDC Principal Deputy Director Anne Schuchat said that based on the information she had seen, the virus was of "zoonotic origin."
She also stated, regarding gain-of-function lab work, that it is important to "protect researchers and their laboratory workers as
well as the community around them and that we use science for the benefit of people."
I followed up by asking whether an alleged natural origin did not preclude the possibility that this virus came through
a lab, since a lab could have acquired a bat virus and been working on it. Schuchat replied to the assembled journalists that "it
is very common for rumors to emerge that can take on life of their own," but did not directly answer the question. She noted that
in the 2014 Ebola outbreak some observers had pointed to nearby labs as the possible cause, claiming this "was a key rumor that had
to be overcome in order to help control the outbreak." She reiterated: "So based on everything that I know right now, I can tell
you the circumstances of the origin really look like animals-to-human. But your question, I heard."
This is no rumor. It's a fact: Labs work with dangerous pathogens. The US and China each have dual-use biowarfare/biodefense programs.
China has major facilities at Wuhan – a biosafety level 4 lab and a biosafety level 2 lab. There are leaks from labs. (See "
Preventing a Biological Arms Race ,"
MIT Press, 1990, edited by Susan Wright; also, a partial review in
Journal of International Law from October 1992.)
Much of the discussion of this deadly serious subject is marred with snark that avoids or dodges the "gain-of-function" question.
ABC
ran a story on March 27 titled "Sorry, Conspiracy Theorists. Study Concludes COVID-19 'Is Not a Laboratory Construct.'" That
story did not address the possibility that the virus could have been found in the wild, studied in a lab and then released.
On March 21, USA Today
published a piece headlined "Fact Check: Did the Coronavirus Originate In a Chinese Laboratory?" – and rated it "FALSE."
That USA Today story relied on the Washington Post, which published a widely cited article on
Feb. 17 headlined,
"Tom Cotton keeps repeating a coronavirus conspiracy theory that was already debunked." That article quoted public comments from
Rutgers University professor of chemical biology Richard Ebright, but out of context and only in part. Specifically, the story quoted
from Ebright's tweet that the coronavirus was not an "engineered bioweapon." In fact, his full quote included the clarification that
the virus could have " entered human population
through lab accident ." (An email requesting clarification sent to Post reporter Paulina Firozi was met with silence.)
Bioengineered ≠ From a lab
Other pieces in the Post since then (
some heavily sourced to
US government officials ) have conveyed Ebright's thinking, but it gets worse. In a private exchange, Ebright – who, again, has
said clearly that the novel coronavirus was not technically bioengineered using known coronavirus sequences – stated that other forms
of lab manipulation could have been responsible for the current pandemic. This runs counter to much reporting, which is perhaps too
scientifically illiterate to perceive the difference.
The genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 has no signatures of human manipulation.
This rules out the kinds of gain-of-function (GoF) research that leave signatures of human manipulation in genome sequences
(e.g., use of recombinant DNA methods to construct chimeric viruses), but does not rule out kinds of GoF research that do not leave
signatures (e.g., serial passage in animals). [emphasis added]
Very easy to imagine the equivalent of the Fouchier's "10 passages in ferrets" with H5N1 influenza virus, but, in this case,
with 10 passages in non-human primates with bat coronavirus RaTG13 or bat coronavirus KP876546.
That last paragraph is very important. It refers to virologist Ron Fouchier of the Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, who performed
research on intentionally increasing rates of viral mutation rate by spreading a virus from one animal to another in a sequence.
The New York Times wrote about this in an
editorial in January 2012,
warning of "An Engineered Doomsday."
"Now scientists financed by the National Institutes of Health" have created a "virus that could kill tens or hundreds of millions
of people" if it escaped confinement, the Times wrote. The story continued:
Working with ferrets, the animal that is most like humans in responding to influenza, the researchers found that a mere five
genetic mutations allowed the virus to spread through the air from one ferret to another while maintaining its lethality. A separate
study at the University of Wisconsin, about which little is known publicly, produced a virus that is thought to be less virulent.
The word "engineering" in the New York Times headline is technically incorrect, since passing a virus through animals is
not "genetic engineering." This same distinction has hindered some from understanding the possible origins of the current pandemic.
Fouchier's flu work, in which an H5N1 virus was made more virulent by transmitting it repeatedly between individual ferrets, briefly
sent shockwaves through the media. "Locked up in the bowels of the medical faculty building here and accessible to only a handful
of scientists lies a man-made flu virus that could change world history if it were ever set free," wrote Science magazine
in 2011 in a
story
titled "Scientists Brace for Media Storm Around Controversial Flu Studies." It continues:
The virus is an H5N1 avian influenza strain that has been genetically altered and is now easily transmissible between ferrets,
the animals that most closely mimic the human response to flu. Scientists believe it's likely that the pathogen, if it emerged in
nature or were released, would trigger an influenza pandemic, quite possibly with many millions of deaths.
In a 17th floor office in the same building, virologist Ron Fouchier of Erasmus Medical Center calmly explains why his team
created what he says is "probably one of the most dangerous viruses you can make" – and why he wants to publish a paper describing
how they did it. Fouchier is also bracing for a media storm. After he talked to ScienceInsider yesterday, he had an appointment
with an institutional press officer to chart a communication strategy.
Fouchier's paper is one of two studies that have triggered an intense debate about the limits of scientific freedom and that
could portend changes in the way U.S. researchers handle so-called dual-use research: studies that have a potential public health
benefit but could also be useful for nefarious purposes like biowarfare or bioterrorism.
Despite objections, Fouchier's article was published by Science
in June 2012 . Titled "Airborne Transmission
of Influenza A/H5N1 Virus Between Ferrets," it summarized how Fouchier's research team made the pathogen more virulent:
Highly pathogenic avian influenza A/H5N1 virus can cause morbidity and mortality in humans but thus far has not acquired the
ability to be transmitted by aerosol or respiratory droplet ("airborne transmission") between humans. To address the concern that
the virus could acquire this ability under natural conditions, we genetically modified A/H5N1 virus by site-directed mutagenesis
and subsequent serial passage in ferrets. The genetically modified A/H5N1 virus acquired mutations during passage in ferrets, ultimately
becoming airborne transmissible in ferrets.
In other words, Fouchier's research took a flu virus that did not exhibit airborne transmission, then infected a number
of ferrets until it mutated to the point that it was transmissible by air.
In that same year, 2012, a similar study by Yoshihiro
Kawaoka of the University of Wisconsin was published in Nature :
Highly pathogenic avian H5N1 influenza A viruses occasionally infect humans, but currently do not transmit efficiently among
humans. Here we assess the molecular changes that would allow a virus to be transmissible among mammals. We identified a virus with
four mutations and the remaining seven gene segments from a 2009 pandemic H1N1 virus – that was capable of droplet transmission in
a ferret model.
Recent experiments that create novel, highly virulent and transmissible pathogens against which there is no human immunity
are unethical they impose a risk of accidental and deliberate release that, if it led to extensive spread of the new agent, could
cost many lives. While such a release is unlikely in a specific laboratory conducting research under strict biosafety procedures,
even a low likelihood should be taken seriously, given the scale of destruction if such an unlikely event were to occur. Furthermore,
the likelihood of risk is multiplied as the number of laboratories conducting such research increases around the globe.
Given this risk, ethical principles, such as those embodied in the
Nuremberg Code , dictate that such experiments would be
permissible only if they provide humanitarian benefits commensurate with the risk, and if these benefits cannot be achieved by less
risky means.
We argue that the two main benefits claimed for these experiments – improved vaccine design and improved interpretation of
surveillance – are unlikely to be achieved by the creation of potential pandemic pathogens (PPP), often termed "gain-of-function"
(GOF) experiments.
There may be a widespread notion that there is scientific consensus that the pandemic did not come out of a lab. But in fact many
of the most knowledgeable scientists in the field are notably silent. This includes Lipsitch at Harvard, Jonathan A. King at MIT
and many others.
Just last year, Lynn Klotz of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation wrote a
paper
in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists entitled "Human Error in High-biocontainment Labs: A Likely Pandemic Threat." Wrote
Klotz:
Incidents causing potential exposures to pathogens occur frequently in the high security laboratories often known by their
acronyms, BSL3 (Biosafety Level 3) and BSL4. Lab incidents that lead to undetected or unreported laboratory-acquired infections can
lead to the release of a disease into the community outside the lab; lab workers with such infections will leave work carrying the
pathogen with them. If the agent involved were a potential pandemic pathogen, such a community release could lead to a worldwide
pandemic with many fatalities. Of greatest concern is a release of a lab-created, mammalian-airborne-
transmissible, highly pathogenic avian influenza virus, such as the airborne-transmissible H5N1 viruses created in the laboratories
of Ron Fouchier in the Netherlands and Yoshihiro Kawaoka in Madison, Wisconsin.
"Crazy, dangerous"
Boyle, a professor of international
law at the University of Illinois , has condemned Fouchier, Kawaoka and others – including at least one of the authors of the
recent Nature Medicine article in the strongest terms, calling such work a "criminal enterprise." While Boyle has been embroiled
in numerous controversies, he's been especially dismissed by many on this issue. The "fact-checking" website
Snopes has described him as "a lawyer with
no formal training in virology" – without noting that he wrote the relevant U.S. law.
The law Boyle drafted states: "Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any
biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon, or knowingly assists a foreign state or any organization to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both. There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction
over an offense under this section committed by or against a national of the United States."
Boyle also warned:
Russia and China have undoubtedly reached the same conclusions I have derived from the same open and public sources, and have
responded in kind. So what the world now witnesses is an all-out offensive biological warfare arms race among the major military
powers of the world: United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, inter alia.
We have reconstructed the Offensive Biological Warfare Industry that we had deployed in this county before its prohibition
by the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972, described by Seymour Hersh in his groundbreaking expose "
Chemical
and Biological Warfare: America's Hidden Arsenal ." (1968)
Boyle now states that he has been "blackballed" in the media on this issue, despite his having written the relevant statute. The
group he worked with on the law, the Council for Responsible Genetics, went under several years ago, making Boyle's views against
"biodefense" even more marginal as government money for dual use work poured into the field and critics within the scientific community
have fallen silent. In turn, his denunciations have grown more sweeping.
In the 1990 book " Preventing a Biological
Arms Race ," scholar Susan Wright argued that current laws regarding bioweapons were insufficient, as there were "projects in
which offensive and defensive aspects can be distinguished only by claimed motive." Boyle notes, correctly, that current law he drafted
does not make an exception for "defensive" work, but only for "prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes."
While Boyle is particularly vociferous in his condemnations, he is not alone. There has been irregular, but occasional media attention
to this threat. The Guardian ran a piece in 2014, "
Scientists
condemn 'crazy, dangerous' creation of deadly airborne flu virus ," after Kawaoka created a life-threatening virus that "closely
resembles the 1918 Spanish flu strain that killed an estimated 50m people":
"The work they are doing is absolutely crazy. The whole thing is exceedingly dangerous," said Lord May, the former president
of the Royal Society and one time chief science adviser to the UK government. "Yes, there is a danger, but it's not arising from
the viruses out there in the animals, it's arising from the labs of grossly ambitious people."
Boyle's
charges
beginning early this year that the coronavirus was bioengineered – allegations recently mirrored by French virologist and
Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier – have not been corroborated by any publicly produced findings of any US scientist. Boyle even
charges that scientists like Ebright, who is at Rutgers, are compromised because the university got a
biosafety level
3 lab in 2017 – though Ebright is perhaps the most vocal eminent critic of this research, among US scientists. These and other
controversies aside, Boyle's concerns about the dangers of biowarfare are legitimate; indeed, Ebright shares them.
Some of the most vocal voices to discuss the origins of the novel coronavirus have been eager to minimize the dangers of lab work,
or have focused almost exclusively on "wet markets" or "exotic" animals as the likely cause.
The media celebrated Laurie Garrett, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author and former senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations,
when she declared on Twitter on March 3 (in a since-deleted tweet) that the origin of the pandemic was discovered: "It's pangolins.
#COVID19 Researchers studied lung tissue from 12 of the scaled mammals that were illegally trafficked in Asia and found #SARSCoV2
in 3. The animals were found in Guangxi, China. Another virus+ smuggled sample found in Guangzhou."
She was swiftly corrected by Ebright:
"Arrant nonsense. Did you even read the paper? Reported pangolin coronavirus is not SARS-CoV-2 and is not even particularly close
to SARS-CoV-2. Bat coronavirus RaTG13 is much closer to SARS-CoV-2 (96.2% identical) than reported pangolin coronavirus (92.4% identical)."
He added: "No reason to invoke pangolin as intermediate. When A is much closer than B to C, in the absence of additional data, there
is no rational basis to favor pathway A>B>C over pathway A>C." When someone asked what Garrett was saying, Ebright
responded : "She is saying she is scientifically
illiterate."
The following day, Garrett corrected herself (
without acknowledging Ebright ): "I blew
it on the #Pangolins paper, & then took a few hours break from Twitter. It did NOT prove the species = source of #SARSCoV2. There's
a torrent of critique now, deservedly denouncing me & my posting. A lot of the critique is super-informative so leaving it all up
4 while."
At least one Chinese government official has
responded to the allegation that the labs in Wuhan could be the source for the pandemic by alleging that perhaps the US is responsible
instead. In American mainstream media, that has been reflexively treated as even
more ridiculous
than the original allegation that the virus could have come from a lab.
Obviously the Chinese government's allegations should not be taken at face value, but neither should US government claims – especially
considering that US government labs were the apparent source for the
anthrax attacks in 2001 . Those attacks sent panic through
the US and shut down Congress, allowing the Bush administration to enact the
PATRIOT Act and ramp up the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Indeed, in October 2001, media darlings like
Richard Butler and
Andrew Sullivan propagandized for war
with Iraq because of the anthrax attacks. (Neither Iraq nor al-Qaida was involved.)
The 2001 anthrax attacks also provided much of the pretext for the surge in biolab spending since then, even though they apparently
originated in a US or U.S.-allied lab. Indeed, those attacks remain
shrouded in
mystery .
The US government has also come up with elaborate cover stories to distract from its bioweapons work. For instance, the US government
infamously claimed the 1953 death of Frank Olson, a scientist at Fort Detrick, Maryland, was an
LSD experiment gone wrong; it now appears to have been an execution to cover up for US biological warfare.
Regardless of the cause of the current pandemic, these biowarfare/biodefense labs need far more scrutiny. The call to shut them
down by Boyle and others needs to be clearly heard – and light must be shone on precisely what research is being conducted.
The secrecy of these labs may prevent us ever knowing with certainty the origins of the current pandemic. What we do know is this
kind of lab work comes with real dangers. One might make a comparison to climate change: We cannot attribute an individual hurricane
to man-made climate disruption, yet science tells us that human activity makes stronger hurricanes more likely. That brings us back
to the imperative to cease the kinds of activities that produce such dangers in the first place.
If that doesn't happen, the people of the planet will be at the mercy of the machinations and mistakes of state actors who are
playing with fire for their geopolitical interests.
"... The truth is that decline was never a choice, but the U.S. can decide how it can respond to it. We can continue chasing after the vanished, empty glory of the "unipolar moment" with bromides of American exceptionalism. We can continue to delude ourselves into thinking that military might can make up for all our other weaknesses. Or we can choose to adapt to a changed world by prudently husbanding our resources and putting them to uses more productive than policing the world. ..."
"... Exit From Hegemony: The Unraveling of the American Global Order ..."
More than 10 years ago, the columnist Charles Krauthammer
asserted that American
"decline is a choice," and argued tendentiously that Barack Obama had chosen it. Yet looking back over the last decade, it has become
increasingly obvious that this decline has occurred irrespective of what political leaders in Washington want.
The truth is that decline was never a choice, but the U.S. can decide how it can respond to it. We can continue chasing after
the vanished, empty glory of the "unipolar moment" with bromides of American exceptionalism. We can continue to delude ourselves
into thinking that military might can make up for all our other weaknesses. Or we can choose to adapt to a changed world by prudently
husbanding our resources and putting them to uses more productive than policing the world.
There was a brief period during the 1990s and early 2000s when the U.S. could claim to be the world's hegemonic power. America
had no near-peer rivals; it was at the height of its influence across most of the globe. That status, however, was always a transitory
one, and was lost quickly thanks to self-inflicted wounds in Iraq and the natural growth of other powers that began to compete for
influence. While America remains the most powerful state in the world, it no longer dominates as it did 20 years ago. And there can
be no recapturing what was lost.
Alexander Cooley and Dan Nexon explore these matters in their new book,
Exit From Hegemony: The Unraveling of the American Global Order . They make a strong case for distinguishing between the
old hegemonic order and the larger international order of which it is a part. As they put it, "global international order is not
synonymous with American hegemony." They also make careful distinctions between the different components of what is often simply
called the "liberal international order": political liberalism, economic liberalism, and liberal intergovernmentalism. The first
involves the protection of rights, the second open economic exchange, and the third the form of international order that recognizes
legally equal sovereign states. Cooley and Nexon note that both critics and defenders of the "liberal international order" tend to
assume that all three come as a "package deal," but point out that these parts do not necessarily reinforce each other and do not
have to coexist.
While the authors are quite critical of Trump's foreign policy, they don't pin the decline of the old order solely on him. They
argue that hegemonic unraveling takes place when the hegemon loses its monopoly over patronage and "more states can compete when
it comes to providing economic, security, diplomatic, and other goods." The U.S. has been losing ground for the better part of the
last 20 years, much of it unavoidable as other states grew wealthier and sought to wield greater influence. The authors make a persuasive
case that the "exit" from hegemony is already taking place and has been for some time.
Many defenders of U.S. hegemony insist that the "liberal international order" depends on it. That has never made much sense. For
one, the continued maintenance of American hegemony frequently conflicts with the rules of international order. The hegemon reserves
the right to interfere anywhere it wants, and tramples on the sovereignty and legal rights of other states as it sees fit. In practice,
the U.S. has frequently acted as more of a rogue in its efforts to "enforce" order than many of the states it likes to condemn. The
most vocal defenders of U.S. hegemony are unsurprisingly some of the biggest opponents of international law -- at least when it gets
in their way. Cooley and Nexon make a very important observation related to this in their discussion of the role of revisionist powers
in the world today:
But the key point is that we need to be extremely careful that we don't conflate "revisionism" with opposition to the United
States. The desire to undermine hegemony and replace it with a multipolar system entails revisionism with respect to the distribution
of power, but it may or may not be revisionist with respect to various elements of international architecture or infrastructure.
The core of the book is a survey of three different sources for the unraveling of U.S. hegemony: major powers, weaker states,
and transnational "counter-order" movements. Cooley and Nexon trace how Russia and China have become increasingly effective at wielding
influence over many smaller states through patronage and the creation of parallel institutions and projects such as the Collective
Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). They discuss
a number of weaker states that have begun hedging their bets by seeking patronage from these major powers as well as the U.S. Where
once America had a "near monopoly" on such patronage, this has ceased to be the case. They also track the role of "counter-order"
movements, especially nationalist and populist groups, in bringing pressure to bear on their national governments and cooperating
across borders to challenge international institutions. Finally, they spell out how the U.S. itself has contributed to the erosion
of its own position through reckless policies dating back at least to the invasion of Iraq.
The conventional response to the unraveling of America's hegemony here at home has been either a retreat into nostalgia with simplistic
paeans to the wonders of the "liberal international order" that ignore the failures of that earlier era or an intensified commitment
to hard-power dominance in the form of ever-increasing military budgets (or some combination of the two). Cooley and Nexon contend
that the Trump administration has opted for the second of these responses. Citing the president's emphasis on maintaining military
dominance and his support for exorbitant military spending, they say "it suggests an approach to hegemony more dependent upon military
instruments, and thus on the ability (and willingness) of the United States to continue extremely high defense spending. It depends
on the wager that the United States both can and should substitute raw military power for its hegemonic infrastructure." That not
only points to what Barry Posen has
called "illiberal hegemony,"
but also leads to a foreign policy that is even more militarized and unchecked by international law.
Cooley and Nexon make a compelling observation about how Trump's demand for more allied military spending differs from normal
calls for burden-sharing. Normally, burden-sharing advocates call on allies to spend more so the U.S. can spend less. But that isn't
Trump's position at all. His administration pressures allied governments to increase their spending, while showing no desire to curtail
the Pentagon budget:
Retrenchment entails some combination of shedding international security commitments and shifting defense burdens onto allies
and partners. This allows the retrenching power, in principle, to redirect military spending toward domestic priorities, particularly
those critical to long-term productivity and economic growth. In the current American context, this means making long-overdue
investments in transportation infrastructure, increasing educational spending to develop human capital, and ramping up support
for research and development. This rationale makes substantially less sense if retrenchment policies do not produce reductions
in defense spending–which is why Trump's aggressive, public, and coercive push for burden sharing seems odd. Recall that Trump
and his supporters want, and have already implemented, increases in the military budget. There is no indication that the Trump
administration would change defense spending if, for example, Germany or South Korea increased their own military spending or
more heavily subsidized American bases.
The coronavirus pandemic has exposed how misguided our priorities as a nation have been. There is now a chance to change course,
but that will require our leaders to shift their thinking. U.S. hegemony is already on its way out; now Americans need to decide
what our role in the world will look like afterwards. Warmed-over platitudes about "leadership" won't suffice and throwing more money
at the Pentagon is a dead end. The way forward is a strategy of retrenchment, restraint, and renewal.
Yeah. US just happened to decline, a completely natural process, some universal constant, like gravity of which we have no control.
No. A decadent US population, informed by clueless media, put in charge incompetent and self-serving leaders, who made a series
of very poor choices for the nation, but financially beneficial for themselves.
And thus our betrayed America's version of the White Man's Burden. It's sad to think our children having to endure living in a
world where they aren't called to die in God-forsaken hellholes for reasons that have nothing to do with this nation's core principles.
Sad!
Lol. Sort of. Except the very oligarchs you speak of, on both sides, set the stage for all of it.
This is the inevitable result of voting as a right, ans they knew it. Universal suffrage is a tool of control, not liberty.
The oligarchs are really just like other Americans, who got their hands on a whole lot of money. I have no doubt the rest of the
population would behave like oligarchs if given the same resources.
We don't have universal suffrage and voting is no where named as a right in the Constitution. The most it has to say is that voting
can not be denied to people based on their membership in certain classes, nor limited based on the payment of a tax.
"it has become increasingly obvious that this decline has occurred irrespective of what political leaders in Washington want."
It isn't "irrespective of". It is because of what they wanted. They wanted and aggressively pushed for US foreign policy
to serve the narrow regional interests of client states like Israel and Saudi Arabia. They got what they wanted, in spades, and
now America's geopolitical and economic fortunes are in a tail-spin.
If America had ignored these people, with their stupid interventionism, their almost blatant service of foreign interests by
demanding "no daylight" with "allies" who did nothing but suck our blood, we would have been far better off. We would have been
far better able to anticipate, prepare for, and respond to the pandemic. It's impossible not to think ruefully of the trillions
we wasted on Middle East wars and other interventions, money now so badly needed here at home.
The US will pursue a similar path to Israel. Advantage is relative. Rather than repair the US economy it is simpler to destroy
those of one's rivals. I see war as the only attractive option for the US elite as that is the only area where they still enjoy
clear superiority (or believe they do, same thing policy-wise.)
Cooley and Nevon's book appears to be a good read - I will put it on my 'to read so buy' book list. China is the next hegemon
- this is inevitable due to design. As time goes by during this 'coronavirus pandemic' I have been waiting to hear a politician,
any politician, assert that they will support legislation to require 'essential supply lines' to be returned to the U.S. Aside
from 'murmurs', not a 'lucid' peep. Just 'sue china' legislation, or smoke and mirrors blame on those within the U.S. via the
media or politicians. This is just embarrassing and surreal.
The priority should be to bring these supply lines back to the U.S. [i.e., medical]. Too hell if I am going to be forced to
pay for 'Obamacare' or 'Medicare For All' like a Russian Serf, to the Corporations [vassals] of China [Tatars] - enforced by their
'Eunuchs', greedy politicians in Washington. {Eunuchs were castrated lackies of Emperors]. Yet Chinese slave labour on these medical
products, including pharmaceutical ingredients, and precious metals for parts for the Department of Defense, keep profit margins
very high.
Because of their cowardice one must ask: Why increase defense spending on any project - or be concerned with Iran or Venezuela
or Russia or keeping NATO afloat? Allowing China to continue to be the 'sole source' provider of essential goods is just asking
for another scenario like the one before us. If so, I am convinced that my country is nothing more than a 'dead carcass' being
ripped apart by 'Corporate Vassals of China'. This, of course, includes the Tech Companies as well.
China does not have ideal geography to be world hegemon.
For one thing, it is too easy to prevent any ships from leaving the South China Sea.
The fact that China has not gone to war with anyone since 1953, except for two sharp but short border conflicts in 1962 and
1979, should tell you something. Contrast with the peace-loving liberal democracy of the United States.
The answer of course is a functional international system--environmental protection, world health, a transparent financial system,
world court, and policing. All agreed on by at least the major players which makes it costly for others not to participate.
With good reason many 'mistrust' this int'l system given the threat to sovereignty of a country, most importantly the freedom
of its citizens. An int'l system is asymmetrical, a radical 're-distribution' program that preys on citizens of the 'pseudo-wealthy'
west. The United States will be, post-Corona Virus, potentially $30T in debt. Yet they contribute the most to the WHO. The largest
contribution to the UN comes from the United States. This fact seems to rebut your 'costly for others not to participate'.
The Paris Agreement, like the UN and WHO, will rely on most of the funds coming from the U.S. and redistributed to other countries.
And this will further destroy the standard of living in this country to the degree of crashing the economy. The expected Utopian
Outcome for this so-called 'One-World' order will be a great disappointment to those that advocate for it. Because, after all,
it is nothing more than a Utopian dream gambling on the cohesive nature of different demographic groups combined with significant
reduction in freedoms for all - based on flawed models, including so-called 'man made global warming' models. To define the Demographic
is use in the context of my response: does not = race; it equals culture. Right now this is being demonstrated in the super state
of the EU. There can be no harmony in a world like this. It is like forcing a 'square peg' into a 'round hole'.
And who are these major players? The Eunuch Politicians in Washington and Western Europe? What are their priorities? Their
wallets or their constituents? And I do not mean in a parental way. That is not the role of government.
Viewed from a global perspective at this time, there is a decline in American power and influence, but the vanity of politicians
prevents them from seeing it and they don't want to let go.
The British government makes the same mistakes as it clings to an imaginary "prestige" as a world power - a power that vanished
in 1914.
After Eden was removed as PM post-Suez the new PM Harold McMillan came in and was honest with the British ppl in explaining their
new role in the world, just 10-15 years after the triumph of WW2 a UK Prime Minister had the courage to tell the British people
that they were no longer at the top table, that the age of Empire was over and to put in place the policies required to remove
the burden of empire from Britain and adjust to its new role in the world. Do you see an American politician with the capability
to tell some uncomfortable home truths to the American people and still win an election?
i think that is why voters elected Trump. The citizens of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin have lived the decline of the
United States. At least under trump there have been no new wars but the withdrawal from Iraq, Afghanistan NATO, Japan, Korea needs
to occur with the Military-Industrial-Media Complex kicking and screaming.with each step. Also ending sanctions on Iran, Cuba,
North Korea and Venezuela.
We are in Japan because it allows us to patrol the sea lanes which is vital for our economy and it gives us a large force ready
to respond in case of Chinese or North Korean aggression. The Status of Forces Agreement and other treaties with Japan stipulate
what percentage of costs are born by Japan.
Allowing Japan to destroy consumer electronics, damage steel and automotive is vital to our economy? Could we not patrol the sea
lanes if we wanted to from Guam? Is not freedom of the sea just as vital to Japan, Europe and India? How is China or North Korea
the aggressor when Japan, Korea and Taiwan have been client states of China with the US thousands of miles away?
Imperialism has bankrupt the United States just as it did Europe. The time has come to end these treaties.
Ultra protectionism, retreat to our island and no one can find us, 'make America great again' I dare say, thinking is naive and
unrealistic.
America wil be poorer, weaker, and more vulnerable if it tried to only make its own goods and had to rely on only its own labor.
Trade is profit and profit is the ability to develop, build, and defend what we have. Where do the profits go is the question.
Who loses in the trade is another question. Does the benefit from the former outweigh the latter?
I don't see Japanese trade as making much of a dent in employment rates. The profits go to the Japanese state and industry,
who are important counterweights to Chinese ambitions in Asia, a mutual interest. So, the costs are few, and the profits are used
in significant measure to mutual benefit.
The liberal hegemon is dead, yes our imperialism is dead even if it doesn't know it, but it is essential to remain strategically
involved in the world around us. Even if we stop playing the game, the world around us does not. Did Russia have the luxury of
turning into a turtle after the Cold War? No. Nations, which are all wolves, smell weakness. Yet the Trumpian right wants to hide,
put its finger in its ear, and pretend that everything will be fine it seems.
What are these withdrawals from Iraq & Afghanistan you speak of? They just have not happened, like not even a little bit, so tired
of people pushing this completely false narrative as if it is true, just maddening. A democracy cannot function if people exist
in their own worlds with their own facts that are just not true
The Brits after WW2 offer a lesson here. Hurt badly by WW1, their whole system began teetering as that illusion of the "natural
superiority" of the British took massive hits in the various colonies of the Empire. By exposing the ordinariness of the administrators
and soldiers, it encouraged revolt (see Gandhi in India). But WW2 arguably devastated the UK. It's "win" over Germany was Pyrrhic,
as it needed both the USSR and the USA , and each took a chunk of prestige and of the "hegemon". George VI recognized this, and
British politicians encouraged the shift from Empire to Commonwealth. (Which, if they had never involved themselves in the EU
beyond trade and had kept up the Commonwealth as it was intended, would have been a better path than what they did, IMHO.) Nevertheless,
they handled it better than I think we will.
As Jefferson said, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none."
But to get there, we have a lot of nonsense -- damned nonsense - - to overcome.
Excellent review and outlook on an encouraging transition from the compulsion of hegemony within a generally agreeable paradigm
of economic liberalism (rules-based international markets).
Well this present regime is actively smashing "international organizations" constructed largely by the Americans after WW2. This
makes it even easier for the Chinese to fill the vacuum we have created. It would be better to hold them in a Western biased "international
organization"
All indications are that ship has sailed. Will there be hegemons? Yes, but more than one. The US will not be the only hegemon
and the COVID-19 helped the world see the emperor has no clothes.
I think that's the likely course, unless the US remains especially incompetent in ensuring that China isn't the one cleaning up
at all the empire liquidation sales.
No nation should be entrusted with anything like the power the US has had.
Until they start shooting down our airliners, sinking our cruise ships, attacking our Naval Bases, and invading their neighbors
and committing genocide against people of other races and religions.
Then, the doves will wake up and realize that the Big Stick is what kept us safe afterall.
You mean fight people who actually threaten us rather than attack people because we dream up scenarios where it's possible or
we just don't like them? I'll take that over preemptive genocide.
If we focused on actual defense 9/11 would not have happened. We ignored Al Qaeda despite the fact the bombed us multiple times
because we were too busy bombing Serbia, blowing up their TV stations and expanding NATO to gobble up former Russian Republics.
The United States routinely ignores any international laws, whenever it sees fit. Anyway, the idea that United States hegemony
is obligatory because muh international order is an argument from consequences.
Lol, America Is what's in the rear view, not just our status as the sole superpower.
People better get ready, this empire is getting ready to collapse.
Meh, people better get ready, we're getting ready to muddle along for the next several decades.
The American state is way too tasty a prize. No one is going to dismantle it, and people will unite against any threat that
has the potential to. Eventually someone will figure out a Bernie/Trump fusion and that person will be our Peron or Putin. Radical
leftists will be crushed by the police if they try anything, and the white nationalists will all be in prison.
We're somewhere between Argentina and Russia heading forward.
Sell the empire. Ignore the Middle East outside of the oil trade lanes. Reorient our trade networks on SE Asia, India, and Latin
America - no more feeding China. End of hostile moves towards Russia - let Europe reconcile with Russia. Fully support multipolar
world order.
Militarily we don't need the plodding battleship of a force we have now. No need to occupy whole countries with 'boots on the
ground'. Maintain top notch special forces, advisor and coordination programs with allies, and anything useful for blowing up
Chinese force projection especially the PLA navy. Subs and missiles.
Lots of good ideas here. Would trading with India involve a "reorient[ation]?" (I don't know.) That is to say, would still trading
with India mean that we have to maintain our current naval position, or would that still be consistent with some sort of drawdown?
Or are you saying that since India is not a hostile force, we would not have to worry about it? Or does is that problem met with
the "anything useful for blowing up Chinese force projection especially the PLA navy. Subs and missiles." Conceivably, China could
increase its presence in the Indian Ocean to create problems, no? Overall, agree with a lot of it--I'm just curious about the
logistics.
India in the longer term could ostensibly do much of what China does for us now trade wise. Needs to finish developing its infrastructure
and its manufacturing tech. SE Asia and Mexico are closer short term.
I think due to the commercial value of the seas our navy is our most cost effective means of force projection. Patrolling the
Persian Gulf means we have our thumb on the number one petroleum artery. I would focus more on cost effective means to deny China
(and Chinese trade) access to the seas in the event of tension. Carriers are expensive targets when subs and strategic missile
emplacements can inspire even more fear due to unpredictability. But yes we still need bases and partnerships throughout the Indian
and Pacific Oceans. China can roam around in peacetime as it wishes, what matters is that it stays totally bottled up in port,
along with its maritime trade, in a conflict.
Allow these places to run up trade surpluses with us rather than China.
I think Mr. Larison is on the right track. However, even if the logic of abandoning the Liberal International Order (LIO) is accepted--and
the LIO most certainly should be abandoned--the entire story or narrative of post-World War II America narrative must be either
abandoned or refashioned. It seems that the LIO functions as some sort of purpose for American citizens, and a higher-level theology
for those who work in the United States Government, especially those who are involved in foreign policy making. Countering or
reshaping the narrative of United States foreign policy and its link with domestic policy will be a challenge, but one that needs
to be taken up, and taken up successfully. In personal conversations with those who support the LIO, they seem to take [my] criticisms
of the LIO as some sort of ad hominem attack. This reaction is obviously illogical, but it is one that those who see the
wisdom of abandoning the LIO must tactically and tactfully counter. Regrettably, supporting the LIO is conflated with being an
American, or conflated with the raison d'etre of the existence of the United States. Many think the abandonment of the
LIO cannot rationally be replaced and will necessarily be replaced with some sort of nihilism or the most cynical form of "realism,"
of which they mistakenly believe they possess understanding. For a start, reforming the educational system, insofar as it not
already dominated by incorrect-but-fashionable far-leftist ideas that advocate a narrative of American history and purpose as
false as it is pernicious, would seem to necessary. Many children grow into adulthood falsely thinking maintaining the LIO is
their responsibility. It is, at root, a theological sickness.
I hope it is over. To hell with the Europeans who have made a national sport of mocking Americans and all things America, while
we risk nuclear war on their behalf. Let them face Putin and the Islamic invasion on their own - those problems are Europe's,
not ours.
The United States is ramping up for the "Great Final War' with both Russia and China. Throw in Iran, Syria, North Korea etc. as
an afterthought. The U.S. will bring the temple down on itself rather than give up the goal of 'Full Spectrum Dominance'.that
it has been pursuing since the end of WWII.
Alexander Cooley and Dan Nexon may think the glory days are coming to an end, but I don't think Trump and the neocons got the
memo yet. I see no evidence of any intent to change.
There is no "international order." That's just rhetoric that is useful for certain economic interests. A world without american
hegemony will be divided and filled with conflict. Globalization can't work politically.
"... I spotted Yahoo News carrying this NYT hit piece today and was tempted to respond. Then I saw the general run of comments that read like the target audience it was meant for, and figured I'd be wasting my time. It might have been worth squandering five minutes, though. ..."
"... It is a scary situation. A lot of people actually believe the New York Times. ..."
"... Did you see this one in today's NYTimes? The pot didn't just call the kettle black: With Selective Coronavirus Coverage, China Builds a Culture of Hate: The state propaganda machine highlights other countries' mistakes while suppressing China's, fueling anger toward foreigners and domestic critics alike. see: http://nytimes.com/2020/04/22/business/china-coronavirus-propaganda.html ..."
UPDATED: The paper of record is again laundering, without skepticism, U.S. intelligence
meant to ratchet up tensions with China, just as it did with Russia, writes Joe Lauria.
D uring the saga of Russiagate The New York Times was the main vehicle for unnamed
U.S. intelligence officials to filter uncorroborated allegations about Russia, presenting them
as proven fact.
Just as the Democratic Party attempted to shift the blame from its disastrous 2016 loss to
Donald Trump onto Russia, the Trump administration is now trying to shift the blame from
Trump's disastrous handling of the Coronavirus crisis onto China.
Robert Emmett , April 23, 2020 at 12:06
Yeah, wouldn't expect anything less than well-deserved acrimony for the Grey Hag on this
site. Some of us still remember how the so-called paper of record withheld the "smoking gun"
of King Geo the Younger's use of mass surveillance until after the 2004 election. Who do you
suppose is their target audience for this latest fake scoop? Could it be the newly woke crowd
who now raise the NYrag as their gold standard in all things considered Russia bashing? Talk
about fuddy-duddy.
Today's mass media is full of rope-a-dope tricks such as placing a tiny nugget of "truth"
within a massive hairball of innuendo, exaggeration, disinformation and lies to be extracted
at the exact right moment to gainsay those who would question the narrative du jour. Another
well-worn deception is to let the lowest common denominator source set the dodgy agenda and
then use that cue to follow the "news" as fits to serve their own agendas. Over the years,
that often involves skewing reactionary and "forgetting" how to connect dots.
You can see a prime example of this (also part of the current surge of anti-China
propaganda) at that other bastion of unnamed sources, the WaPo. Blumenthal lays out how it's
done at The Grayzone Project re: allegations that the Wuhan Biotech lab released the virus.
Funny though how there's a yawning gap in the story about the hows & whys &
wherefores of an actual shutdown of a similar Level 4 lab right in WaPo's own backyard at
Fort Detrick.
"Dodgy scoop" made me smile. Are those served on self-licking ice cream cones?
China and Russia had better be keeping their powder dry. No telling how far this lunacy is
going to go. With Pirro´s rant it looks like the crazies have been let out of the pen
and is just the thing to get the mentally challenged in an up roar and demanding military
action against China. I have no doubt that China can handle the American military in a
conventional confrontation but if it goes nuclear all bets are going to be off. The Better
Dead Than Reders seem to be riding high right now. Who knows they may just get their wish.
The Pirros et all do sound like the woman in a bar just itching to get a fight going, and
then screaming blue murder when her favorite gets the snot beat out of him. You just can
never get them to shut up before the fight gets going. but the Pirros of the world never can
quite get a grip around the fact that is proven over and over again, wars and fights are easy
to start, but hard to finish and no one knows how they aill turn out. And given the lack of
success of the American military in wars of choice since the Second World War I would be very
careful if I was her of what I was wishing for.
As I understand it, we (our intelligence people) were aware of the "potential" threat of
the virus before the Chinese leadership announced it to the world. China did announce it to
the world and people can argue they should have done it sooner. But the failure, if we decide
there is one, belongs to us in not acting on the intelligence. Why we didn't is a matter
worth investigating although what will be learned to prevent such future errors is
unclear.
Certainly, those who want to use this as a further wedge between us and China do not serve
anyone's interests other than the cui bono horde who benefits from such divisions.
As others have stated our most serious virus is the one that causes who to seek
confrontation with other governments whenever opportunity arises. It is a very destructive
virus.
DW Bartoo , April 23, 2020 at 10:38
It may be counted upon that ALL institutions in the U$ military empire will deliver the
worst possible outcomes.
The evidence for this assertion is voluminous and growing by the hour (quite as obscenely
as the "wealth" of Jeff Bezos grows at the rate of $11 thousand every second).
Frankly, one could hardly expect anything less from The NY Times.
Be it war-mongering, hysteria-building, or sycophantic "official" propagandizing [now
fully legal thanks to the sainted Obama, who also, it is alkedged, played a highly
significant role in destroying the (now obviously) pathetic campaign of Bernie Sander, that
Joe Biden, clearly suffering from dementia, and poster boy of the very neoliberal policies
which elevated Trump to power, will be the Dem "standard bearer seeking the same power while
promising to do nothing at all – about anything, which really IS the Standard Dem
policy, U$ politics being about nothing but controlling the spoils and keeping the
revolving-door/lobbying graving train rolling merrily along].
Yet the real Powers That Be, cannot only count upon all the vaunted institutions from a
pretend democracy and rigged political system, to a complacent, complicit, and criminally
compromised MSM to parrot absolute idiocy, they may also count on a thoroughly infantile
majority of the public to rally behind any war, of words, of weapons, even of nuclear
weapons, simply because the U$ is exceptional, beyond compare, and constitutionally unwilling
to learn anything from any other nation, society, or people.
It is not merely the MSM which inculcate these myths of superiority, it is the entire
educational system as well.
It is not, necessarily, a conspiracy, it is simply conveniently and comfortably profitable
to buy into the idiocy and pass it happily along.
Evidence?
Actual facts?
Not necessary.
And most inconvenient.
It might affect circulation.
U$ian Idiocy is quite as communicable as the "novel" coronavirus.
As my youngest daughter put it, "It's a long story."
Just to test my wits, she then asked me if I got the joke.
Yes, my dear, I got it.
At some point, it is possible that most of us will
Voice from Europe , April 23, 2020 at 08:37
The Chinese reports to the WHO are clear and transparent and date from the end of January.
Western MSM has no journalist worth that name !
Just like the new anti Hydrochloroquine study that was reported is full of potholes just
waiting for someone to be read.
People please check the published reprints of IHU mediterranee.
Hippocrates said: There are in fact two things, Science and Opinion. The former begets
Knowledge, the latter Ignorance.
Please people distinguish fact from opinion.
Mike from Jersey , April 22, 2020 at 18:39
The article states:
"Any reputable journalism school will teach its students that you hold off publishing
until you see the evidence underlying an assertion. "
But this was not a reputable newspaper.
So, what did you expect?
... ... ...
AnneR , April 23, 2020 at 14:04
Yastreb – Indeed worse, though less for the reality that propaganda, slanted
"reportage" is the common currency of the "news" organs of both the USA and Russia (not to
mention pretty much the rest of the world's MSM), than for the fact that while Russians, from
USSR days, knows to take everything in the media with some salt, to question the veracity of
unsupported, dubiously supported claims, here in the US of A unsubstantiated, or porously
backed, weakly supported "facts" usually expressed in Newspeak, slippery ways are very often
accepted by the target audience, hook, line and bloody sinker.
I mean – it's the NYT, or WaPo, or The Atlantic, CNN, MSDNC, PBS, NPR; they would
never try to mislead us. Would they? Gorblimey. One despairs, one really does.
And *not* as if the gullible readers, audiences (largely composed of the supporters of the
Dem face of the single-Janus party) have let Russiagate go, if what I hear on NPR (including
its BBC World Service broadcasts) is anything to go by.
China-gate – neither side of the single party can possibly let this opportunity to
prevent the rise of China, stop this ancient culture's challenging the "rightful,"
exceptional(ly barbaric) world hegemon, USA, from maintaining its proper position at the top
of the firmament however it is achieved.
Tobin Sterritt , April 22, 2020 at 17:03
I spotted Yahoo News carrying this NYT hit piece today and was tempted to respond. Then I
saw the general run of comments that read like the target audience it was meant for, and
figured I'd be wasting my time. It might have been worth squandering five minutes,
though.
Mike from Jersey , April 23, 2020 at 08:44
Tobin,
It is a scary situation. A lot of people actually believe the New York Times.
Did you see this one in today's NYTimes? The pot didn't just call the kettle black: With Selective Coronavirus Coverage, China Builds a Culture of Hate: The state propaganda
machine highlights other countries' mistakes while suppressing China's, fueling anger toward
foreigners and domestic critics alike. see:
http://nytimes.com/2020/04/22/business/china-coronavirus-propaganda.html
AnneR , April 23, 2020 at 14:08
O Society – well, bien sur. I mean we can blacken every people, culture, society,
government (except those we install – that we never do, unless they stray from their
[American] defined path) as much as we want, as often as we please and no one has the right
to call us out on that, complain. Heaven forfend – we'll bomb 'em, subject them to
siege warfare (via ever tightening economic sanctions no matter how many children we kill
doing this – "price is worth it" in'it?
Donald Duck , April 22, 2020 at 15:29
"Any reputable journalism school will teach its students that you hold off publishing
until you see the evidence underlying an assertion. This is especially true when quoting
anonymous sources. And it is doubly true when these sources are intelligence agents, who have
a long history of deception. It is part of their job description."
True enough, but we are not talking about 'reputable journalism' – such a
fuddy-duddy notion. We are talking about crude propaganda and a ruthless realpolitik.
Assertion, anonymous sources, smears, lies, calumny and dancing to the tune of whatever the
deep, state and national security play to us. We have entered a post-democratic age and we
would be well advised to bear this in mind. The ruling elites are blatantly bereft of any
type of moral scruples; Pompeo put it well, 'lie, cheat' an he might have added 'whack'
anyone who gets in the way of the grand project. 'Whack' being mafia terminology for murder
of ones opponents. Pompeo even looks like a mafia Godfather. Mafia ideology and methodology
have permeated the structure and institutions of American society.
bjd , April 22, 2020 at 17:00
Exactly.
And thus articles like these –premised on the idea that the NYT is reputable–
belong to the literary genre 'fiction'.
AnneR , April 23, 2020 at 14:17
Donnie – Pompeo claims (proudly? loudly?) to be a christian but somehow he missed
all of that stuff about helping your neighbor, turning the other cheek, taking care of the
stranger (Samaritan-wise). Or avoided it like the plague.
And given the really existing history of the USA – "mafia ideology and methodology"
deriving, backed by profound supremacist racism has permeated this country since the Brits
first landed and started grabbing the lands and killing the indigenous, then going to Africa
and buying the Africans in order to profit from their sale and their labor While overt
slavery has ended (the US Fed and State prisons continue to gain from such prisoner slave
labor) and theft of the remainder of Indigenous lands and resources is largely in the
shadows, the attitudes, beliefs and behaviors pretty much remain alive and ill-meaning.
JOHN CHUCKMAN , April 22, 2020 at 15:17
The New York Times: the house organ of America's establishment.
Sam F , April 22, 2020 at 14:35
The NYT story is also shaky because broadcasts to the US about a nationwide lockdown would
have been implausible, discredited by simple denial, and might well reduce virus panic. The
sources of such messages are easily counterfeited and therefore speculative, like the fake
"Russian" messages from Ukraine, and far more likely to originate from beneficiaries than the
MSM target du jour.
Bob Van Noy , April 23, 2020 at 12:10
Exactly Sam F and thank you Joe Lauria. We keep hearing the same scenario over and over
with different characters. I recently read "The Poisoner In Chief" by Stephen Kinzer and I
was stunned by the secret drug and mind control experiments of the 1950s and 1960s.
Certainly
it's not too much of a stretch to imagine that they continue. Also see the gray zone article
"How a Trump media dump mainstreamed Chinese lab corona virus conspiracy theory" by Max
Blumenthal and Ajit Singh.
Sam F , April 23, 2020 at 19:19
Good to see you back, Bob. The referenced article is indeed worthwhile.
jaycee , April 22, 2020 at 14:15
Provable links from lockdown protests to domestic right-wing astroturf organizations.
The fact-free claims of foreign interference seeking to exploit divisions or "sow chaos"
is itself a domestic program to exploit divisions and and direct projections onto "the
other". It is directed by the federal intelligence agencies in collaboration with the major
mainstream media outlets. The central "proof" of foreign perfidy is the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence's Report on alleged Russian measures to interfere with America
(released Nov 2018), which is one of the most vapid and factually barren "products" ever
produced. The New York Times has asserted the Report represents established fact. It's all,
ironically, very Soviet.
DavidH , April 22, 2020 at 20:19
I get your point, jaycee, I think. The stuff in the Times is all "very soviet"
(ironically) by the old Soviets' standards. That's if their old system had had, in
addition to domestic propaganda, an effective propaganda campaign abroad. Did they? I mean
all this projecting on Russia and China (meant to be digested by the homeland) is accompanied
by a considerable outlay for transmitted-outward propaganda. Did the old Soviet system really
have an outlay as big as ours is now? For sure they had spies, but so did we.
I'll have to listen again to Tuesday's Loud & Clear to know if Richard Wolff really
was as down on Putin as I seem to remember. Geopolitically Putin seems to me to have been
pretty much more fair than we have in the past, say, six or seven years. But, in terms of
oil, all energy hegemons it seems follow sort of the same patterns of behavior. They
want energy dominance for their group [they've got it], and in smaller theaters
individual members will attempt to attain it for themselves. But, yes, concomitant is that
they must agree some amongst each other just as crime syndicates must. This is a dimension of
hegemony it is sad to contemplate but real. One would like to think Russia is more fair, but
when it comes to oil Russia doesn't really seem to pay much lip service to any shade at all
of some global Green New Deal. And one would like to think China in general less
hypocritical, but then you have McKinsey and Prince and that whole mess [we see they had
things figured out better than us on SARS-CoV-2 but while as an American maybe I have no room
to talk Snowden probably had a point that civilization could have done even better
preparation than China's "pretty good" preparation]. So, in thinking about all this you have
to try I guess to name the overarching global paradigm and blame it. For sure the US
is in it up to its neck. Maybe even we invented it, or invented the things that morphed into
it. Everything Lauria wrote above makes sense, and once again we owe Consortium.
Glad to see this written (not just me that believes it) "The early view is that hardly
any government responded with the urgency required."
Listen to America's imperial proconsuls long enough and they often let slip something
approaching truth -- perhaps exceptionalist confession is more accurate. Take Admiral Craig S.
Faller, commander of U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), with responsibility for all of Latin
America. Just before the COVID-19 crisis shifted into full gear, on March 11 he testified
before the House Armed Services Committee and admitted
, "There will be an increase in the U.S. military presence in the hemisphere later this year."
Naturally, admiral, but why?
Well, if one can push past the standard, mindless military dialectics -- i.e. "bad guys" --
the admiral posits a ready justification: Russia and (most especially) China. With his early
career molded in the last, triumphalist Reagan-era Cold War, Faller may be a true believer
in new dichotomies that must feel like coming home for the 1983 Naval Academy graduate. Before
the committee, he described
China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela as "malign state actors" who constitute "a vicious
circle of threats." Faller is right about the circle, but it is his own country that produces
it.
These are strange bedfellows, no matter how hard a criminally ahistorical White House and
Pentagon try to sell such disparate nations as naturally allied antagonists. A few of these
countries have tortured recent pasts, and three of them are several thousand miles from the
very hemisphere they ostensibly contest. The truth is that it's U.S. imperialism,
intransigence, and hyper-intervention -- anywhere and everywhere -- that links these
historically and geopolitically unnatural partners together. This holds true both in policy and
imagination. In the Corona Age, the Trump team -- anti-interventionist populist
campaign rhetoric aside -- have outed themselves as
pandemic-opportunists and gleeful slaves to the " New Cold War
."
Today, Washington sets policies that consistently make mountains out of "malign" molehills,
and quite literally construct the Orwellian enemies it
needs. It's hardly anything new. From
Reagan's "confederation of terrorist states" in a new "international Murder Inc." and Bush
II's "axis of evil," to Trump's (or actually
John Bolton's ) recent "troika of tyranny," the utility of the nuance-absent idiom is
clear: manufacture public fear, demonize opponents, and link the otherwise unlinked. Only
there's a catch: Decry a concocted connection often enough and one drives inorganic rivals into
each other's arms.
Exhibit A is East Asia. China and Russia are hardly historically simpatico. During the Cold
War, the Sino-Soviet split put the lie to communism as mythical monolith and resulted in a
shooting war
along the immense border between them. Furthermore, Beijing -- the rising regional power --
won't forever acquiesce to the archaic imperial boundaries, especially as a demographic
tipping point nears whereby Russia's scant Siberian population is overrun by Chinese
migrants. And Putin knows it.
Luckily for Vlad, U.S. demonization of China and Uncle Sam's insistence on perpetual
preeminence in the Western Pacific places that impending conflict on ice as Xi Jinping seeks
out Moscow as an ally of convenience. Remove the American challenge, as the East-West Center's
Denny Roy recently wrote
, and "the primary strategic motivation for Sino-Russian cooperation would fade," and relations
return to "their historically more normal adversarial character."
Back in Latin America, Washington inverts the spatial relationship, but adheres to the
formula of countering -- and creating -- " imagined
communities " of distant enemy "alliances." Though neither Russia or China (and certainly
not Iran) have any meaningful military
presence, Admiral Faller sees these nefarious ghosts behind every palm tree in his area of
responsibility. Their essential crime: trading with and recognizing regimes Washington doesn't
particularly care for in Cuba, Nicaragua, or Venezuela. The SOUTHCOM chief spoke of how "Russia
once again projected power in our neighborhood ," and that his "aha moment" this past
year was "the extent to which China is aggressively pursuing their interests right here in
our neighborhood ." (emphases added)
That's some fascinating language. As was Faller's reference to Chinese regional loans as
"predatory financing." Pot meet kettle! Surely, even the "
company man " admiral must know that his own navy right now
-- as always -- cruises warships through the disputed South China Sea, and that
Washington has long set the gold
standard in predatory loans through the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.
Besides, even assume that, say, Russia is wrong to back what Faller had the temerity to
label
the "former Maduro regime," in Venezuela, what of Washington's support for Bolivia's military
coup-installed extremists
in Bolivia, and of the right-wing strongman Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil?
Faller's "neighborhood" fallacy illustrates an American hypocrisy without recognizable
bounds. How instructive -- and disturbing -- it is to hear a purportedly educated four-star
flag officer peddle foolish binaries and prattle on in such coarse platitudes. The ease with
which this nonsense passes public and congressional muster is surely symptomatic of an obtuse
U.S. militarist disease. For if the admiral counts as one of those (establishment darling) "
adults
" in the Trumpian room, then the republic is in even bigger trouble than many thought. Either
way, it's high time to recognize Faller and his ilk for what they usually are: staggeringly
"small" thinkers without an inkling of strategic imagination.
It is, however, regarding Iran that the U.S. makes the bed for the most absurd of fellows.
Trump's withdrawal from a functioning nuclear deal, and recent
off-the-rails escalations , accomplish little more than
driving Tehran into Russia's arms. Incidentally, these are decidedly
unnatural friends, seeing as they fought repeated wars over the last few centuries, Moscow
occupied northern Iran after World War II, and their respective contours of regional influence
have long been contested.
Furthermore, it was U.S. complicity in
the Saudi terror war on Yemen that deepened ties between the Houthis and a Tehran that had
hardly given them much thought previously. Not only were Iranian military and religious (the
two peoples actually follow
different strands of Shia Islam) ties initially
exaggerated , but the sequence of increased support is usually confused. Serious support
from Tehran postdated the Saudi assaults.
Lastly, Trump's seemingly self-sabotaging actions decisively empower
the very hardliners in Tehran whom they purport to loathe. Rather than encourage nascent
moderates like President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, The Donald's
unnecessary pugnacity
led to conservative legislative victories in Tehran, and so increased the popularity of the
Supreme Leader that Iranian people are apt to believe the ayatollah's insane
COVID-conspiracy theories.
If the rank absurdity of today's U.S. military posturing, and its outcomes, tend to confuse,
it is important to remember that Trump's audience is us -- the public and the media that
serves it -- not Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, or even Ayatollah Khomeini. After all, not even
Trump (I think?) believes the "harassing" Iranian speedboats in the Persian Gulf, that he just
ordered the navy to "to shoot down and destroy" if they misbehave, are headed for
Baltimore. Should Washington's policies appear incoherent, and consequently near masochistic,
well, that might be precisely the point, or, conversely (if unsatisfyingly), all there actually
is to say about that.
If the ultimate goal, as I'm increasingly persuaded, is simply to manufacture the enemy
coalitions necessary to frighten (thus discipline) the people and ensure endless profits for
the military-industrial complex that funds the resultant buildup -- well, then, Mr. Trump's
policies are far more lucid and effective than they're usually credited to be.
On the other hand, if chaos and contingency reign -- as they often have -- in Washington,
then U.S. foreign policy represents nothing less than counter-productivity incarnate. Lord only
knows which is worse.
I'm sure you still remember them. The president regularly called them " my generals
." They were, he claimed , from "central casting"
and there were three of them: retired Marine Corps General John Kelly, who was first
appointed secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and then White House chief of
staff; Army Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, who became the president's national security
advisor; and last (but hardly least) retired Marine Corps General James Mattis, whom Trump
particularly adored for his nickname "
Mad Dog " and appointed as secretary of defense. Of him, the president said, "If I'm
doing a movie, I pick you, General Mattis, who's doing really well."
They were referred to in Washington and in the media more generally as "
the adults in the room ," indicating what most observers (as well as insiders) seemed to
think about the president – that he was, in effect, the impulsive, unpredictable,
self-obsessed
toddler in that same room. All of them had been commanders in the very conflicts that
Donald Trump had labeled "
ridiculous Endless Wars " and were distinctly hawkish and uncritical of those same wars
(like the rest of the U.S. high command). It was even rumored that, as "adults," Kelly and
Mattis had made a
private pact not to be out of the country at the same time for fear of what might happen
in their absence. By the end of 2018, of course, all three were gone. "My generals" were no
more, but the toddler remained.
As TomDispatch regular , West Point graduate (class of 2005), and retired Army Major
Danny Sjursen explains in remarkable detail today, while the president finally tossed "his"
generals in the nearest trash can, the "adults" (and you do have to keep that word in
quotation marks) didn't, in fact, leave the toddler alone in the Oval Office. They simply
militarized and demilitarized at the same time. In fact, one class from West Point, that of
1986, from which both Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
graduated, is essentially everywhere in a distinctly militarized (if still officially
civilian) and wildly hawkish Washington in the Trumpian moment. ~ Tom
"Courage Never Quits"? : The Price of Power and West Point's Class of 1986
By Danny Sjursen
Every West Point class votes on an official motto. Most are then inscribed on their class
rings. Hence, the pejorative West Point label " ring knocker ." (As
legend has it, at military meetings a West Pointer "need only knock his large ring on the
table and all Pointers present are obliged to rally to his point of view.") Last August, the
class of 2023 announced theirs: "Freedom Is
Not Free." Mine from the class of 2005 was "Keeping Freedom Alive." Each class takes pride in
its motto and, at least theoretically, aspires to live according to its sentiments, while
championing the accomplishments of fellow graduates.
But some cohorts do stand out. Take the class of 1986 (" Courage Never Quits
"). As it happens, both Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
are members of that very class, as are a surprisingly
wide range of influential leaders in Congress, corporate America, the Pentagon, the
defense industry, lobbying firms, Big Pharma ,
high-end financial
services , and even security-consulting firms. Still, given their striking hawkishness on
the subject of American war-making, Esper and Pompeo rise above the rest. Even in a pandemic,
they are as good as their class motto. When it comes to this country's wars, neither of them
ever quits.
Once upon a time, retired Lieutenant General Douglas Lute (Class of '75), a former US
Ambassador to NATO and a senior commander in Iraq and Afghanistan, taught both Esper and
Pompeo in his West Point social sciences class. However, it was Pompeo, the class of '86
valedictorian, whom Lute singled out for praise,
remembering him as "a very strong student – fastidious, deliberate." Of course, as
the Afghanistan Papers, released by
the Washington Post late last year, so starkly revealed ,
Lute told an interviewer that, like so many US officials, he "didn't have the foggiest notion
of what we were undertaking in Afghanistan." Though at one point he was President George W.
Bush's "Afghan war czar ," the
general never expressed such doubts publicly and his record of dissent is hardly an
impressive one. Still, on one point at least, Lute was on target: Esper and Pompeo are
smart and that's what worries me (as in the phrase "too smart for their own good").
Esper, a former Raytheon lobbyist, had
particularly hawkish views on Russia and China before he ever took over at the Pentagon
and he wasn't alone when it came to the urge to continue America's wars. Pompeo, then a
congressman, exhibited a striking pre-Trump-era foreign policy pugnacity
, particularly vis-à-vis the Islamic world . It has
since solidified into a veritable
obsession with toppling the Iranian regime.
Their militarized obsessions have recently taken striking form in two ways: the secretary
of defense
instructed US commanders to prepare plans to escalate combat against Iranian-backed
militias in Iraq, an order the mission's senior leader there, Lieutenant General Robert "Pat"
White,
reportedly resisted; meanwhile, the secretary of state evidently is
eager to convince President Trump to use the Covid-19 pandemic, now devastating Iran,
to bomb that country and further strangle it with sanctions. Worse yet, Pompeo might be just
cunning enough to convince his ill-informed, insecure boss (so open to clever flattery) that
war is the answer.
The militarism of both men matters greatly, but they hardly pilot the ship of state alone,
any more than Trump does (whatever he thinks). Would that it were the case. Sadly, even if
voters threw them all out, the disease runs much deeper than them. Enter the rest of the
illustrative class of '86.
As it happens, Pompeo's and Esper's classmates permeate the deeper structure of
imperial America . And let's admit it, they are, by the numbers, an impressive crew. As
another '86 alumnus, Congressman Mark Green (R-TN), bragged
on the House floor in 2019, "My class [has] produced 18 general officers 22-plus presidents
and CEOs of major corporations two state legislators [and] three judges," as well as "at
least four deans and chancellors of universities." He closed his remarks by exclaiming,
"Courage never quits, '86!"
However, for all his gushing, Green's list conceals much. It illuminates neither the
mechanics nor the motives of his illustrious classmates; that is, what they're actually doing
and why. Many are key players in a corporate-military machine bent on, and reliant on,
endless war for profit and professional advancement. A brief look at key '86ers offers
insight into President Dwight D. Eisenhower's military-industrial complex in 2020 – and
it should take your breath away.
The West Point Mafia
The core group of '86 grads cheekily
refer to themselves as "the West Point mafia." And for some, that's an uplifting thought.
Take Joe DePinto, CEO of 7-Eleven. He
says that he's "someone who sleeps better at night knowing that those guys are in the
positions they're in." Of course, he's an
'86 grad, too .
Back when I called the academy home, we branded such self-important cadets "
toolbags ." More than a decade later, when I taught there, I found my students still
using the term. Face facts, however: those "toolbags,"
thick as thieves today, now run the show in Washington (and despite their busy schedules,
they still find time to socialize as a group).
Given Donald Trump's shady past – one doesn't build an Atlantic City
casino-and-hotel empire without "
mobbing-it-up " – that Mafia moniker is actually fitting. So perhaps it's worth
thinking of Mike Pompeo as the president's latest consigliere . And since gangsters
rarely countenance a challenge without striking back, Lieutenant General White should watch
his back after his prudent attempt to stop the further escalation of America's wars in Iraq
and Iran in the midst of a deadly global pandemic. Worse yet for him, he's not a West Pointer
(though he did, oddly enough, earn his Army commission on the
very day that class of '86 graduated). White's once promising career is unlikely to be
long for this world.
In addition to Esper and Pompeo, other Class of '86 alums serve in key executive branch
roles. They include the
vice chief of staff of the Army General Joseph Martin, the director of the Army National Guard,
the commander of NATO's Allied Land
Command, the
deputy commanding general of Army Forces Command, and the
deputy commanding general of Army Cyber Command. Civilian-side classmates in the Pentagon
serve as: deputy assistant
secretary of the Army for installations, energy, and environment; a
civilian aide to the secretary of the Army; and the director of stabilization and peace
operations policy for the secretary of defense. These Pentagon career civil servants aren't,
strictly speaking, part of the "Mafia" itself, but two Pompeo loyalists are indeed charter
members.
Pompeo brought
Ulrich Brechbuhl and Brian Butalao, two of his closest cadet friends, in from the corporate
world. The three of them had, at one point, served as CEO, CFO,
and COO of Thayer Aerospace, named for the " father" of West Point, Colonel
Sylvanus Thayer, and started with Koch Industries
seed money . Among other things, that corporation sold
the Pentagon military aircraft components.
Brechbuhl and Butalao were given senior
positions at the CIA when Pompeo was its director. Currently, Brechbuhl is the State
Department's counselor (and reportedly
Pompeo's de facto chief of staff), while Butalao serves as under secretary for
management. According to his official bio, Butalao is responsible "for managing the State
Department on a day-to-day basis and [serving as its] Chief Operating Officer." Funny, that
was his exact position under
Pompeo at that aerospace company.
Still, this Mafia trio can't run the show by themselves. The national security structure's
tentacles are so much longer than that. They reach all the way to K Street and Capitol
Hill.
From Congress to K Street: The Enablers
Before Trump tapped Pompeo to head
the CIA and then the State Department, he represented Wichita, Kansas, home to Koch Industries, in the House of
Representatives. In fact, Pompeo rode his ample
funding from the political action committee of the billionaire Koch brothers straight to
the Hill. So linked was he to those fraternal right-wing energy tycoons and so
protective of their interests that he was
dubbed "the congressman from Koch." The relationship was mutually beneficial. Pompeo's
selection as secretary of state solidified
the previously
strained relationship of the brothers with President Trump.
The '86 Mafia's current congressional heavyweight, however, is Mark Green. An early
Trump supporter, he regularly tried to
shield the president from impeachment as a
minority member of the House Oversight and Reform Committee. The Tennessee congressman
nearly became Trump's secretary of the Army, but ultimately
withdrew his nomination because of controversies that included sponsoring
gender-discriminatory bills and commenting
that "transgender is a disease."
Legislators like Green, in turn, take their foreign-policy marching orders from the
military's corporate suppliers. Among those, Esper, of course, represents the gold standard
when it comes to " revolving-door " defense
lobbying. Just before ascending the Pentagon summit, pressed by Senator Elizabeth Warren
during his confirmation hearings, he patently
refused to "recuse himself from all matters related to" Raytheon, his former
employer and the nation's third-largest defense contractor. (And that was even before its
recent
merger with United Technologies Corporation, which once employed another Esper classmate as a senior
vice president.) Incidentally, one of Raytheon's " biggest
franchises " is the Patriot missile defense system, the very weapon being
rushed to Iraq as I write, ostensibly as a check on Pompeo's favored villain, Iran.
Less well known is the handiwork of another '86 grad, longtime lobbyist and CNN paid
contributor David Urban, who first met the president in 2012 and still
recalls how "we clicked immediately." The consummate Washington insider, he backed Trump
"when nobody else thought he stood a chance" and in 2016 was his senior campaign adviser in
the pivotal swing state of Pennsylvania.
Esper and Urban have been
close for more than 30 years. As cadets, they served in the same unit during the Persian
Gulf War. It was Urban who introduced Esper to his wife. Both later graced the Hill 's
list of Washington's top lobbyists. Since 2002, Urban has been a partner and is now
president of a
consulting giant, the American Continental Group. Among its clients : Raytheon and 7-Eleven.
It's hard to overstate Urban's role. He seems to have
landed Pompeo and Esper their jobs in the Trump administration and was a key go-between
in marrying class of '86 backbenchers and moneymen to that bridegroom of our moment, The
Donald.
Greasing the Machine: The Moneymen
Another '86er also passed through that famed military-industrial revolving door. Retired
Colonel Dan Sauter left his position as chief of staff of the 32nd Army Air and Missile
Defense Command for one at giant weapons maker Lockheed Martin as business developer for the
very systems his old unit employed. Since May 2019, he's directed Lockheed's
$1.5 billion Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) program in Saudi Arabia.
Lockheed's THAAD systems have streamed
into that country to protect the Kingdom, even as Pompeo continually threatens Iran.
If such corporate figures are doing the selling, it's the Pentagon, naturally, that's
doing the buying. Luckily, there are '86 alumni in key positions on the purchasing end as
well, including a retired brigadier general who now serves as the Pentagon's principal
adviser to the under secretary for acquisition, technology, and logistics.
Finally, there are other key consultants linked to the military-industrial complex who are
also graduates of the class of '86. They include a senior vice
president of Hillwood – a massive domestic and international real estate
development company, chaired by Ross Perot, Jr. –
formerly a consultant to the government of the United Arab Emirates. The Emiratis are US
allies in the fight against Pompeo's Iranian nemesis and, in 2019,
awarded Raytheon a $1.5 billion contract to supply key components for its air force
missile launchers.
Another classmate is a managing partner for Patriot Strategies,
which consults for corporations and the government but also separately lands hefty defense contracts itself. His
previous " ventures " included
"work in telecommunications in the Middle East and technical security upgrades at US
embassies worldwide."
Yet another grad , Rick
Minicozzi, is the founder and CEO of Thayer Leader Development Group (TLDG), which prides
itself on "building" corporate leaders. TLDG clients include:
7-Eleven, Cardinal Glass, EMCOR, and Mercedes-Benz. All either have or had '86ers at the
helm. The company's CEO also owns the Thayer
Hotel located right on West Point's grounds, which hosts many of the company's
lectures and other events. Then there's the retired colonel who, like me, taught on the West
Point history faculty. He's now the CEO of Battlefield
Leadership , which helps corporate leaders "learn from the past" in order to "prepare for
an ever-changing business landscape."
A Class-wide Conflict of Interest
Don't for a moment think these are all "bad" people. That's not faintly my point. One
prominent '86 grad, for instance, is Lieutenant General Eric Wesley, the
deputy of Army Futures Command. He was my brigade commander at Fort Riley, Kansas, in
2009 and I found him competent, exceptionally empathetic, and a decidedly decent man, which
is probably true of plenty of '86ers.
So what exactly is my point here? I'm not for a second charging conspiracy or even
criminal corruption. The lion's share of what all these figures do is perfectly legal. In
reality, the way the class of '86 has permeated the power structure only reflects the nature
of the carefully
crafted , distinctly undemocratic systems through which the military-industrial complex
and our political world operate by design. Most of what they do couldn't, in fact, be more
legal in a world of never-ending American wars and national security budgets that eternally
go
through the roof . After all, if any of these figures had acted in anything but a
perfectly legal fashion, they might have run into a classmate of theirs who recently led the
FBI's corruption unit in New Jersey – before, that is, he retired and became CEO of a
global security consulting firm
. (Sound familiar?)
And that's my point, really. We have a system in Washington that couldn't be more lawful
and yet, by any definition, the class of '86 represents one giant conflict of interest (and
they don't stand alone). Alums from that year are now ensconced in every level of the
national security state: from the White House to the Pentagon to Congress to K Street to
corporate boardrooms. And they have both power and a deep stake, financial or otherwise, in
maintaining or expanding the (forever) warfare state.
They benefit from America's permanent military mobilization, its never-ending economic
war-footing ,
and all that comes with it. Ironically, this will inevitably include the blood of future West
Point graduates, doomed to serve in their hopeless crusades. Think of it all as a macabre
inversion of their class motto in which it's not their courage but that of younger graduates
sent off to this country's hopeless wars that they will never allow to "quit."
Speaking of true courage, lately the only exemplar we've had of it in those wars is
General "Pat" White. It seems that he, at least, refused to kiss the proverbial rings of
those Mafia men of '86.
But of course, he's not part of their "family," is he?
Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army officer and contributing editor atAntiwar.com. His work has appeared in
the NY Times, LA Times, The Nation, Huff Post, The Hill, Salon, Popular Resistance, and
Tom Dispatch, among other publications. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units
in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the
author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War,Ghostriders of
Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge. His forthcoming book,
Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War is now available forpre-order. Sjursen was recently selected as a 2019-20 Lannan FoundationCultural Freedom Fellow. Follow him on Twitter@SkepticalVet. Visit his
professionalwebsitefor contact info, to schedule speeches or media appearances, and access to his past
work.
Everyone has heard, ad nauseam, about the "
Special Relationship " between the United States and Britain. Accordingly, the few
Americans who dare identify their country as an empire – past or present – tend
to analogize with the British model. While the similarities between Washington and
London-style imperialism are manifold – along with the distinct differences – in
other important ways, the more appropriate parallel is with France. For the French,
unlike
the Brits (for the most part), and like modern Americans (in a more indirect way),
imagined their colonial subjects as vital, moldable constituents (if rarely citizens) of a
grand francophone project for good.
I know, I know, the French and Americans can't stand each other, right? Well, sure, theirs
has been a contentious relationship for centuries – politically, culturally, you name
it. True enough, but lest we forget that the U.S. formed in opposition to British
Empire, and – though rarely mentioned in the dominant memories of American
Revolutionary
triumphalism – the colonists' military victory would've been far more difficult (if
not impossible) without French intervention on their behalf.
No doubt, the relationship between the US and its first, and longest, ally has been filled
with ups and downs: one thinks of the
Quasi-War (1798), FDR-Charles De Gaulle world war
drama , Paris' semi-" withdrawal " from NATO (1966),
and, of course, the Iraq War dispute-" freedom fries " charade
(2003), for starters. Still, in key ways, I'd submit that it is precisely because the French
and American models of governance and global policy have so much in common that they –
like rival siblings – so often squabble.
Peas in an Exceptional Pod of Delusion
While all historical analogizing must proceed cautiously – and with recognition of
the limits of deduction – the broad similarities are staggering. It is the very
grandiose idealism – and consequent universalism – in the wake of their
inextricably
connected revolutions, that has set the French and American hegemons (and empires) apart.
While the American variety has tended more towards (at least an aspirational) multiculturalism than that
of the French, both post-revolutionary nations have been certain of – and applied
– the necessary and proper exportability of their universally "positive"
cultural-political systems.
Indeed, in spite of their rather different ( theoretical )
approaches to internal immigrants, with some far-right wing exceptions
, to be French or American – rather uniquely – has been as much idea as
nationality. There have, of course, been both positive and negative applications inherent to
this notion. One common output has been a common dedication to the nebulous canard of
national "greatness." Indeed, Donald Trump – and Ronald Reagan
before him – can be said to have channeled none other than Charles De Gaulle, who
wrote in his war
memoirs, way back in 1954, that "France cannot be France without greatness."
Consequently, by extension, there have been (necessarily) tragic consequences for the
millions of victims of an imperialism that assumes not only metropole superiority, but that
inside every Algerian (or Afghan) is a Frenchman (or American) waiting to be unzipped .
Such is the logical conclusion of exceptionalism – that most treacherous of all
imperial brands.
There are more specific Franco-American likenesses worth noting as well. Despite the cozy
rhetoric of US multiculturalism and France's assimilation, both states ultimately adhere to a
notion that national values – however vaguely framed – heat their
respective citizen melting pots. And both fill their prisons with the detritus of that
program's historical failures. By now, the reality, and broad contours of, America's world-
record mass incarceration
– particularly of black and brown bodies are widely reported. Less well known, but of a
piece with the US model, is that by 2003, France's Muslims accounted for seven percent of the
population but
70 to 80 percent of its prisoners.
Furthermore, both have lengthy records of post-colonial and neo-imperial adventurism
across far-flung swathes of the the globe. In fact, American and French wars have been the
West's bloodiest since 1945, and also often complimentary – whereby, for example,
Washington quite literally took up Paris' mantle in
Vietnam. Furthermore, even today, France – though it pales in comparison to America's
veritable " empire of bases "
– maintains perhaps
the world's second largest network of overseas military footholds. That deployment and
intervention bonanza has all "blown back" at the French and American homelands, as both have
been targeted – recently at two of the highest Western rates – by transnational (or
foreign-influenced) "terrorists" from the very regions where they most often militarily
intervene.
Joint Exhibit Africa
Lastly, and most relevant to the current moment, both Paris and Washington have had a
tragic tortured relationship with – and become the favorite targets of – the more
violent flavors of political Islam. Of late, for the Americans, and more longstanding for the
French, that has particularly been the case in Africa. The truth is there are only two
countries which station – and unleash – significant numbers of troops in Africa
today: France and the United States.
The post-colonial pervasiveness of the French presence in Africa was itself exceptional
– at least until the United States truly got in the game in a more overt post-9/11 way.
As late as 1990, France had troops stationed in a remarkable 22
African countries. Even the once great British Empire's postcolonial role paled
in comparison. Furthermore, in a tactic the U.S. would later – and continue
to – make its own, France signed military defense pacts with 27
African states during the period 1961-92, including with three former British, and a few
Belgian, colonies. Paris also spearheaded three further
tactics common to Washington throughout and beyond the decolonization and Cold War eras:
fomenting coups, empowering dictators, and " dancing "
with heinous (sometimes genocidal) monsters. In several repulsive cases, some combination of
all three were waged as joint Franco-American exercises.
Paris and Washington "Behind the Scenes"
Since the end of the Second World War, when a defeated France sought to regain the
physical space, and glory, of its empire – most of which was in Africa – it
unleashed its external intelligence service, then known as the SDECE , first to stifle colonial nationalism, and
then, begrudgingly, to sustain real power over the newly independent states. Whereas
the equivalent US CIA spent the Cold War working behind the scenes to counter even the whiff
of Soviet influence, the SDECE was more concerned with stifling any true hints of economic or
political autonomy in its former domains. Nonetheless, not always, but more often than not,
Paris' and Washington's goals were symbiotic.
In the period after the " Year of Africa " –
when 14 French (and 17 total) colonies gained independence – the SDECE (after 1981
known as the DGSE) instigated
several coups , and been implicated
in more than a few presidential assassinations. In more farcical cases – take the
Central African Republic (CAR) – the SDECE even planned coups against leaders it had
previously "couped" into office in the first place. The losers were always the common
people, mind you, and it should thus come as little surprise that France was drawn back into the CAR over
this past decade in response to spiraling religious and ethnic conflict. Naturally, the CIA
played the same game all over the continent – toppling a few governments of its own
and
planning to assassinate prime Minister Patrice Lumumba of the Congo – but for the
most part, Paris guarded its "special," depraved, role in Francophone West and Central
Africa.
During the Cold War, and – albeit with some different motives – ever since,
Franco-American intel and diplomatic services have gleefully backed any strongman willing to
support Western goals or oppose the West's (perceived) external enemies. The outcomes have
repeatedly been tragic. Both Washington and Paris helped install and then backed Zaire's
(Congo's) brutal dictator Mobutu Sese Seko's vicious 35 year reign – the French to the
bitter end, even after the US cut him lose after he'd outlived his Cold War usefulness. Paris
even
ran one final covert operation – which included three fighter aircraft and European
mercenaries – in an unsuccessful attempt to stem the rebel tide in 1997. Previously,
France installed and/or backed dictators who banned political parties, and tortured or
murdered opponents in Cameroon, Niger, Chad, and the Central African Republic, among
others.
In the particularly odious case of Chad, Paris and Washington alternately worked at cross
or joint purposes to back one authoritarian thug after another. Both the SDECE and CIA
funneled cash and weapons to a slew of leaders who exploited and widened ethnic and religious
(Muslim north vs. Christian and animist south) conflicts and waged war on their own people.
Much of this unfolded in the name of a lengthy proxy war with Libya's Ghadafi regime –
which France would take a leading role in toppling
along with the US in 2011 – that ultimately destabilized the entire North African
region. The unintended perils of backing military strongmen was on stark display again
recently when a U.S.-trained captain
led a 2012 coup in Mali which drew both American and French troops back
into a prolonged indecisive intervention.
The rarely recounted record of French support for African monsters – usually vicious
rebel groups – is exceptionally hideous. For starters, Paris
backed Biafran separatists in Nigeria's bloody civil war (1967-70) with 350 tons of
weapons, and was the prime backer of the Rwandan Hutu regime – and its later rebel
manifestations in the extended Congo civil wars (1996-2003) – that perpetrated the
worst genocide (1994) since the Nazi Holocaust. If the US didn't always side with France in
these cases, it scantly opposed the macabre missions.
The Franco-American (Exceptionalist) Forever War Curse
In Africa, both France's (since 1960) and America's (after 2001) foreign policy has been
veritably defined by hyper-interventionism, and low-intensity forever wars. The French
have militarily intervened no less than 50 times – in at least 13 countries
– since official decolonization. It has waged its own lengthy or seemingly forever wars
in Chad (1968-75, 77-80 83-84),
Ivory Coast (2002-present), and Mali
. (2013-present) In Chad, the US has recently
taken the baton from France and continues to bolster a regime ranked by Transparency
International in 2010 as the sixth most corrupt on earth.
Indeed, today the French and American militaries are engaged in a joint adventure chasing
Islamist "terror" ghosts across Francophone West and Central Africa. According to AFRICOM's
own internal
documents , the US military now has "enduring" "footprints" in six, and "non-enduring"
presence in four, former French colonies in the region. Taking that incestuous overlap a step
further, Washington and Paris are together simultaneously engaged in
active operations in four of those countries, and jointly station troops in at least
two
others . Britain, by contrast, has troops in only four African countries in any
abiding sense, and is far less active in combat. While hardly any Americans –
and to a lesser extent Frenchmen – can locate, or in certain cases pronounce, Djibouti,
Gabon, Niger, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Chad, Tunisia, Mali, or Cameroon, the stark fact is that
both countries are meddling, and often at war, in each of those distant locales.
American and French soldiers, alike, continue to die in these, at best, tangential
hot spots in the name of domestic populations that don't give a damn and hardly take any
notice. In Africa, at least (though not the Middle East), French military losses have been
even higher than American casualties. Since 2013, 30 French troops have
died in Mali alone. For all that cost in French blood and treasure – more than
$750 million annually – the Sahel is even today " slipping out of control ." The same
could be said of the American investment – ample billions spent and thousands of troops
extensively deployed
in some 15 countries as of 2019 – in Africa since 9/11.
The result of all this has been a joint Franco-American counter-productivity crisis both
for the region and homeland security. The blowback synergy is perhaps best illustrated in the
linked Libyan-Mali debacle, especially since Paris and Washington (along with London)
shamelessly masked an
outright (Ghadafi) regime change in Tripoli under the guise of the UN's Responsibility
to Protect (R2P) concept.
From 2007-08, US special forces inserted themselves and
assisted the Malian government in its decidedly local ethnic fight with Tuareg
separatists in the country's north. Simultaneously, US trained and backed forces in nearby
Niger committed atrocities against fellow Tuareg civilians – which only added to their
ethnic grievances. Then, that temporarily tamped-down insurgency exploded when it was
bolstered in 2012 by fighters and weapons which flooded south from the chaos induced by
NATO's 2011 regime change war in Libya. A year later, the French army was back in its former
colony. They've yet to leave.
So, essentially, France – through its earlier colonial divide and rule policies
– and the US, by militarily meddling and choosing sides in local matters (and
catalyzing instability in Libya), created the Tuareg "problem" in Mali (and Niger)
that both Western powers then intervened in, and are still trying, to solve.
Taking stock of this recent U.S.-backed Francophone African history repeated
as farce , one is reminded of the
rejoinder of a long dead French Algerian settler philosopher: "Each act of repression
each act of police torture has deepened the despair and violence of those subjected [and] in
this way given birth to terrorists who in turn have given birth to more police." Or, one
might add in the contemporary African context: more French and American soldiers .
The Questions We (Both) Dare Not Ask
In another absurd commonality, the French and Americans have come to uncritically
accept the inevitability of interminable warfare in Africa without asking why. Neither
Paris nor Washington has much bothered to self-pose the salient question at hand: Why
has violent Islamism exploded in Africa (or the Mideast, for that matter); and why now
? It certainly can't be as simple as the Bush-era
trope : "They hate us for our freedoms."
If that were the case, one would expect the jihadi wave sooner, since, after all, French
and American democracy – such as it is – is far older than the post-colonial, or
post-9/11 eras. See, but there's the rub: exceptional entities don't trouble
themselves with such questions; that sort of doubt or reflection wouldn't occur to a
universalist policymaker in Paris or Washington.
Naturally, if French or American leaders had lowered themselves to such base (you
know, human) levels, and even deigned to touch a toe in some self-awareness waters, a few
inconvenient causation explanations might ripple outward. Like that, perhaps, the spread of
Islamist "terror" has deep roots in the phenomena of colonization, decolonization, neo-colonialism
and global-financial debt-imperialism
. And that there is a proven counterproductive
relationship between the level of foreign troop deployments and overall violence in Africa
– I.e. more French Foreign Legionnaires, and more (disturbingly similar) American "
Praetorians
" of the special operations command, has only sent regional jihadism skyrocketing.
Finally, there's the minor matter that the " Washington
consensus " response – through influence over IMF and World Bank policies –
to the post-1973 oil shocks and free-fall of global commodity prices, didn't (and wasn't
designed) to stop the number of Global Southerners living on less than a dollar a day rising
from 70 to 290 million by 1998. In the face of such poverty, locals can be forgiven for their
sneaking suspicion that both the Declarations of Independence, and of the Rights
of Man , offer rather paltry answers. Now, whether the West, however constructed, bears
all the blame for that might be debatable; but through African eyes, what's certain is the
recent infusion of Franco-American troops and corporations is not seen as a net
positive for the people. Jihadis may be monsters – and we must admit they often are
– but at least they are African (or Arab) monsters.
To distant, exceptionalist ears in the comfort of the White House (or the Élysée
Palace ), such sentiments seem resoundingly blasphemous. The cultural and political
universalism of American or French "values" – even if neither society ever manages to
internally agree about what those are – seem a given. To reject Washingtonian or
Parisian liberty largesse is seen as almost proof-positive that intransigent Africans were
communists – or now "terrorists" – after all. Furthermore, the unsophisticated
locals must've been put up to it by "real" enemies: the Soviets (pre-1991), or today,
obviously the Chinese. According to this prevailing logic, more's the reason to flood the
region with ample troops and around and around we go.
Passing the Torch?
Today, and quite
historically , both the French and Americans simplify a gray, complex world to their own
– and global peoples' – detriment. Elizabeth Schmidt's two recent exhaustive
studies of foreign interventions in Africa –
during and since the
Cold War – concluded that such actions "tended to exacerbate rather than alleviate
African conflicts." Consider that a scholarly understatement. In the case of exponentially
increased US military involvement since the founding of AFRICOM, credible
recent analyses demonstrate how strikingly counterproductive such missions have been on
the continent.
When it comes to the discrete – and often joint – French and American
interventions in Africa these days, sequence and timing matter. Until 2007, the generally
limited US military actions on the continent fell under the responsibility of United States
European Command (EUCOM) – which in addition to countering the Russian Bear, had
jurisdiction over 43 (what were seen as) backwater sub-Saharan African countries. When it
came to actual troop "boots-on-the-ground," France was still the military meddler
extraordinaire. All that changed, slowly after 9/11, and with immediacy when President Bush
announced the creation of the Pentagon's new Africa Command (AFRICOM) in 2007.
This was the pivotal moment, a changing of the economic and military neo-imperial guard of
sorts. It is unlikely coincidental that the permanent US military presence became official at
almost precisely the tipping point moment (2008) when China eclipsed France
as Africa's largest trading partner. Indeed, the ostensible "threat" of the Chinese Dragon
– despite it still having just
one base there – as much as "terrorism," has easily replaced the convenient canard
of Soviet infusion as the justification for perpetual US military intervention in Africa. In
the futile and inessential attempt to "defeat" Islamist jihadism and exclude China, France is
now the junior – but essential, given its existing local "knowledge" and neocolonial
relationships – partner on the continent.
With respect to Paris' incessant and indecisive warfare – and ineffective strategy
– in Africa, Hannah Armstrong, of the International Crisis Group, lamented
that "In the same way that French reality TV and pop music is 15 years behind the US, French
counterterrorism mimics US counterterrorism of 15 years ago." That may be strictly accurate
with respect to the recent failures in the Sahel that she analyzed – but widen the lens
a bit, and it becomes clear Armstrong has it backwards. Historically, since 1960, the French
have tried it all before; Uncle Sam was often behind (or backing) them, then (as in Vietnam)
willingly took the torch, and now fails where Paris already has.
In Africa, given that most of the current fighting is in the Francophone sphere upon which
Paris – uniquely
among former European imperialists – has maintained an historic
politico-military-economic post-colonial grip, it is worth asking just who is using
who in the relationship.
In other words, qui ( really ) bono?
Author's Note: As some readers may have noticed, I have (accidentally) embarked on a
sort of informal empire-analogy series, with a particularly African-inflection. In case
you've missed them, check out the links below to the previous articles (in a variety of
outlets) on contemporary American connections to past and present empires:
Danny Sjursen is a retired US Army officer and contributing editor atAntiwar.comHis work has appeared in
the NY Times, LA Times, The Nation, Huff Post, The Hill, Salon, Popular Resistance, and
Tom Dispatch, among other publications. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units
in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the
author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War,Ghostriders of
Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge. His forthcoming book,
Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War is now available forpre-order. Sjursen was recently selected as a 2019-20 Lannan FoundationCultural Freedom Fellow. Follow him on Twitter@SkepticalVet. Visit his
professionalwebsitefor contact info, to schedule speeches or media appearances, and access to his past
work.
" What better way to achieve that than to blame it all on China? "
The premise of fingering China arises from the fact that this is primarily about China
[duh]:
• The initial rapid viral spread occurred in the Chinese city of Wuhan;
• A Wuhan bio-lab had the expertise to engineer such enhanced viruses;
• Authorities allowed viral carriers to fly to other regions of the world.
To then spin a conspicuously strained counter-narrative that denies these three key facts
and instead tacitly or directly blames the United States as the primary culprit for the
current world viral pandemic is clear evidence of a Chinese sponsored redirection campaign;
or else voluntary promoters of such propaganda efforts are surely dedicated fascists.
Since the term " fascist " is nowadays often used as a rather nebulous term of
slander, I want to emphasize that I am using it correctly here, and not maliciously, because
it is consistent with key attributes of the original Fascism in Italy, under Mussolini, as
well as somewhat later and concurrently in Germany, under Hitler, so I will provide my
definition of the term below.
On the basis of these characteristics, I maintain that the world's two most fascist
countries (both the government and a prevailing attitude of its people) are both Israel and
China. Therefore, people who glorify these countries and eagerly support their actions, as is
evident on this site, should at least be honest and understand that they are essentially
fascists in this regard. My use of the term here is thus merely a straightforward political
appellation.
Five Key Characteristic Elements of and Criteria for State Fascism
• Hyper-Nationalism, State Worship, Dynastic and Cultural Glory
• Cult of Militaristic Strength and Desired Territorial Conquests
• Historically Rooted in Basic Socialist Principles and Revolution
• Strongly Authoritarian Behavioral Control of the Entire Population
• Pursuit of Corporatist Economics with State Guidance of Business
If challenged, I would be happy to provide specific examples. There may be a few countries
that fulfill only some of these five attributes or that follow all or most of them to a
weaker extent (Turkey, Russia, Iran, Ukraine), but Israel and China clearly reflect all these
five characteristics most strongly.
So readers should consider whether their strong support of Israel or China (or both) is
something they can feel proud of or not. There is no serious question that the aforementioned
aspects tend to make a government operate more efficiently, if allowed to remain
unchallenged, which may be the primary goal.
@Been_there_done_that Another characteristic of fascism is "rebirth". The appeal of
fascism to the mass of discontent people is in pointing out that the prevailing bourgeois
society/economy is the source of the nation's weakness and corruption.
Fascists use the 5 traits you outlined to redirect people's anger and frustration into
hope and belief in their promise to act as midwives in the birth of a new nation/civilization
that embodies the people's true and essential character. The Phoenix rising out of the flames
is a fitting symbol of their party. This promise of rebirth has a deep appeal to the human
psyche, one that goes back to our earliest agricultural roots. It is Archetypal.
The clandestine cooperation between Western intelligence services and the media has been
known for decades and is well documented. The following case shows just how closely and
comprehensively even leading European journalists have been cooperating with secret services
such as the CIA. [...]
The Times long ago abandoned journalism the way it's supposed to be. All the news it claims
fit to print isn't fit to read.
Its daily editions feature state-approved managed news misinformation and disinformation --
notably against sovereign independent nations on the US target list for regime change.
Russia notably has been a prime target since its 1917 revolution, ending its czarist
dictatorship.
Except during WW II and Boris Yeltsin's 1990s rule, Times anti-Russia propaganda was and
remains relentless, notably throughout the Vladimir Putin era, the nation's most distinguished
ever political leader.
When Yeltsin died in April 2007, the Times shamefully called him "a Soviet-era reformer the
country's democratic father and later a towering figure of his time as the first freely elected
leader of Russia, presiding over the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the demise of the
Communist Party (sic)."
He presided over Russia's lost decade. Under him, over half the population became
impoverished.
His adoption of US shock therapy produced economic genocide. GDP plunged 50%. Life
expectancy fell sharply.
Democratic freedoms died. An oligarch class accumulated enormous wealth.
Western interests profited at the expense of millions of exploited Russians.
Yeltsin let corruption and criminality flourish. One scandal followed others. Grand theft
became sport. So did money laundering.
Billions in stolen wealth were secreted in Western banks and offshore tax havens.
A critic reviled him, saying throughout much of his tenure, he "slept, drank, was ill,
relaxed, didn't show his face before the people and simply did nothing," adding:
"Despised by the majority of (Russians, he'll) go down in history as the first president of
Russia, having corrupted (the country) to the breaking point, not by his virtues and or by his
defects, but rather by his dullness, primitiveness, and unbridled power lust of a
hooligan."
He was a Western/establishment media favorite, notably by the Times, mindless of the human
misery and economic wreckage he caused.
Putin is a preeminent world leader, towering over his inferior Western counterparts,
especially in the US, why the Times reviles him.
On Monday, its propaganda machine falsely accused him of waging a long war on US science,
claiming he's promoting disinformation to "encourage the spread of deadly illnesses (sic)."
Not a shred of evidence was presented because none exists. The Times' disinformation report
was slammed in a preceding article.
On Wednesday, the self-styled newspaper of record was at it again -- reactivating the Big
Lie that won't die, saying with no corroborating evidence that "Russia may have sown
disinformation in a dossier used to investigate a former Trump campaign aide (sic),"
adding:
"Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide with numerous links to Russia was probably a
Russian agent (sic)."
Disinformation the Times cited came from former UK intelligence agent Christopher Steele's
dodgy dossier, financed by the DNC and Hillary campaign.
Its spurious accusations were exposed as fake news, notably phony accusations of Russian US
election interference that didn't happened.
Probes by Robert Mueller, House and Senate committees found no credible evidence of an
illegal or improper Trump campaign connection to Russia or election interference by the Kremlin
-- because there was none of either.
According to the Times, Steele's dodgy dossier "was potentially influenced by a 'Russian
disinformation campaign to denigrate US foreign relations,' " citing FBI Big Lies as its
source.
Another article on Russia this week claimed "many people who don't work for the government
or in deep-pocketed state enterprises face economic devastation," adding:
Domestic violence increased because of social distancing and sheltering in place.
Not mentioned in the article is that mass unemployment and other COVID-19 fallout affect
Western and other countries adversely.
Putin was slammed for sending COVID-19 aid to the US, calling it "a propaganda coup for the
Kremlin -- tempered by an intensifying epidemic at home."
Outbreaks in Russia are a small fraction of US numbers, around 21,000 through Wednesday --
compared to nearly 650,000 in the US and over 28,000 deaths.
Spain, Italy, France, Germany and Britain have five-to-eightfold more outbreaks than
Russia.
NYC has over 110,000 cases. In the NY, NJ, CT tristate area, around 300,000 cases were
reported, almost as many COVID-19 deaths as outbreaks in Russia -- through Wednesday.
Putin is dealing with what's going on responsibly, stressing "we certainly must not relax,
as long as outbreaks occur.
A paid holiday is in effect through end of April for Russian workers, likely to be extended
if needed.
Essential workers continue on the job -- at home if able, otherwise operating as before.
National efforts continue to control outbreaks, aid ordinary Russians at a time of duress,
and work to restore more normal conditions.
While dealing with outbreaks at home, Russia supplied Italy, Serbia, and the US with aid to
combat the virus.
Yet Pompeo falsely accused Russia, China, and Iran with spreading disinformation about
COVID-19.
Gratitude and good will aren't US attributes, just the opposite.
The word socialism is meaningless. A government, by nature is socialistic. Again, following
up on my sociopathy comment, it's on a spectrum. Some governments-- Sweden, Finland, Cuba--
do more, others-- Guatemala, Honduras, now Bolivia-- do less.
"Public sector" would be a more accurate term to describe what the particular government
in question is using public funds. Tennessee, for example, will not put out your house fire
if you have not paid your "fire tax". Most southeastern states have smaller public sectors
than northern states.
Another issue: be honest. Military is public sector. Police, prisons... public sector. you a
cop? your public sector. your money comes from the people. That's socialism. It makes no
sense for right wingers to be against "socialism" and work for the public sector.
Bernie never defined "socialism" accurately which allowed DNC scum and republicans to tar
him with that dirty word since we Americans are so addicted to Fox, CNN and MSNBC.
It is essential for men of science to take an interest in the administration of their own
affairs or else the professional civil servant will step in -- and then the Lord help you.
Rutherford
Notable quotes:
"... The Mockingbird mass media tools have something far more important: Duty to an empire that is staggering from crises. The pandemic isn't even the greatest of the crises that is bedeviling the empire. Even the financial meltdown is just one of the biggies. A particularly insidious crisis growing in the West is the Mockingbird mass media losing control of the narratives needed to maintain empire. This leaves the media tools desperate, almost frantic, in their narrative spinning. ..."
The year that Rutherford died (1938 [sic]) there disappeared forever the happy days of
free scientific work which gave us such delight in our youth. Science has lost her freedom.
Science has become a productive force. She has become rich but she has become enslaved and
part of her is veiled in secrecy. I do not know whether Rutherford would continue to joke and
laugh as he used to.
"These media and these experts, both enamored of objectivity and
impartiality, have they a conscience ? Do they have ethics ?" --Chinese Ambassador quoted
and translated by Peter AU1 @152
The Mockingbird mass media tools have something far more important: Duty to an empire
that is staggering from crises. The pandemic isn't even the greatest of the crises that is
bedeviling the empire. Even the financial meltdown is just one of the biggies. A particularly
insidious crisis growing in the West is the Mockingbird mass media losing control of the
narratives needed to maintain empire. This leaves the media tools desperate, almost frantic,
in their narrative spinning.
By the way, everyone knows that Stephen Hawking was a guest at Epstein's Island, right? In
fact, a large number of notable scientists had been guests there. Now why would the CIA want
blackmail material on top scientists and "experts" ? Well, I guess that even though
scientists will naturally feel obligation to their benefactors' empire, their tendency to
prioritize truth might at times be inconvenient.
Of course we should be search for intelligence assets under each bed. But Bernie in retrospect does look like a second rate
preacher who was controlled or whom campaign was infiltrated by intelligence agencies having completely different agenda and pushing
him to self-destruct. His approval of Russiagate tells you everything you need to knoww about him: a sheep dog on a mission.
Notable quotes:
"... Tulsi exposed Kamala as not only lacking scruples, but also as weak and easily flustered. The [Intelligence] Man right then and there understood that with Tulsi, the revolution might NOT be televised . ..."
"... Bernie and his campaign then inexplicably began to help The [Intelligence] Man by embracing the negative branding being pushed onto Bernie and his campaign. What about Cuba, huh Bernie? The [Intelligence] Man 's puppets asked. Nice guys! Said Bernie and his people. Well, what about Socialism, huh Bernie? Socialism is Awesome! Bernie and his people said. And with that, The [Intelligence] Man knew he had won. ..."
"... Was Bernie following the advice of people secretly working for The [Intelligence] Man ? It sure looked like that ..."
"... Bernie's campaign should have stuck to his working-class New Deal branding. Instead, many of his leading surrogates had their own social conditioning agendas. An example of that elitist liberal mindset is with Hillary Clinton's basket of deplorables comment. ..."
"... That mentality from a political surrogate is poison to a campaign. Voters dislike politicians who scold them. Which is why so many of those types of Bernie surrogates are also known for being liberal interventionists. They scolded people who were against invading and bombing countries "for their own good." They called people traitors for not supporting their demands for regime-change wars in the Middle East and elsewhere. ..."
Before the loss of momentum on Super Tuesday the mounting enthusiasm among Berniecrats was palpable. Was Gil Scott-Heron wrong,
was the revolution going to be televised?
Tulsicrats already knew the revolution would not be televised. Tulsi Gabbard took down The [Intelligence] Man 's #1 choice
to lead Amerika, and that was televised live to the world. Kamala Harris had the
full backing of the Clinton/neocon foreign policy establishment . Tulsi exposed Kamala as not only lacking scruples, but
also as weak and easily flustered. The [Intelligence] Man right then and there understood that with Tulsi, the revolution might NOT
be televised .
After seeing the revolution begin to be televised, The [Intelligence] Man went after Tulsi will all the ferocity
that The [Intelligence] Man 's media/political machine could muster by inundating America 24/7 with:
Tulsi Gabbard works for Putin, she's a nazi, a fascist, a monster and (gasp) a Republican!
The [Intelligence] Man even
got some "Berniecrats" to smear
Tulsi . To make sure the revolution will not be televised The [Intelligence] Man then deplatformed Tulsi from televised
town halls, televised debates, and televised news.
The [Intelligence] Man then saw Bernie Sanders gaining momentum over the crowded field of candidates. The [Intelligence]
Man knew from seeing Tulsi in the debates that the revolution could be televised , but, The [Intelligence] Man
also knew he couldn't deplatform a front runner like Bernie. The [Intelligence] Man 's choice moving forward was simple
and obvious to calculate. Americans needed to learn that Bernie's economic plan to help the working class -- was in reality a communist
plot.
The [Intelligence] Man 's media/political machine went into overdrive to tell Americans that Bernie Sanders is an incarnation
of Karl Marx, of Mao and Stalin, of Venezuelan poverty, of Cuban totalitarianism, of all things Un-American. Just because Tulsi had
shown that the revolution could be televised .
Bernie and his campaign then inexplicably began to help The [Intelligence] Man by embracing the negative branding
being pushed onto Bernie and his campaign. What about Cuba, huh Bernie? The [Intelligence] Man 's puppets asked. Nice guys!
Said Bernie and his people. Well, what about Socialism, huh Bernie? Socialism is Awesome! Bernie and his people said. And with that, The [Intelligence] Man knew he had won.
The revolution will not be televised . The Bernie Sanders campaign didn't know how to relate to the average middle class
American. Why did they embrace The [Intelligence] Man 's negative branding? Did they believe they could easily change the
average American's attitude towards communism and socialism because like The Blues Brothers, they're on a mission from God?
Was Bernie following the advice of people secretly working for The [Intelligence] Man ? It sure looked like that.
Couldn't he see that by embracing being branded as The Socialist Savior™ it would ensure their campaign was doomed? Wasn't it obvious
that The [Intelligence] Man 's media/political machine would work 24/7 to convince Americans that Bernie Sanders is a communist
if he accepted the socialist branding? The [Intelligence] Man 's plan was simple and obvious -- repeat to people over and
over every single day that socialism=communism. That socialism=taking your money away. That socialism=making America a failed state.
That socialism=totalitarianism. The tactic to brand Bernie as a communist, as an enemy of the freedom loving American people, was
obvious to everyone in politics. Except to the people running Bernie's campaign. It seems they had no qualms with socialist branding.
The Sanders campaign embraced the socialism™ brand instead of fighting it. They embraced woke branding as well. Didn't they know
that the African American community are to a great extent devout Christians? Their vote was needed to have any chance of winning
the primary. Using a lot of political energy on promoting Identity politics may be popular with college kids and liberal elites,
but that worldview typically runs counter to the Bible based morality believed in by so many in the African American community. Devout
people don't like to be told there is something wrong with them if they believe in scriptural authority. And woke politics is nothing
if not a subjective exercise in didactic moralizing. So the revolution will not be televised.
Bernie's campaign should have stuck to his working-class New Deal branding. Instead, many of his leading surrogates had their
own social conditioning agendas. An example of that
elitist liberal mindset is with Hillary Clinton's basket of deplorables comment. Did anyone ask why she felt confidant enough
in that liberal upper-class environment to say that? She was playing to a crowd she was intimate with. She knew they had the same
type of liberal elitist views as her own. Which are a woke version of the attitude of Professor Henry Higgins towards the Eliza Doolittles
of the working class -- as in this video:
That mentality from a political surrogate is poison to a campaign. Voters dislike politicians who scold them. Which is why so
many of those types of Bernie surrogates are also known for being liberal interventionists. They scolded people who were against
invading and bombing countries "for their own good." They called people traitors for not supporting their demands for regime-change
wars in the Middle East and elsewhere. So the revolution will not be televised.
That let-them-eat-cake liberal upper-class attitude gets people killed. And not only in interventionist regime-change wars.
You see almost all liberal elites in America supporting harsh economic sanctions against countries who voted for the wrong type of
leader. Those leaders who nationalize natural resources instead of letting American and European corporations control them, tend
to find themselves all of a sudden being labeled dictators and drug kingpins. They find themselves all of a sudden fighting for their
lives against an opposition armed to the teeth. They see the liberal elite in America going all in for sanctions against their countries
which leaves their economies in tatters. For example, Trump's sanctions and coups against numerous leftist governments in Latin America
are supported by
the liberal elites . So the revolution will not be televised.
Bernie's surrogates who push their own pet social agendas in order to "educate" Americans lead people to feel like they are trying
to convert them to a religious cause. What they want is to be offered political help from a politician. Instead they often feel like
they are being asked to support a cause. That mentality doomed Liz Warren and it doomed Bernie Sanders as well. Those surrogates
may well know how to appeal to their like-minded trust fund nepotistic media gentry pals and liberal elites from Brooklyn, D.C.,
and L.A. -- but they know how to appeal to average Americans about as much as they do to Martians. Is that why Bernie lost even with
so much good will going into the primary? I don't know what went on inside their decision making process, all I can offer is what
I saw as an average person outside the campaign who wanted Bernie to succeed.
It is funny not-funny how Tulsi Gabbard always came to the aid of Bernie when The [Intelligence] Man was smearing
him. Whether it was over sexism claims or Russiagating him or anything else -- Tulsi always had his back. But Bernie was reluctant
to have anything to do with Tulsi when she was being openly deplatformed. Was it his decision or the people running his campaign
who helped to deplatform and shut down the only other true progressive and only ally in the primary? Who can say if it was their
pet causes which guided them? Or maybe it was their not wanting to jeopardize jobs after the Sanders campaign in the liberal elite
neocon dominated media/political job market? Or maybe it was something more basic. Like love for liberal elite money. Or love for
TurkishSaudiQatariPakistani money? With all those influences on the people running his campaign and on his media surrogates, who
can say if Bernie was sabotaged by them (like they did to Tulsi) or not. The revolution will not be televised.
"... The recent tale of Israeli-American Michael Kadar, who has been credited with many of early 2017's nearly two thousand bomb scares targeting Jewish community centers and synagogues worldwide, is illustrative. ..."
"... The court in Tel Aviv convicted Kadar on counts including "extortion, disseminating hoaxes in order to spread panic, money laundering and computer hacking over bomb and shooting threats against community centers, schools, shopping malls, police stations, airlines, and airports in North America, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Norway and Denmark." It claimed that "As a result of 142 telephone calls to airports and airlines, in which he said bombs had been planted in passenger planes or they would come under attack, aircraft were forced to make emergency landings and fighter planes were scrambled." ..."
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is ..."
Even though distracted by the havoc resulting from the coronavirus, the United States and
much of Europe is engaged in a frenzied search for anti-Semitism and anti-Semites so that what
the media and chattering class are regarding as the greatest of all crimes and criminals can
finally be extirpated completely. To be sure, there have recently been some horrific instances
of ethnically or religiously motivated attacks on synagogues and individual Jews, but, as is
often the case, however, quite a lot of the story is either pure spin or politically motivated.
A Jewish student walking on a college campus who walks by protesters objecting to Israel's
behavior can claim to feel threatened and the incident is recorded as anti-Semitism, for
example, and slurs written on the sides of buildings or grave stones, not necessarily the work
of Jew-haters, are similarly categorized. In
one case in Israel in 2017, the two street swastika artists were Jews.
Weaponizing one point of view inevitably limits the ability of contrary views to be heard.
The downside is, of course, that the frenzy that has resulted in the criminalization of free
expression relating in any but a positive way to the activity of Jewish groups. It has also
included the acceptance of the dishonest definition that any criticism of Israel is ipso facto
anti-Semitism, giving that nation a carte blanche in terms of its brutal treatment of its
neighbors and even of its non-Jewish citizens.
Jewish dominated Hollywood and the entertainment media have helped to create the
anti-Semitism frenzy and continue to give the public regular doses of the holocaust story.
Currently there are a number of television shows that depict in one form or another the
persecution of Jews. Hunters on Amazon is about Jewish Americans tracking and killing
suspected former Nazis living in New York City in the 1970s. The Plot to Destroy
America on HBO is a retro history tale about how a Charles Lindbergh/Henry Ford regime
installs a fascist government in the 1930s. One critic describes
the televisual revenge feast "as one paranoid Jewish fantasy after another advocating murder as
the solution to what they perceive as the problem of anti-Semitism."
But, as always, nothing is quite so simple as such a black and white portrayal where there
are evil Nazis and Jewish victims who are always justified when they seek revenge. First of
all, as has been demonstrated ,
many recent so-called anti-Semitic attacks on Jews involve easily recognizable Hasidic Jews and
are actually based on community tensions as established neighborhoods are experiencing dramatic
changes with the newcomers using pressure tactics to force out existing residents. And after
the Hasidim take over a town or neighborhood, they defund local schools to support their own
private academies and frequently engage in large scale welfare and other social services fraud
to permit them to spend all their days studying the Talmud, which, inter alia teaches
that gentiles are no better than beasts fit only to serve Jews.
The recent concentration of coronavirus in Orthodox neighborhoods in New York as well as the
eruption of measles cases last year have been attributed to the unwillingness of some
conservative Jews to submit to vaccinations and normal hygienic practices. They also have
persisted in illegal large gatherings at weddings and religious ceremonies, spreading the
coronavirus within their own communities and also to outsiders with whom they have contact.
Regularly exposing anti-Semitism is regarded as a good thing by many Jewish groups because
the state of perpetual victimization that it supports enables them to obtain special benefits
that might otherwise be considered excessive in a pluralistic democracy. Holocaust education in
schools is now mandatory in many jurisdictions and more than 90% of discretionary Department of
Homeland Security funding goes to Jewish organizations. Jewish organizations are
now lining up to get what they choose to believe is their share of Coronavirus emergency
funding.
Claims of increasing anti-Semitism, and the citation of the so-called holocaust, are like
having a perpetual money machine that regularly disgorges reparations from the Europeans as
well as billions of dollars per year from the U.S. Treasury. Holocaust and anti-Semitism
manufactured guilt are undoubtedly contributing factors to the subservient relationship that
the United States enjoys with the state of Israel, most recently manifested in the U.S.
Department of Defense's gift of one million surgical masks
to the Israel Defense Force in spite of there being a shortage of the masks in the United
States (note how the story
was edited after it first appeared by the Jerusalem Post to conceal the U.S. role
but it still has the original email address and the photo cites the Department of Defense).
And then there is the issue of Jewish power, which is discussed regularly by Jews themselves
but is verboten to gentiles. Jews wield hugely disproportionate power in all the Anglophone
states as well as in France and parts of Eastern Europe and even in Latin America. If
anti-Semitism is as rampant as has often been claimed it is odd that there are so many Jews
prominent in politics and the professions, most especially financial services and the media.
Either anti-Semitism is not really "surging" or the actual anti-Semities have proven to be
particularly incompetent in making their case.
Further muddying the waters, there have been a number of instances in which Jews have
themselves been responsible for what have been claimed to be anti-Semitic incidents. There has
also been credible speculation that some of the incidents have been false flags staged by the
Israeli government itself, presumably acting through its intelligence services. The objective
would be to create sympathy among the public in Europe and the U.S. for Israel and to
encourage
diaspora emigration to the Jewish state. The recent tale of Israeli-American Michael
Kadar, who has been credited with many of early 2017's nearly two thousand bomb scares
targeting Jewish community centers and synagogues worldwide, is illustrative.
Kadar, who holds both Israeli and American nationality, was arrested in Ashkelon
Israel on March 2017 by Israeli police in response to the investigation carried out by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. Kadar's American address was in New Lenox Illinois but he
actually resided in Israel. Kadar's defense was that he had a brain tumor that caused autism
and was not responsible for his actions, but he was found to be fit for trial and was
sentenced
to 10 years in prison in June 2017. He was apparently subsequently quietly released from
prison and returned to Illinois in
mid-2018. In August 2019 he was
arrested for violation of parole on a firearms and drugs offense.
The court in Tel Aviv convicted Kadar on counts including "extortion, disseminating
hoaxes in order to spread panic, money laundering and computer hacking over bomb and shooting
threats against community centers, schools, shopping malls, police stations, airlines, and
airports in North America, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Norway and Denmark." It claimed
that "As a result of 142 telephone calls to airports and airlines, in which he said bombs had
been planted in passenger planes or they would come under attack, aircraft were forced to make
emergency landings and fighter planes were scrambled."
It was also claimed
by the court that Kadar had gotten involved with the so-called restricted access "dark web"
to make threats for money. He reportedly earned $240,000 equivalent worth of the digital
currency Bitcoin. Kadar has reportedly refused to reveal the password to his Bitcoin wallet and
its value is believed to have increased to more than $1 million.
The tale borders on the bizarre and right from the beginning there were
many inconsistencies in both the Department of Justice case and in terms of Kadar's
biography and vital statistics. After his arrest and conviction, many of his public, private
and social networking records were either deleted or changed, suggesting that a high-level
cover-up was underway.
Most significant, the criminal
complaint against Kadar included details of the phone calls that were not at all consistent
with the case that he had acted alone. The threats were made using what is referred to as
spoofing telephone services, used by marketers to hide the caller's true number and identify,
but the three cell phone numbers identified by the Department of Justice to make the spoofed
calls were all U.S.-based and one of them was linked to a Jewish Chabad religious leader and
one to the Church of Scientology's counter-intelligence chief in California. In addition, some
of the calls were made when Kadar was in transit between Illinois and Israel, suggesting that
he had not initiated the calls.
DOJ's criminal complaint also included information that the threat caller was a woman who
had "a distinct speech impediment." Michael Kadar's mother has a distinct speech impediment.
Oddly enough she has not been identified in any public documents and the Israelis claimed that
Michael was disguising his voice, but she is believed to be Dr. Tamar Kadar, who resided in
Ashkelon at the same address as Michael. Dr. Kadar is a chemical weapons researcher at the
Mossad-linked Israel Institute for Biological Research ("IIBR").
Michael appears to have U.S. birthright citizenship because he was born in Bethesda in 1990
while his mother was a visiting researcher at the U.S. Army Military Research Institute of
Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID). While Dr. Kadar was at USAMRIID, anthrax went missing from the
Army's lab and may have been subsequently used in the 2001 anthrax letter attacks inside the
U.S., which resulted in the deaths of five people. The FBI subsequently accused two USAMRIID
researchers of the theft, but one was exonerated and the other committed suicide, closing the
investigation.
So, there are some interesting issues raised by the Michael Kadar case. First of all, he
appears to have been the fall guy for what may have been a Mossad directed false-flag operation
actually run by his mother, who is herself an expert on biological weapons and works at an
Israeli intelligence lab. Second, the objective of the operation may have been to create an
impression that anti-Semitism is dramatically increasing, which ipso facto generates a
positive perception of Israel and encourages foreign Jews to emigrate to the Jewish state. And
third, there appears to have been a cover-up orchestrated by the Israeli and U.S. governments,
evident in the disappearance of both official and non-official records, while Michael has been
quietly released from prison and is enjoying his payoff of one million dollars in bitcoins. As
always, whenever something involves promoting the interests of the state of Israel, the deeper
one digs the more sordid the tale becomes.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is[email protected] .
Good piece of work Dr. Giraldi. A few things about this case of the Kadars. Basically Israel
refused to cooperate with the FBI at the beginning and resisted giving up the kid.
Furthermore, the FBI was told to "back off" by higher ups in the agency and let Israel handle
it. So the results are what you would expect with a false flag.
The anthrax case still has legs. Bruce Irvins was the microbiologist at Detrick you are
referring to. He was never charged and they never proved he was involved and the FBI could
not place him in any of the spots they wanted. He had some issues and the FBI gang banged him
looking for a patsy. Dr. Hatfill was the "original" Person of Interest whom the Jewish
controlled media followed around and they ruined his life. He sued the FBI and won a lot of
money.
The FBI appeared to intentionally mess up the anthrax samples. Reviews by the National
Academy of Science rocked the idiots at the FBI and they concluded Irvins was not involved.
The real kicker to all of this is that the FBI leader of the investigation was Robert
Mueller! The same Mueller who spent almost 3 years chasing Russian spies well knowing that it
was lie.
And finally who sealed the files so no one could ever come up with the real perpetrators
..Obama!
Antisemitism is pro-Israel, the Nazis included (shipping jews to Palestine).
For some reason I know exactly what a neonazi looks like, how he behaves, how he talks,
how he thinks and even how he feels. But I never met one. Where does this 'knowledge' come
from?
I happen to remember some television that I have seen as a child. Most people don't and
are living in a fantasy world with fantasy enemies and fantasy friends and take it for
reality.
"Further muddying the waters, there have been a number of instances in which Jews have
themselves been responsible for what have been claimed to be anti-Semitic incidents."
There have been so many such incidents over the years that when a synagogue or cemetery
gets spray-painted with swastikas, the default presumption for any subsequent investigation
is automatically "inside-job".
The stereotypical perpetrator would tend to be a deranged student residing at the campus
Hillel House, majoring in film studies or some other flakey college program.
Years ago there was a case of a San Francisco synagogue on fire. After the arsonist, a
Jew, was caught and confessed, the tenor of the response was that one had to feel sorry for
him because he needed help.
In light of such incidents there has even been a visual meme out there: Hey Rabbi
Watcha Doin'?! (See Google Images)
Getting a patsy to do the dirty work is significantly more effective in provoking outrage
and sympathy. Though last year's attack on a synagogue in Halle, Germany, during Yom Kippur
services in early October was highly suspicious, media reports managed to suppress those
aspects and instead generated a victimhood-card bonanza that lasted for weeks.
The German population was easily bamboozled. Prominent Jewish representatives publicly
demanded more stringent laws against "anti-semitism", as recently re-defined, and
parliamentarians duly obliged.
News that had not been much reported about, but was circulating at the outset in
alternative media:
• Mentally deranged perpetrator, who had shared his views on an Internet chat group,
expressed his desire to attack Muslims and Antifa.
• Anonymous "handler / minder" in California offered to pay him half a bitcoin to
redirect his attack toward the synagogue instead.
• Synagogue had just recently been equipped with elaborate security system installed
by Israeli company to withstand shooting and bombing attacks.
• Local police, which normally would provide security outside, during holiday
services, were conspicuously absent during that time, and slow to respond (likely stand-down
orders from above).
• Perpetrator filmed his rampage, which he broadcast in real-time as a live stream
video online (wanting to emulate an earlier attack in New Zealand), enabling his handlers to
monitor the shooting spree while in progress.
• After his mission failed, frustrated perpetrator "spilled the beans" in real-time
and cussed out the Californian bitcoin payer, who had apparently set him up to be framed, as
probably being a Jew.
Of course, by design, the securely locked synagogue door easily withstood the shooting
attack with multiple exterior bullet holes into its wooden exterior. Everybody in the world
probably saw that part.
I was born in Argentina, 1950. There was a populist nationalist government then, strongly
disliked by the US. It included a whole spectrum, right to left. It assisted together with
the Vatican the rescuing of Nazi criminals that settled in the country. There was an
antisemitic movement headed by a provocateur, Juan Guillermo Kelly for name. Jews emigrated
to Israel. In the 80s he made public he was a Mossad agent
@vot
tak How can Jews be a 'colonial occupation force' in any nation that is English-speaking
and has not totally rejected the political and cultural heritage of WASP Empire?
Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was a Judaizing heresy. When the Anglo-Saxon Puritans won their
revolution, they cemented Modern English culture as one twined with Jewish ideas and ideals.
Archetypal WASP Oliver Cromwell cemented that doubly by allying with Jewish bankers on the
Continent. From the mid-1600s, Jews have been the defining bankers of English Empire, of WASP
Empire. And bankers are always the opposite of outsiders. Bankers own and eventually come to
control fully.
Anglo-Zionist Empire has existed since at least Oliver Cromwell.
As in the case of the Mossad asset Jeff Epstein, who was running a child-rape assembly line
on his 'Orgy Island' and on his 'Lolita Express,' to ensnare weakling politicians,
video-taping them in the process of raping young girls–and boys–then use that to
blackmail them into becoming an enthusiastic supporter of Israel, the one lead that was never
pursued was, "How many other Epstein's are out there, doing their slimy business for Israel?"
The same could be asked of this 'Mikey' Kadar terrorist, who I'm sure has plenty of
accomplices world-wide, still phoning in threats or maybe spray-painting Jew cemeteries with
the dreaded Nazi Swastika.
This terrorist does about one year in prison, then is set free and off to the USA he runs?
If his name had been Mohammed or he was a skin-headed nationalist, he'd be in prison for the
rest of his life, but since he's from that class of those Chosen by G-d, he gets a
pass.
There was an antisemitic movement headed by a provocateur, Juan Guillermo Kelly
Very interesting information. I did a quick search and the only info I found was this wiki
entry in Spanish.
I used google translate to convert to English.
Do you have any sources that confirm his alleged affiliation with Mossad?
[Hide MORE]
From a young age he was a member of the Nationalist Liberation Alliance. Until then, it
was led by Juan Queraltó and had a clear anti-Semitic profile that Kelly fought
against. The group went on to become a shock force of Peronism.
During the bombing of Plaza de Mayo, when a group of military personnel opposed to the
government of Juan Domingo Perón attempted to assassinate him and carry out a coup
d'état, several squadrons of aircraft belonging to Naval Aviation, bombarded and
machine-gunned them with anti-aircraft ammunition, Plaza de Mayo and the Casa Rosada, as well
as the CGT building, Kelly, aided by the Nationalist Liberation Alliance, dueled with the
Marines responsible for the attack. [2]
After the self-proclaimed liberating revolution dictatorship was established, after a
bombardment of the headquarters of his organization, located in San Martín and
Corrientes Avenue in Buenos Aires. On September 21, the coup armed forces received from
Córdoba the order to eliminate that focus of resistance in the heart of the city of
Buenos Aires and advanced on it with cannons and two Sherman tanks, sending an emissary to
surrender. The cannons and tanks fired and some fifty men, led by Guillermo Patricio Kelly,
surrendered. Those who remained inside died under the rubble of the three-story building,
destroyed with gunshots. The number of deaths that some raise to more than 400 is unknown.
[3] After that, he was arrested by the dictatorship and transferred to the Río
Gallegos prison, where one night in 1957 he starred in a film escape along with John William
Cooke, Jorge Antonio and Héctor Cámpora and other political prisoners managed
to escape, after which he applied for political asylum in Chile, but this was denied. When he
was about to be sent to Argentina, he escaped again, this time dressed as a woman, [required
appointment] to Venezuela where Perón was. When he left Chile for Caracas, he used a
new identity: he was "Doctor Vargas, psychoanalyst".
When on January 26, 1958, the newspaper El Nacional titled "Perón led the
repression against the Venezuelan people," he identified him, along with Kelly, as "National
Security torture consultants" and published Perón's fraternal letters to the head of
that body.
When the revolution broke out in Venezuela, Perón was another of the insurgents'
objectives, along with his collaborators, among whom was Kelly, and they had to take refuge
in the Embassy of the Dominican Republic. Outside, more than a thousand people were shaking
the entrance gate. They had already been locked up for two days, and people were still
outside. All the Argentines looked askance at Kelly. "They are going to kill us all because
of this one," they growled. There were several who wanted to kick him out and someone raised
the motion: to vote if he should withdraw. It was not necessary: Kelly decided
to face up. He only asked for two conditions: that he be given a pair of dark glasses and a
hat. He also asked for silver. When he walked out of the embassy and mixed with the crowd, no
one could recognize him. In the midst of the seizure, Kelly made contact with two CIA agents:
-- The Communists are going to enter the embassy and they are going to kill Perón. And
if they kill him, the entire continent is communicated – he warned them. Finally, the
United States prepared to rescue him, interceding with the revolutionary government to clear
the area and facilitate his departure to the Dominican Republic. [4]
Kelly was stoned from the Caracas airport, obtained refuge in Haiti and, after a turbulent
stay in which he was imprisoned, [5] crossed the border to the Dominican Republic, where he
remained for a few days. He returned to Argentina in 1958 with the passport that he stole
from Roberto Galán and after six months he was arrested and transferred again to the
Ushuaia prison. [6]
Throughout his life he was imprisoned for almost eight years. In 1966 he occupied the
headquarters of the PJ National Coordinating Board for a few hours, from where he launched a
violent proclamation against union leader Augusto Vandor. [appointment required]
In 1981, in the midst of a military dictatorship, he denounced the theft of $ 60 million
from Argentina, 10% of that debt belonging to General Suárez Mason, considering him a
"murderer of the people." According to Kelly, Mason is involved in the YPF emptying in the
1980s. He also said that the military man worked as a mercenary training mercenary troops to
fight in the Caribbean, which received money from the Nord high command, who was accused of
murdering the brother and two nephews of former President Arturo Frondizi. Also involved in
this robbery was former judge Pedro Narvaez who fled to Rio de Janeiro and then to Spain. [7]
[8]
In 1983, he gained notoriety after formulating a series of complaints related to the P-2
Lodge, the YPF dismissal and the murder of Fernando Branca, in addition to filing a criminal
complaint against Emilio Massera. Shortly thereafter, in August of that year, Kelly was
kidnapped and severely beaten by a gang led by Aníbal Gordon, who claimed to have
acted on the orders of the last military dictator Reynaldo Bignone and the Army Corps I.
In 1991, during the presidency of Carlos Menem, he was the host of an ATC program called
Sin Concesiones, in which he maintained that it would reveal "where the children of the
´Noble Ladies´ come from", alluding to the children adopted by the director from
the Clarín newspaper, Ernestina Herrera de Noble. After a meeting between Herrera de
Noble, Héctor Magnetto and Carlos Menem held at the Quinta de Olivos on Thursday, May
2, 1991, Clarín and the government agreed on Kelly's air release at ATC in exchange
for the air output of the program of the journalist Liliana López Foresi, Magazine 13,
Journalism with an opinion, in which Menem was severely criticized. [9] [10] [11] [12]
On the subject of Herrera de Noble's children, Kelly wrote a book published by Arkel
Publishing in 1993 titled Noble: Imperio Corrupto. Only 200 copies were published, although
the author gave several of them to public libraries in the United States. [13]
He died on July 1, 2005 at 8:30 am, a victim of terminal cancer at the German Hospital in
the City of Buenos Aires. [14] [15]
Very much so. Because it helps direct our attention to something very important.
Though they're good at infiltration, subversion, betrayal, destruction and death, they're
no good at social-managment.
Who's "they"?
I refer to them as Jewish Supremacy Inc. (JSI).
It's a distinction worth making because it separates them from Jews who don't hate Whites
and aren't obsessed with being Jewish.
They're out there, however small their numbers might be.
After all, Gilad Atzmon's not the only one.
It's also worth pointing out that JSI gets lots of help from three other groups who aren't
Jewish at all. In fact they're White.
1. the cynical, self-centered whores of opportunity who will do anything to protect their
own materialistic, narcissistic trough.
2. the incurably gullible, pathologically naive Whites from Left-wingy Multi-Culties to
Right-wing Christian Zionists.
3. the perfectly indifferent who walk around with that stroked out look on their face from
watching too much ESPN and Pornhub.
The rest of us are freedom-lovers, or TUR readers/commenters or potential TUR
readers/commenters.
Meaning they'd be open to what the actual readers/commenters have to say and won't fly off
the handle with a knee-jerk reaction before springing into fight or flight mode.
In short, this boils down to a battle of
Dogma versus Pragma
.
What's the difference?
Pragma is open to exposing its ideas to a process of continuous feedback and correction
for the purpose of improving the quality of its social-management
Excuse me, but this is comical. There is no other group in America and the entire West who
are more protected and more privileged than Jews. While White Gentiles are routinely
attacked, beaten to a pulp, raped, and brutally murdered by Blacks, Hispanics, Pakis, Arabs,
in Europe and America, just for having the temerity to walk outside in countries built by
their White ancestors. How does a painted swastika equate with rape-torture murders of the
Christian-Newsom Knoxville Horror? And if you think the Christian-Newsom murders are a rare
crime in America, you are living under a rock. And lest we forget the Christian-Newsom
Murders nor the Wichita Massacre murders were labeled "hate crimes." Despite thousands upon
thousands of Black on White and other nonwhite on White attacks, rapes, murders in this
country, you can bet the house that no one in Washington has voiced concerns over the
violence being perpetrated on White Gentiles daily in America. America is indeed a racist
country and Whites experience that racism every single day.
Remember a couple years ago when someone was calling bomb threats to Jewish Community
Centers? Remember that they found out it was some Jewish guy in a Tel Aviv basement calling
in the bomb threats. Of course at first the (((media))) went through their spiel about how
anti-Semitism was on the rise in America, and then once we all found out that the perpetrator
was a Jewish guy in Israel, ( I believe a dual citizen at that) the (((media))) dropped this
case quicker than you could claim some NY/NJ rabbis were selling body organs.
Most of these hate crime HOAXES are simply Jews and/or Blacks drawing swastikas, hanging a
nooses in a locker, or some other ridiculous and downright childish act that in no way even
if done by a White racist who hates Jews and Blacks, equates to a Mississippi girl named
Jessica Chambers being burned alive, a 12 year old white male being burned alive with a blow
torch by an adult black female in Texas, etc., etc. The fact of the matter is that "hate
crimes" against nonwhites and Jews are downright rare in America, ( not talking about HOAXES
here) and there is no way that a crayon drawing of a swastika or hanging a noose in someone's
locker can be linked as the same as someone dying a horrific and brutal death like the White
victims I listed. IF we lived in a TRULY just and decent country, EVERYONE out there,
regardless of color, creed or religion would recognize that we need to stop all the hate and
violence directed at White Gentiles before moving on to worrying about crayon drawings.
Remember when Noel Ignatiev the Jewish professor stated we need to "abolish Whiteness?" Now
imagine a White professor stating that we need to "abolish Jewishness in America?" Can you
imagine what would have happened to that guy? Is it possible for a Jew in America/Canada or
Europe to be fired from his or here job for making racist or inflammatory remarks about
Whites?
The story of Michael Kadar is reminiscent of the tale of another criminal young male with
dual Israeli US citizenship, Samuel Sheinbein.
Sheinbein and a colleague murdered, dismembered and burnt a fellow high school classmate,
the hispanic Fredo Enrique Tello, Jr., in September, 1997. Sheinbein fled to Israel and in a
long drawn out court battle, Sheinbein's requested extradition to the State of Maryland to
stand trial was refused by Israel's supreme court.
You can read the whole sordid story in Wikipedia including how Sheinbaum was killed in a
shootout with the guards who were escorting him from one prison to another.
@Jake
Here we go with the WASP thing again. A minority of descendants of the Angles were Puritans,
and even fewer Saxons were Puritans. There were also Norse Puritans, Norman Puritans and
Briton Puritans. All Puritans were minorities. Many "Protestant" Churches, including the
Anglican Church, considered Puritans dissenters, verging on heretics, and not really
Protestants beyond protesting the Church of Rome. Knox's Presbyterians had a lot in common
with Puritans as did Dutch Protestants, and there were a lot of Dutch who moved to East
Anglia. Some became Puritans. It's silly to refer to it at it being "Anglo-Saxon Puritans" as
not all were Angles or Saxons. They were Puritans who happened to be Angles, Saxons and
others. WASP is even sillier. Are there Brown, Yellow, or Red Anglo-Saxons?
Cromwell seized power because the Stuarts were unpopular for many reasons, and as with
every revolution, a minority with zealotry seizes power from an apathetic majority. Sure he
turned to the Jewish Amsterdam bankers, who were already funding the Dutch Empire, including
New Amsterdam, but who else would have helped? The Puritans were vehemently anti Catholic and
would have never turned there. They were also vehemently anti-Muslim, so the Ottomans were
out. The Jews were it by elimination.
As for the culture. The culture of the elite is seldom the culture of the general
population.
The "Anglo-Saxons" were more than happy to restore the Stuarts after Cromwell, as long as
they were Protestants. The installation of King Billy, replacing James, was due to James
having converted to Catholicism and the fear of his imposing it on the country.
It was under William and Mary that the newly, created by Parliament, Bank of England was
taken over by Jewish bankers. The same minority Puritan Parliament that restored the Stuarts
and sponsored the overthrow of James.
"... Something is seriously sick about the DNC and it's collusion with the media. The pretence of democracy is crashing and the oligarchy exposed. ..."
Whether social democrat or socialist - I agree Sanders did progress the cause for needed
societal, financial and political change.
But why did he fold so weakly and meekly in both 2016 and again now?
Especially in the face of obvious vote rigging by the Hillary campaign (as proven in a
Florida civil court ruling - albeit with the judge's decision accepting the DNC Defense
argument that the DNC has the right to appoint their candidate and override the primaries -
sudden untimely death of two of the lawyers for the Bernie Sanders supporters who brought the
case as well).
This time the totally unexpected victory on "Super Thursday" as Sleepy Joe called it in 9
state primaries stinks to high heaven. Maybe he did win given the media support and enough
ignoramuses voted for a man who is blatantly suffering dementia as well as having been a
corrupt nepotist of the highest order and an alleged rapist and video documented serial
creepy fondler of women and young children.
Something is seriously sick about the DNC and it's collusion with the media. The
pretence of democracy is crashing and the oligarchy exposed.
Trump will win - because many will hope he is a renegade oligarch who has some moral
compass even if a broken one.
A social democrat will refuse to demand that General Motors make concessions to the
workers unless General Motors is making solid profits. Extend the concept to the entire
economy. Capitalism is in crisis. For a social democrat that means heavy demands are off the
table until the crisis is resolved and capitalism returns to profitability. How could Sanders
deliver on his promises even if he won? Better to just throw in the towel, at least from a
social democrat perspective.
"Something is seriously sick about the DNC and it's collusion with the media."
Indeed, but there is more to it. The mass media isn't so much colluding with the Dems as
the media has been largely taken over by a criminal gang ( Operation Mockingbird ),
and the same gang has taken over the Democrat party. Instructions to both the mass media and
the Dems are coming from the same folks, so it looks like collusion, but actual direct
connections between the two will not be so conspicuous.
Allen Welsh Dulles (1893 – 1969) was an American diplomat and lawyer who became
the first civilian Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), and its longest-serving
director to date. As head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the early Cold
War, he oversaw the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the 1954 Guatemalan coup
d'état, the Lockheed U-2 aircraft program, the Project MKUltra mind control
program and the Bay of Pigs Invasion. He was dismissed by John F. Kennedy over the latter
fiasco.
Dulles was one of the members of the Warren Commission investigating the assassination
of John F. Kennedy. Between his stints of government service, Dulles was a corporate
lawyer and partner at Sullivan & Cromwell. His older brother, John Foster Dulles, was
the Secretary of State during the Eisenhower Administration and is the namesake of Dulles
Airport.
Truth, due process, evidence, rights of the accused: All are swept aside in pursuit of the
progressive agenda.
George Orwell's 1949 dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four is no longer fiction. We are
living it right now.
Google techies planned to massage Internet searches to emphasize correct thinking. A member
of the so-called deep state, in an anonymous op-ed, brags that its "resistance" is undermining
an elected president. The FBI, CIA, DOJ, and NSC were all weaponized in 2016 to ensure that the
proper president would be elected -- the choice adjudicated by properly progressive ideology.
Wearing a wire is now redefined as simply flipping on an iPhone and recording your boss, boy-
or girlfriend, or co-workers.
But never has the reality that we are living in a surreal age been clearer than during the
strange cycles of Christine Blasey Ford's accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett
Kavanaugh.
In Orwell's world of 1984 Oceania, there is no longer a sense of due process, free inquiry,
rules of evidence and cross examination, much less a presumption of innocence until proven
guilty. Instead, regimented ideology -- the supremacy of state power to control all aspects of
one's life to enforce a fossilized idea of mandated quality -- warps everything from the use of
language to private life.
Oceania's Rules
Senator Diane Feinstein and the other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee had long
sought to destroy the Brett Kavanaugh nomination. Much of their paradoxical furor over his
nomination arises from the boomeranging of their own past political blunders, such as when
Democrats ended the filibuster on judicial nominations, in 2013. They also canonized the
so-called 1992 Biden Rule, which holds that the Senate should not consider confirming the
Supreme Court nomination of a lame-duck president (e.g., George H. W. Bush) in an election
year.
Rejecting Kavanaugh proved a hard task given that he had a long record of judicial opinions
and writings -- and there was nothing much in them that would indicate anything but a sharp
mind, much less any ideological, racial, or sexual intolerance. His personal life was
impeccable, his family admirable.
Kavanaugh was no combative Robert Bork, but congenial, and he patiently answered all the
questions asked of him, despite constant demonstrations and pre-planned street-theater
interruptions from the Senate gallery and often obnoxious grandstanding by "I am Spartacus"
Democratic senators.
So Kavanaugh was going to be confirmed unless a bombshell revelation derailed the vote. And
so we got a bombshell.
Weeks earlier, Senator Diane Feinstein had received a written allegation against Kavanaugh
of sexual battery by an accuser who wished to remain anonymous. Feinstein sat on it for nearly
two months, probably because she thought the charges were either spurious or unprovable. Until
a few days ago, she mysteriously refused to release the
full text of the redacted complaint , and she has said she does not know whether the very
accusations that she purveyed are believable. Was she reluctant to memorialize the accusations
by formally submitting them to the Senate Judiciary Committee, because doing so makes Ford
subject to possible criminal liability if the charges prove demonstrably untrue?
The gambit was clearly to use the charges as a last-chance effort to stop the nomination --
but only if Kavanaugh survived the cross examinations during the confirmation hearing. Then, in
extremis , Feinstein finally referenced the charge, hoping to keep it anonymous, but, at the
same time, to hint of its serious nature and thereby to force a delay in the confirmation.
Think something McCarthesque, like "I have here in my hand the name . . ."
Delay would mean that the confirmation vote could be put off until after the midterm
election, and a few jeopardized Democratic senators in Trump states would not have to go on
record voting no on Kavanaugh. Or the insidious innuendos, rumor, and gossip about Kavanaugh
would help to bleed him to death by a thousand leaks and, by association, tank Republican
chances at retaining the House. (Republicans may or may not lose the House over the
confirmation circus, but they most surely will lose their base and, with it, the Congress if
they do not confirm Kavanaugh.)
Feinstein's anonymous trick did not work. So pressure mounted to reveal or leak Ford's
identity and thereby force an Anita-Hill–like inquest that might at least show old white
men Republican senators as insensitive to a vulnerable and victimized woman.
The problem, of course, was that, under traditional notions of jurisprudence, Ford's
allegations simply were not provable. But America soon discovered that civic and government
norms no longer follow the Western legal tradition. In Orwellian terms, Kavanaugh was now at
the mercy of the state. He was tagged with sexual battery at first by an anonymous accuser, and
then upon revelation of her identity, by a left-wing, political activist psychology professor
and her more left-wing, more politically active lawyer.
Newspeak and Doublethink
Statue of limitations? It does not exist. An incident 36 years ago apparently is as fresh
today as it was when Kavanaugh was 17 and Ford 15.
Presumption of Innocence? Not at all. Kavanaugh is accused and thereby guilty. The accuser
faces no doubt. In Orwellian America, the accused must first present his defense, even though
he does not quite know what he is being charged with. Then the accuser and her legal team pour
over his testimony to prepare her accusation.
Evidence? That too is a fossilized concept. Ford could name neither the location of the
alleged assault nor the date or time. She had no idea how she arrived or left the scene of the
alleged crime. There is no physical evidence of an attack. And such lacunae in her memory
mattered no longer at all.
Details? Again, such notions are counterrevolutionary. Ford said to her therapist 6 years
ago (30 years after the alleged incident) that there were four would-be attackers, at least as
recorded in the therapist's notes.
But now she has claimed that there were only two assaulters: Kavanaugh and a friend. In
truth, all four people -- now including a female -- named in her accusations as either
assaulters or witnesses have insisted that they have no knowledge of the event, much less of
wrongdoing wherever and whenever Ford claims the act took place. That they deny knowledge is at
times used as proof by Ford's lawyers that the event 36 years was traumatic.
An incident at 15 is so seared into her lifelong memory that at 52 Ford has no memory of any
of the events or details surrounding that unnamed day, except that she is positive that
17-year-old Brett Kavanaugh, along with four? three? two? others, was harassing her. She has no
idea where or when she was assaulted but still assures that Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge
were drunk, but that she and the others (?) merely had only the proverbial teenage "one beer."
Most people are more likely to know where they were at a party than the exact number of
alcoholic beverages they consumed -- but not so much about either after 36 years.
Testimony? No longer relevant. It doesn't matter that Kavanaugh and the other alleged
suspect both deny the allegations and have no memory of being in the same locale with Ford 36
years ago. In sum, all the supposed partiers, both male and female, now swear, under penalty of
felony, that they have no memory of any of the incidents that Ford claims occurred so long ago.
That Ford cannot produce a single witness to confirm her narrative or refute theirs is likewise
of no concern. So far, she has singularly not submitted a formal affidavit or given a
deposition that would be subject to legal exposure if untrue.
Again, the ideological trumps the empirical. "All women must be believed" is the testament,
and individuals bow to the collective. Except, as in Orwell's Animal Farm, there are
ideological exceptions -- such as Bill Clinton, Keith Ellison, Sherrod Brown, and Joe Biden.
The slogan of Ford's psychodrama is "All women must be believed, but some women are more
believable than others." That an assertion becomes fact due to the prevailing ideology and
gender of the accuser marks the destruction of our entire system of justice.
Rights of the accused? They too do not exist. In the American version of 1984 , the accuser,
a.k.a. the more ideologically correct party, dictates to authorities the circumstances under
which she will be investigated and cross-examined: She will demand all sorts of special
considerations of privacy and exemptions; Kavanaugh will be forced to return and face cameras
and the public to prove that he was not then, and has never been since, a sexual assaulter.
In our 1984 world, the accused is considered guilty if merely charged, and the accuser is a
victim who can ruin a life but must not under any circumstance be made uncomfortable in proving
her charges.
Doublespeak abounds. "Victim" solely refers to the accuser, not the accused, who one day was
Brett Kavanaugh, a brilliant jurist and model citizen, and the next morning woke up transformed
into some sort of Kafkaesque cockroach. The media and political operatives went in a nanosecond
from charging that she was groped and "assaulted" to the claim that she was "raped."
In our 1984, the phrase "must be believed" is doublespeak for "must never face
cross-examination."
Ford should be believed or not believed on the basis of evidence , not her position, gender,
or politics. I certainly did not believe Joe Biden, simply because he was a U.S. senator, when,
as Neal Kinnock's doppelganger, he claimed that he came from a long line of coal miners -- any
more than I believed that Senator Corey Booker really had a gang-banger Socratic confidant
named "T-Bone," or that would-be senator Richard Blumenthal was an anguished Vietnam combat vet
or that Senator Elizabeth Warren was a Native American. (Do we need a 25th Amendment for
unhinged senators?) Wanting to believe something from someone who is ideologically correct does
not translate into confirmation of truth.
Ford supposedly in her originally anonymous accusation had insisted that she had sought
"medical treatment" for her assault. The natural assumption is that such a term would mean
that, soon after the attack, the victim sought a doctor's or emergency room's help to address
either her physical or mental injuries -- records might therefore be a powerful refutation of
Kavanaugh's denials.
But "medical treatment" now means that 30 years after the alleged assault, Ford sought
counseling for some sort of "relationship" or "companion" therapy, or what might legitimately
be termed "marriage counseling." And in the course of her discussions with her therapist about
her marriage, she first spoke of her alleged assault three decades earlier. She did not then
name Kavanaugh to her therapist, whose notes are at odds with Ford's current
version.
Memory Holes
Then we come to Orwell's idea of "memory holes," or mechanisms to wipe clean inconvenient
facts that disrupt official ideological narratives.
Shortly after Ford was named, suddenly her prior well-publicized and self-referential
social-media revelations vanished, as if she'd never held her minor-league but confident
pro-Sanders, anti-Trump opinions . And much of her media and social-media accounts were erased
as well.
Similarly, one moment the New York Times -- just coming off an embarrassing lie in reporting
that U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley had ordered new $50,000 office drapes on the government dime
-- reported that Kavanaugh's alleged accomplice, Mark Judge, had confirmed Ford's allegation.
Indeed, in a sensational scoop, according to the Times , Judge told the Judiciary Committee
that he does remember the episode and has nothing more to say. In fact, Judge told the
committee the very opposite: that he does not remember the episode . Forty minutes later, the
Times embarrassing narrative vanished down the memory hole.
The online versions of some of the yearbooks of Ford's high school from the early 1980s
vanished as well. At times, they had seemed to take a perverse pride in the reputation of the
all-girls school for underage drinking, carousing, and, on rarer occasions, "passing out" at
parties. Such activities were supposed to be the monopoly and condemnatory landscape of the
"frat boy" and spoiled-white-kid Kavanaugh -- and certainly not the environment in which the
noble Ford navigated. Seventeen-year-old Kavanaugh was to play the role of a falling-down
drunk; Ford, with impressive powers of memory of an event 36 years past, assures us that as a
circumspect 15-year-old, she had only "one beer."
A former teenage friend of Ford's sent out a flurry of social-media postings, allegedly
confirming that Ford's ordeal was well known to her friends in 1982 and so her assault
narrative must therefore be confirmed. Then, when challenged on some of her incoherent details
(schools are not in session during summertime, and Ford is on record as not telling anyone of
the incident for 30 years), she mysteriously claimed that she no longer could stand by her
earlier assertions, which likewise soon vanished from her social-media account. Apparently, she
had assumed that in 2018 Oceania ideologically correct citizens merely needed to lodge an
accusation and it would be believed, without any obligation on her part to substantiate her
charges.
When a second accuser, Deborah Ramirez, followed Ford seven days later to allege another
sexual incident with the teenage Kavanaugh, at Yale 35 years ago, it was no surprise that she
followed the now normal Orwellian boilerplate : None of those whom she named as witnesses could
either confirm her charges or even remember the alleged event. She had altered her narrative
after consultations with lawyers and handlers. She too confesses to underage drinking during
the alleged event. She too is currently a social and progressive political activist. The only
difference from Ford's narrative is that Ramirez's accusation was deemed not credible enough to
be reported even by the New York Times , which recently retracted false stories about witness
Mark Judge in the Ford case, and which falsely reported that U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley had
charged the government for $50,000 office drapes.
As in 1984 , "truths" in these sorts of allegations do not exist unless they align with the
larger "Truth" of the progressive project. In our case, the overarching Truth mandates that, in
a supposedly misogynist society, women must always be believed in all their accusations and
should be exempt from all counter-examinations.
Little "truths" -- such as the right of the accused, the need to produce evidence,
insistence on cross-examination, and due process -- are counterrevolutionary constructs and the
refuge of reactionary hold-outs who are enemies of the people. Or in the words of Hawaii
senator Mazie Hirono:
Guess who's perpetuating all of these kinds of actions? It's the men in this country. And
I just want to say to the men in this country, "Just shut up and step up. Do the right thing,
for a change."
The View 's Joy Behar was more honest about the larger Truth: "These white men, old by the
way, are not protecting women," Behar exclaimed. "They're protecting a man who is probably
guilty." We thank Behar for the concession "probably."
According to some polls, about half the country believes that Brett Kavanaugh is now guilty
of a crime committed 36 years ago at the age of 17. And that reality reminds us that we are no
longer in America . We are already living well into the socialist totalitarian Hell that Orwell
warned us about long ago.
All Comments 30
NiggaPleeze , 10 seconds ago
National Review? Really? Does it get more evil than them?
Debt Slave , 16 seconds ago
According to some polls, about half the country believes that Brett Kavanaugh is now
guilty of a crime committed 36 years ago at the age of 17.
Well half the country are idiots but the important thing to remember in our democracy is
that the idiots have the right to vote. And here we are today.
No wonder the founders believed that democracy was a stupid idea. But we know better than
they did, right?
Jkweb007 , 37 seconds ago
It is hard for me to believe 50% when in America you are presumed innocent till proven
guilty. Is this the spanish inquizition or salem witch trials. If he floats he was innocent.
I am shocked that people in congress would make statements, she must be believed, I believe
he is guilty. These are people who represent and stand for the constitution that many died in
the defense of life liberty and the persuit of happiness. It may be time for that mlilitia
that our founding fathers endorsed. If Kavanaugh is rebuked for these accusation our freedom,
free speech may be next.
One more confirmation that the so called "social justice warriors" -like last night's
goons' who shamefully interrupted Senator Cruz's night out with his wife at a private
restaurant- are Orwell's projected fascists!
opport.knocks , 20 minutes ago
Bush 2 was in the big chair when he and his cabinet started the USA down the full
Orwellian path (Patriot Act, post 911). Kavanaugh and his wife were both members of that
government team.
If there is any reason to dismiss him, that would be it, not this post-pubescent sex
crap.
If I was a cynical person, I would say this whole exercise is to deflect attention away
from that part of his "swampy" past.
Aubiekong , 23 minutes ago
We lost the republic when we allowed the liberals to staff the ministry of
education...
CheapBastard , 15 minutes ago
My neighbor is a high school teacher. I asked her if she was giving students time off to
protest this and she looked at me and said, "Just the opposite. I have given them a 10 page
seminar paper to write on the meaning of Due Process."
So there IS hope.
my new username , 23 minutes ago
This is criminal contempt for the due lawful process of the Congress.
These are unlawful attempts and conspiracies to subvert justice.
So we need to start arresting, trying, convicting and punishing the criminals.
BlackChicken , 23 minutes ago
Truth, due process, evidence, rights of the accused: All are swept aside in pursuit of
the progressive agenda.
This needs to end, not later, NOW.
Be careful what you wish for leftists, I'll dedicate my remaining years to torture you
with it.
Jus7tme , 22 minutes ago
>>the socialist totalitarian Hell that Orwell warned us about long ago.
I think Orwell was in 1949 was warning about a fascist totalitarian hell, not a socialist
one, but nice try rewriting history.
Duc888 , 29 minutes ago
WTF ever happened to "innocent until PROVEN guilty"?
CheapBastard , 19 minutes ago
Schumer said before the confirmation hearings even began he would not let Kavanaugh become
SC justice no matter what.
Dems are so tolerant, open minded and respectful of due process, aren't they.
"... Because behind today's coronavirus-inspired astonishment at conditions in developing or lower income countries, and Trump's authoritarian-like thuggery, lies an actual military and political hegemon with an actual impact on the world; particularly on what was once called the "Third World." ..."
"... In physical terms, the U.S.'s military hegemony is comprised of 800 bases in over 70 nations – more bases than any other nation or empire in history. The U.S. maintains drone bases, listening posts, "black sites," aircraft carriers, a massive nuclear stockpile, and military personnel working in approximately 160 countries. ..."
"... Since then, the United States has overthrown or attempted to overthrow the governments of approximately 50 countries, many of which (e.g. Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, and Chile) had elected leaders willing to nationalize their natural resources and industries. Often these interventions took the form of covert operations. Less frequently, the United States went to war to achieve these same ends (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq). ..."
"... In fiscal terms, maintaining American hegemony requires spending more on "defense" than the next seven largest countries combined. Our nearly $1 trillion security budget now amounts to about 15 percent of the federal budget and over half of all discretionary spending. Moreover, the U.S. security budget continues to increase despite the Pentagon's inability to pass a fiscal audit. ..."
This March, as COVID-19's capacity to overwhelm the American healthcare system was becoming
obvious, experts marveled at the scenario unfolding before their eyes. "We have Third World
countries who are better equipped than we are now in Seattle,"
noted one healthcare professional, her words echoed just a few days later by a shocked
doctor in New York who described
"a third-world country type of scenario." Donald Trump could similarly only grasp what was
happening through the same comparison. "I have seen things that I've never seen before," he
said
. "I mean I've seen them, but I've seen them on television and faraway lands, never in my
country."
At the same time, regardless of the fact that "Third World" terminology is outdated and
confusing, Trump's inept handling of the pandemic has itself elicited more than one "banana republic"
analogy, reflecting already well-worn, bipartisan comparisons of Trump to a "
third world dictator " (never mind that dictators and authoritarians have never been
confined solely to lower income countries).
And yet, while such comparisons provoke predictably nativist outrage from the right, what is
absent from any of
these responses to the situation is a sense of reflection or humility about the "Third
World" comparison itself. The doctor in New York who finds himself caught in a "third world"
scenario and the political commentators outraged when Trump behaves "like a third world
dictator" uniformly express themselves in terms of incredulous wonderment. One never hears the
potential second half of this comparison: "I am now experiencing what it is like to live in a
country that resembles the kind of nation upon whom the United States regularly imposes broken
economies and corrupt leaders."
Because behind today's coronavirus-inspired astonishment at conditions in developing or
lower income countries, and Trump's authoritarian-like thuggery, lies an actual military and
political hegemon with an actual impact on the world; particularly on what was once called the
"Third World."
In physical terms, the U.S.'s military hegemony is comprised of 800 bases in over 70
nations –
more bases than any other nation or empire in history. The U.S. maintains drone bases,
listening posts, "black sites," aircraft carriers, a massive nuclear stockpile, and military
personnel working in approximately 160 countries. This is a globe-spanning military and
security apparatus organized into regional commands
that resemble the "proconsuls of the Roman empire and the governors-general of the
British." In other words, this apparatus is built not for deterrence, but for primacy.
The U.S.'s global primacy emerged from the wreckage of World War II when the United States
stepped into the shoes vacated by European empires. Throughout the Cold War, and in the name of
supporting "free peoples," the sprawling American security apparatus helped ensure that 300
years of imperial resource extraction and wealth distribution – from what was then called
the Third World to the First – remained undisturbed, despite decolonization.
Since then, the United States
has overthrown or attempted to overthrow the governments of approximately 50 countries,
many of which (e.g. Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, and Chile) had elected leaders willing to
nationalize their natural resources and industries. Often these interventions
took the form of covert operations. Less frequently, the United States went to war to
achieve these same ends (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq).
In fiscal terms, maintaining American hegemony requires spending more
on "defense" than the next seven largest countries combined. Our
nearly $1 trillion security budget now amounts to about 15 percent of the federal budget
and over half of all
discretionary spending. Moreover, the U.S. security budget continues to increase despite the
Pentagon's inability to pass a fiscal audit.
Trump's claim that Obama had
"hollowed out" defense spending was not only grossly untrue, it masked the consistency of the
security budget's metastasizing growth since the Vietnam War, regardless of who sits in the
White House. At $738 billion dollars, Trump's security budget was passed in December with the
overwhelming support of House Democrats.
And yet, from the perspective of public discourse in this country, our globe-spanning,
resource-draining military and security apparatus exists in an entirely parallel universe to
the one most Americans experience on a daily level. Occasionally, we wake up to the idea of
this parallel universe but only when the United States is involved in visible military actions.
The rest of the time, Americans leave thinking about international politics – and the
deaths, for instance, of 2.5 million
Iraqis since 2003 – to the legions of policy analysts and Pentagon employees who
largely accept American military primacy as an "article of faith," as Professor of
International Security and Strategy at the University of Birmingham Patrick Porter has said
.
Foreign policy is routinely the last issue Americans consider when they vote for presidents
even though the president has more discretionary power over foreign policy than any other area
of American politics. Thus, despite its size, impact, and expense, the world's military hegemon
exists somewhere on the periphery of most Americans' self-understanding, as though, like the
sun, it can't be looked upon directly for fear of blindness.
Why is our avoidance of the U.S.'s weighty impact on the world a problem in the midst of the
coronavirus pandemic? Most obviously, the fact that our massive security budget has gone so
long without being widely questioned means that one of the soundest courses of action for the
U.S. during this crisis remains resolutely out of sight.
The shock of discovering that our healthcare system is so quickly overwhelmed should
automatically trigger broader conversations about spending priorities that entail deep and
sustained cuts in an engorged security budget whose sole purpose is the maintenance of primacy.
And yet, not only has this not happened, $10.5 billion of the coronavirus aid package has been
earmarked for the Pentagon, with $2.4 billion of that
channeled to the "defense industrial base." Of the $500 billion aimed at corporate America,
$17.5 billion is
set aside "for businesses critical to maintaining national security" such as aerospace.
To make matters worse, our blindness to this bloated security complex makes it frighteningly
easy for champions of American primacy to sound the alarm when they even suspect a dip in
funding might be forthcoming. Indeed, before most of us had even glanced at the details of the
coronavirus bill, foreign policy hawks were already
issuing dark prediction s about the impact of still-imaginary cuts in the security budget
on the U.S.'s "ability to strike any target on the planet in response to hostile actions by any
actor" – as if that ability already did not exist many times over.
On a more existential level, a country that is collectively engaged in unseeing its own
global power cannot help but fail to make connections between that power and domestic politics,
particularly when a little of the outside world seeps in. For instance, because most Americans
are unaware of their government's sponsorship of fundamentalist Islamic groups in the Middle
East throughout the Cold War, 9/11 can only ever appear to have come from nowhere, or because
Muslims hate our way of life.
This "how did we get here?" attitude replicates itself at every level of political life
making it profoundly difficult for Americans to see the impact of their nation on the rest of
the world, and the blowback from that impact on the United States itself. Right now, the
outsized influence of American foreign policy is already encouraging the spread of coronavirus
itself as U.S. imposed sanctions on Iran severely hamper that
country's ability to respond to the virus at home and virtually
guarantee its spread throughout the region.
Closer to home, our shock at the healthcare system's inept response to the pandemic masks
the relationship between the U.S.'s imposition
of free-market totalitarianism on countries throughout the
Global South and the impact of free-market totalitarianism on our own welfare state .
Likewise, it is more than karmic comeuppance that the President of the United States now
resembles the self-serving authoritarians the U.S. forced on so many formerly colonized
nations. The modes of militarized policing American security experts exported to those
authoritarian regimes also contributed , on a
policy level, to both the rise of militarized policing in American cities and the rise of mass
incarceration in the 1980s and 90s. Both of these phenomena played a significant role in
radicalizing Trump's white nationalist base and decreasing their tolerance for democracy.
Most importantly, because the U.S. is blind to its power abroad, it cannot help but turn
that blindness on itself. This means that even during a pandemic when America's exceptionalism
– our lack of national healthcare – has profoundly negative consequences on the
population, the idea of looking to the rest of the world for solutions remains unthinkable.
Senator Bernie Sanders' reasonable suggestion that the U.S., like Denmark, should
nationalize its healthcare system is dismissed as the fanciful pipe dream of an aging socialist
rather than an obvious solution to a human problem embraced by nearly every other nation in the
world. The Seattle healthcare professional who expressed shock that even "Third World
countries" are "better equipped" than we are to confront COVID-19 betrays a stunning ignorance
of the diversity of healthcare systems within developing countries. Cuba, for instance,
has responded
to this crisis with an efficiency and humanity that puts the U.S. to shame.
Indeed, the U.S. is only beginning to feel the full impact of COVID-19's explosive
confrontation with our exceptionalism: if the unemployment rate really does reach 32 percent,
as has been predicted,
millions of people will not only lose their jobs but their health insurance as well. In the
middle of a pandemic.
Over 150 years apart, political commentators Edmund Burke and Aimé Césaire
referred to this blindness as the byproduct of imperialism. Both used the exact same language
to describe it; as a "gangrene" that "poisons" the colonizing body politic. From their
different historical perspectives, Burke and Césaire observed how colonization
boomerangs back on colonial society itself, causing irreversible damage to nations that
consider themselves humane and enlightened, drawing them deeper into denial and
self-delusion.
Perhaps right now there is a chance that COVID-19 – an actual, not metaphorical
contagion – can have the opposite effect on the U.S. by opening our eyes to the things
that go unseen. Perhaps the shock of recognizing the U.S. itself is less developed than our
imagined "Third World" might prompt Americans to tear our eyes away from ourselves and look
toward the actual world outside our borders for examples of the kinds of political, economic,
and social solidarity necessary to fight the spread of Coronavirus. And perhaps moving beyond
shock and incredulity to genuine recognition and empathy with people whose economies and
democracies have been decimated by American hegemony might begin the process of reckoning with
the costs of that hegemony, not just in "faraway lands" but at home. In our country.
"... " T he operational dilemmas faced by Indo-Pacific Command demand urgent attention. In order to make American investments in advanced fighters, attack submarines, or breakthroughs in military technology meaningful (in other words, to deter or win a conflict), there must be urgent investment in runways, fuel and munitions storage, theater missile defenses, and command and control architecture to enable U.S. forces in a fight across the Pacific's vast exterior lines. " ..."
'Number one priority' is a $1.5 billion, 360-degree persistent and integrated air defense
ring around Guam.
... ... ...
Arguing in favor of the PDI i n a recent
op-ed , former Pacific policy official for the DoD Randall Schriver
and Eric Sayers, former special assistant to the commander of INDOPACOM,
wrote:
" T he operational dilemmas faced by Indo-Pacific Command demand urgent
attention. In order to make American investments in advanced fighters, attack submarines, or
breakthroughs in military technology meaningful (in other words, to deter or win a conflict),
there must be urgent investment in runways, fuel and munitions storage, theater missile
defenses, and command and control architecture to enable U.S. forces in a fight across the
Pacific's vast exterior lines. "
Well the Pentagon sees that the checkbooks are open, Look if those pencil necked doctors
can get 2trillion for a case of the sniffles, we ought to be able to get 2 billion to face
down the Chicoms!
"... Modernizing our strategic nuclear forces is a top priority for the @DeptofDefense and the @POTUS to protect the American people and our allies. ..."
"... As a pandemic ravages the nation, a sad illustration of wildly misplaced priorities ..."
Can anyone think what our society might have spent
six and a half trillion dollars on instead of 20 years of war in the Middle East for
nothing? How about the
trillion dollars per year we keep spending on the military on top of that?
Invading, dominating and remaking the Arab world to serve the interests of the American empire and
the state of
Greater Israel sounds downright quaint at this point. Iraq War II, as Senator Bernie
Sanders said in the debate a few weeks ago, while letting Joe Biden, one of its primary
proponents , off the hook for it, was "a long time ago." Actually, Senator, we still have
troops there fighting
Iraq War III 1/2 against what's left of the ISIS insurgency, and our current government
continues to threaten the launch of Iraq War IV against the very
parties we fought the last two wars for
. This would
almost certainly then lead to war with Iran.
The U.S.A. still has soldiers, marines and CIA spies in Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya,
Mali, Tunisia, Niger, Nigeria, Chad and only God and
Nick Turse know where else.
Worst of all , America under President Donald Trump is still "leading from behind" in the
war in
Yemen Barack Obama started in conspiracy with Saudi then-Deputy Crown Prince
Mohammed bin Salman back in 2015. This war is nothing less than a deliberate
genocide .
As Senator Rand Paul once explained to Neil Cavuto on Fox News back before he decided to
become virtually silent on the matter, if the U.S.-Saudi-UAE alliance were to succeed in
driving the Houthi regime from power in the capital city, they could end up being replaced by
AQAP or the local Muslim Brotherhood group, al-Islah. There is zero
chance that the stated goal of the war, the re-installation of former dictator Mansur
Hadi on the throne, could ever succeed. And yet the war rages on. President Trump says he's
doing it
for the money .
That's right . And he's just recently sent the
Marines to intervene in the war on behalf of our enemy-allies too.
We still have troops in Germany in the name of keeping Russia out 30 years after the end of
the Cold War and dissolution of the Soviet Empire, even though Germany is clearly not
afraid of Russia at all, and are instead
more worried that the U.S. and its newer allies are going to get them into a fight they do
not want. The Germans prefer to "get along with Russia," and buy natural gas from them, while
Trump's government does everything in its power to
prevent it .
America has
expanded our NATO military alliance right up to Russia's western border and continues to
threaten to include Ukraine and former-Soviet Georgia in the pact right up to the present day.
As the world's worst hawks and Russiagate Hoax
accusers have
admitted , Trump has been by far the
worst anti-Russia president since the end of the last Cold War.
Obama may have hired a bunch of
Hitler-loving Nazis to overthrow the government of Ukraine for him back in 2014, but at
least he was too afraid to send them weapons, something
Trump has done
enthusiastically , even though he was actually impeached by
the Democrats for moving a little too slowly on one of the shipments.
We still have troops in South Korea to protect against the North, even though in economic
and conventional terms the South overmatches the North by
orders of magnitude . Communism really
doesn't work . And the only reason the North even decided to make nukes is because George
W. Bush put a gun to their head and essentially made
them do it . But as Cato's
Doug Bandow says , we don't even need a new deal. The U.S. could just forget about North
Korea and it wouldn't make any difference to our security at all.
And now China. Does anyone outside of the
U.S. Navy and
Marine Corps really care whether the entire Pacific Ocean is an American lake or only
95% of it ? The "threat" of Chinese dominance in their own part of the world exists only in
the heads of hawkish American policy wonks and the Taiwanese, who should have been told a long
time ago that they are
on their own and that there's no way in the world the American people or government are
willing to trade Los Angeles and San Francisco for Taipei.
Perhaps without the U.S. superpower standing behind them, Taiwanese leaders would be more
inclined to seek a peaceful settlement with Beijing. If not, that's their problem. Not one
American in a million is willing to sacrifice their own home town in a nuclear war with China
over an island that means nothing to them. Nor should they. Nor should our government even
dream they have the authority to hand out such dangerous war guarantees to any other country in
such a reckless fashion.
And that's it. There are no other powers anywhere in the world. Certainly there are none who
threaten the American people. Our government claims they are keeping the peace, but there are
approximately two million Arabs and
Pashtuns who would disagree except that they've already been killed in our recent wars and so
are unavailable for comment.
The George W. Bush and Barack Obama eras are long over. We near the end, or half-way
point , of the Trump years, and yet our former leaders' wars rage on
.
Enough already. It is time to end the war on terrorism and end the rest of the American
empire as well . As our dear recently departed friend
Jon Basil Utley learned from his professor Carroll Quigley ,
World Empire is the last stage of a civilization before it dies . That is the tragedy. The hope
is that we can learn from history and preserve what's left of our republic and the freedom that
made it great in the first place, by abandoning our overseas "commitments" and husbanding our
resources so that we may pass down a legacy of liberty to our children.
The danger to humanity represented by the Coronavirus plague has, by stark relief, exposed
just how unnecessary and therefore criminal this entire imperial project has been . We could
have quit the empire 30 years
ago when the Cold War ended, if not long before.
We could have a perfectly normal and peaceful relationship with Iraq, Iran, Syria, Korea,
Russia, China, Yemen and any of the other nations our government likes to pretend threaten us.
And when it comes to our differences, we would then be in the position to kill
them with kindness and generosity, leading the world to liberty the only way we truly can,
voluntarily, on the global free market of ideas and results
.
That is what the world needs and the legacy the American people deserve.
@niteranger
"For example, New York Times Columnist Nicholas Kristof on Sunday reported the disheartening analysis of Dr. Neil Ferguson of
Britain, one of the world's leading epidemiologists."
Nicholas Kristoff has the bad habit of falling for falling for frauds and making them famous. "Three cups of tea" for starters.
He's got a long track record of peddling fake stuff.
Americans are facing "A Spring Unlike Any Before." So warned a front-page headline in the
March 13th New York Times .
That headline, however hyperbolic, was all too apt. The coming of spring has always promised
relief from the discomforts of winter. Yet, far too often, it also brings its own calamities
and afflictions.
According to the poet T.S.
Eliot, "April is the cruelest month." Yet while April has certainly delivered its share of
cataclysms
, March and May haven't lagged far
behind. In fact, cruelty has seldom been a respecter of seasons. The infamous influenza
epidemic of 1918 , frequently cited as a possible
analogue to our current crisis, began in the spring of that year, but lasted well into
1919.
That said, something about the coronavirus pandemic does seem to set this particular spring
apart. At one level, that something is the collective panic now sweeping virtually the entire
country. President Trump's grotesque ineptitude and
tone-deafness have only fed that panic. And in their eagerness to hold Trump himself
responsible for the pandemic, as if he were the bat that first transmitted
the disease to a human being, his critics magnify further a growing sense of events spinning
out of control.
Yet to heap the blame for this crisis on Trump alone (though he certainly deserves plenty of
blame) is to miss its deeper significance. Deferred for far too long, Judgment Day may at long
last have arrived for the national security state.
ORIGINS OF A COLOSSUS
That state within a state's origins date from the early days of the Cold War. Its ostensible
purpose has been to keep Americans safe and so, by extension, to guarantee our freedoms. From
the 1950s through the 1980s, keeping us safe provided a seemingly adequate justification for
maintaining a sprawling military establishment along with a panoply of "intelligence" agencies
-- the CIA, the DIA, the NRO, the NSA -- all engaged in secret activities hidden from public
view. From time to time, the scope, prerogatives, and actions of that conglomeration of
agencies attracted brief critical attention -- the Cuban Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961, the
Vietnam War of the 1960s and early 1970s, and the Iran-Contra affair during the presidency of
Ronald Reagan being prime examples. Yet at no time did such failures come anywhere close to
jeopardizing its existence.
Indeed, even when the implosion of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War removed the
original justification for its creation, the entire apparatus persisted. With the Soviet Empire
gone, Russia in a state of disarray, and communism having lost its appeal as an alternative to
democratic capitalism, the managers of the national security state wasted no time in
identifying new threats and new missions.
The new threats included autocrats like Panama's Manuel Noriega and Iraq's Saddam Hussein,
once deemed valuable American assets, but now, their usefulness gone, classified as dangers to
be eliminated. Prominent among the new missions was a sudden urge to repair broken places like
the Balkans, Haiti, and Somalia, with American power deployed under the aegis of "humanitarian
intervention" and pursuant to a "responsibility to protect." In this way, in the first decade
of the post-Cold War era, the national security state kept itself busy. While the results
achieved, to put it politely, were mixed at best, the costs incurred appeared tolerable. In
sum, the entire apparatus remained impervious to serious scrutiny.
During that decade, however, both the organs of national security and the American public
began taking increased notice of what was called "anti-American terrorism" -- and not without
reason. In 1993, Islamic fundamentalists detonated a bomb in a parking garage of New York's
World Trade Center
. In 1996, terrorists obliterated an apartment building
used to house US military personnel in Saudi Arabia. Two years later, the US embassies in Kenya
and Tanzania were blown
up and, in 2000, suicide bombers nearly sank the USS Cole , a Navy destroyer
making a port call in Aden at the tip of the Arabian peninsula. To each of these increasingly
brazen attacks, all occurring during the administration of President Bill Clinton, the national
security state responded ineffectually .
Then, of course, came September 11, 2001. Orchestrated by Osama bin Laden and carried out by
19 suicidal al-Qaeda operatives, this act of mass murder inflicted incalculable harm on the
United States. In its wake, it became common to say that "9/11 changed everything."
In fact, however, remarkably little changed. Despite its 17 intelligence agencies, the
national security state failed utterly to anticipate and thwart that devastating attack on the
nation's political and financial capitals. Yet apart from minor adjustments -- primarily
expanding surveillance efforts at home and abroad -- those outfits mostly kept doing what they
had been doing, even as their leaders evaded accountability. After Pearl Harbor, at least, one
admiral and one general were fired . After
9/11, no one lost his or her job. At the upper echelons of the national security state, the
wagons were circled and a consensus quickly formed: No one had screwed up.
Once President George W. Bush identified an " Axis of Evil "
(Iraq, Iran, and North Korea), three nations that had had nothing whatsoever to do with the
9/11 attacks, as the primary target for his administration's "Global War on Terrorism," it
became clear that no wholesale reevaluation of national security policy was going to occur. The
Pentagon and the Intelligence Community, along with their sprawling support network of
profit-minded contractors, could breathe easy. All of them would get ever more money. That went
without saying. Meanwhile, the underlying premise of US policy since the immediate aftermath of
World War II -- that projecting hard power globally would keep Americans safe -- remained
sacrosanct.
Viewed from this perspective, the sequence of events that followed was probably
overdetermined. In late 2001, US forces invaded Afghanistan, overthrew the Taliban regime, and
set out to install a political order more agreeable to Washington. In early 2003, with the
mission in Afghanistan still anything but complete, US forces set out to do the same in Iraq.
Both of those undertakings have dragged on, in one fashion or another, without coming remotely
close to success. Today, the military undertaking launched in 2001 continues, even if it no
longer has a name or an agreed-upon purpose.
Nonetheless, at the upper echelons of the national security state, the consensus forged
after 9/11 remains firmly in place: No one screws up. In Washington, the conviction that
projecting hard power keeps Americans safe likewise remains sacrosanct.
In the nearly two decades since 9/11, willingness to challenge this paradigm has rarely
extended beyond non-conforming publications like TomDispatch . Until Donald Trump came along, rare was the
ambitious politician of either political party who dared say aloud what Trump himself has
repeatedly said -- that, as he calls them, the "
ridiculous endless wars " launched in response to 9/11 represent the height of folly.
Astonishingly enough, within the political establishment that point has still not sunk in.
So, in 2020, as in 2016, the likely Democratic nominee for president will be someone who vigorously
supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Imagine, if you will, Democrats in 1880 nominating not a
former union general (as they did) but a former confederate who, 20 years before, had advocated
secession. Back then, some sins were unforgivable. Today, politicians of both parties practice
self-absolution and get away with it.
THE REAL THREAT
Note, however, the parallel narrative that has unfolded alongside those post-9/11 wars.
Taken seriously, that narrative exposes the utter irrelevance of the national security state as
currently constituted. The coronavirus pandemic will doubtless prove to be a significant
learning experience. Here is one lesson that Americans cannot afford to overlook.
Presidents now routinely request and Congress routinely appropriates
more than a trillion dollars annually to satisfy the national security state's supposed
needs. Even so, Americans today do not feel safe and, to a degree without precedent, they are
being denied the exercise of basic everyday freedoms. Judged by this standard, the apparatus
created to keep them safe and free has failed. In the face of a pandemic, nature's version of
an act of true terror, that failure, the consequences of which Americans will suffer through
for months to come, should be seen as definitive.
But wait, some will object: Don't we find ourselves in uncharted waters? Is this really the
moment to rush to judgment? In fact, judgment is long overdue.
While the menace posed by the coronavirus may differ in scope, it does not differ
substantively from the myriad other perils that Americans have endured since the national
security state wandered off on its quixotic quest to pacify Afghanistan and Iraq and purge the
planet of terrorists. Since 9/11, a partial
roster of those perils would include: Hurricane Katrina (2005), Hurricane Sandy (2012),
Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria (2017), and massive wildfires that have devastated vast
stretches of the West Coast on virtually an annual basis. The cumulative cost of such events
exceeds a half-trillion dollars. Together, they have taken the lives of several thousand more
people than were lost in the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Earlier generations might have written all of these off as acts of God. Today, we know
better. As with blaming Trump, blaming God won't do. Human activities, ranging from the
hubristic
reengineering of rivers like the Mississippi to the effects of climate change stemming from
the use of fossil fuels, have substantially exacerbated such "natural" catastrophes.
And unlike faraway autocrats or terrorist organizations, such phenomena, from
extreme-weather events to pandemics, directly and immediately threaten the safety and wellbeing
of the American people. Don't tell the Central Intelligence Agency or the Joint Chiefs of Staff
but the principal threats to our collective wellbeing are right here where we live.
Apart from modest belated
efforts at mitigation, the existing national security state is about as pertinent to
addressing such threats as President Trump's
cheery expectations that the coronavirus will simply evaporate once warmer weather appears.
Terror has indeed arrived on our shores and it has nothing to do with al-Qaeda or ISIS or
Iranian-backed militias. Americans are terrorized because it has now become apparent that our
government, whether out of negligence or stupidity, has left them exposed to dangers that truly
put life and liberty at risk. As it happens, all these years in which the national security
state has been preoccupied with projecting hard power abroad have left us naked and vulnerable
right here at home.
Protecting Americans where they live ought to be the national security priority of our time.
The existing national security state is incapable of fulfilling that imperative, while its
leaders, fixated on waging distant wars, have yet to even accept that they have a
responsibility to do so.
Worst of all, even in this election year, no one on the national political scene appears to
recognize the danger now fully at hand.
Congress is preparing to vote to spend trillions of dollars Washington doesn't have to keep
afloat an economy staggering under the impact of the coronavirus pandemic. Even before Uncle
Sam was hopelessly overdrawn, expecting to run an annual trillion dollar deficit well into the
future.
Yet the bipartisan war lobby continues to promote confrontation and conflict with nations as
diverse as Venezuela, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, and China. Even in good economic times it was
increasingly difficult to underwrite Washington's attempt to run the world. Today the effort is
pure folly.
Last year the Congressional Budget Office published The 2019 Long-Term Budget Outlook
. Among the conclusions of this profoundly depressing read:
Uncle Sam's fiscal collapse has been swift. Noted CBO, at the end of 2007 federal debt was
but 35 percent of GDP (not counting intra-government borrowing tied to Social Security).
However, "By the end of 2012, debt as a share of GDP had doubled, reaching 70 percent. The
upward trajectory has generally continued since then, and debt is projected to be 78 percent of
GDP by the end of this year -- a very high level by historical standards." The average over
the last half century was just 42 percent.
Washington's spendthrift ways when economic growth was strong make more difficult responding
to the latest economic crisis. The long-term prognosis is dismal. The better case, suggested
CBO, was to "Increase the likelihood of less abrupt, but still significant, negative economic
and financial effects, such as expectations of higher rates of inflation and more difficulty
financing public and private activity to international markets."
Worse, however, federal improvidence could "Increase the risk of a fiscal crisis -- that is,
a situation in which the interest rate on federal debt rises abruptly because investors have
lost confidence in the U.S. government's fiscal position." That is increasingly likely.
Already, figures economic Laurence Kotlikoff at Boston University, the federal government has
unfunded liabilities, or a "fiscal gap," of $239 trillion -- promises made with no money to
meet them.
There is no easy solution. Revenues already are projected to rise as a share of GDP and
above the average over the last half century. Washington is spending ever faster than it is
taxing.
To cut, presidents and Congresses typically focus on domestic discretionary spending, but
that only makes up about 15 percent of federal outlays. Eliminate it -- stop paying federal
employees, close the Washington monument, end all federal grants, and slash everything else --
the deficit remains. Five program areas make up the rest of the budget: Social Security,
Medicare, Medicaid, interest, and the military.
America's growing elderly population is unlikely to sacrifice benefits seniors believe they
have paid for. There is no cheap way to fund health care for the poor. Only repudiating the
national debt can lower interest payments by fiat. Draconian cuts are unlikely in any let alone
all of them.
Which leaves military outlays. Much of current spending has nothing to do with "defense."
Today America is constantly at war, but usually to attack rather than defend. Even when
"defense" is theoretically the objective, Washington is protecting other nations, mostly
prosperous, populous allies, rather than the U.S.
The result is extraordinarily high expenditures, since it costs far more to project power to
the far reaches of the globe than to prevent other nations from harming America. Indeed, the
Pentagon budget should be seen as the price of Washington's highly interventionist foreign
policy, which sees every other nations' problems as America's own.
Last year the president requested $718 billion for the military in 2020, a two percent real,
inflation-adjusted increase. Although the administration projected no real rise through 2024,
the real growth rate between 2017 and 2020 had been 3.5 percent. Moreover, observed CBO, "the
cost of DOD's plans would increase by 13 percent from 2024 to 2034, after adjusting for
inflation." Based on historical experience, the agency figured that actual spending likely
"could be about two higher than DOD estimates and about four percent higher from 2020 to
2034."
That likely is the floor. The bipartisan war lobby is constantly pushing to do and spend
more. In 2018 the congressionally mandated National Defense Strategy Commission urged real
increases of between three and five percent annually. Reported CBO, the consequences of such a
hike, "starting from the 2017 budget request, would result in a defense budget of between $822
billion and $958 billion (in 2020 dollars) by 2025, and between $1.1 trillion and $1.5 trillion
(in 2020 dollars) by 2034."
For what would this cash tsunami be used?
The Constitution sets the "common defense" as a core federal responsibility. That actually
is rather easy today. The U.S. is geographically secure, with large oceans east and west and
weak, peaceful neighbors south and north.
The only other state with an equal nuclear force capable of destroying America is Russia,
which has no reason to do so and a good reason not to, since it would be destroyed in response.
No hostile power might is going to dominate Eurasia. Moscow can't. Anyway, its security
objectives appear to be much more mundane, ensuring that the West takes its interests into
account. Europe can't and couldn't imagine doing so.
Which leaves the People's Republic of China. It might become America's military peer, but
even then it won't be able to conquer or cow nuclear-armed Russia or more distant, economically
advanced Europe. Beijing's Asian neighbors are well able to deter aggression, especially if,
someday, they develop nuclear weapons. China's "threat" to the U.S., if it should be called
that, is that the PRC might gain the sort of dominant influence in its neighborhood that
America enjoys in the Western hemisphere. Discomfiting for Washington, yes. Existential threat
to the U.S., no. And probably not worth fighting a largescale conventional and possibly nuclear
war over.
The Middle East has lost its strategic significance as the oil market has diversified.
Israel is able to deter attack, eliminating a heretofore major political issue in Washington.
Africa holds economic promise and raises humanitarian concerns, but rests at the bottom of
America's security list. Latin America will always gain U.S. attention but little that happens
there will matter much to North America's global colossus.
Yet the supposedly isolationist-leaning Trump administration is anything but. The U.S.
recently verged on war with Iran as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other administration
hawks pushed to retaliate against Tehran for attacks by pro-Iran militias in Iraq, which
Washington continues to occupy. The U.S. underwrites Saudi Arabia's brutal, aggressive war
against Yemen and has sent troops to act as the royal family's bodyguards against Iran. The
U.S. has steadily increased its force presence and fiscal outlays to confront Russia in
Europe.
Despite his professed desire to leave Syria, the president ordered the illegal occupation of
Syrian oil fields; his officials hope to use that presence to confront the Damascus government
as well as Iran and Russia. This week Pompeo flew to Afghanistan to revive a "peace" agreement
that, after nearly two decades of combat, can be effectively enforced only with a continued
U.S. military presence.
Under congressional pressure, the administration has temporized over Pentagon proposals to
withdraw forces from numerous conflicts across Africa. Venezuela remains in crisis but in
opposition to America, with military intervention oft proposed as the remedy. Before talking
with North Korea the president threatened "fire and fury." The administration is taking an
increasingly hard line against China, raising military as well as economic and diplomatic
tensions.
Required is a truly America First defense. The U.S. should focus on preventing hostile
threats to this hemisphere, while being ready to sustain critical allies if they face threats
from hegemonic powers potentially dangerous to America. Washington has other interests, but
advancing them normally would be matters of choice, rarely, if ever, warranting military
action.
Washington would reduce its force structure and military outlays accordingly. The biggest
cuts would be made in the army, while placing greater emphasis on the Reserves. The U.S. would
become something much closer to a "normal country."
Today America is following an imperial policy without an empire's resources. Alas, the
federal government is essentially bankrupt, facing nothing but red ink in coming years and
decades. Ultimately domestic outlays must be curbed. But military spending which does not
advance the "common defense" also should be slashed. The U.S. no longer can afford to play-act
as global gendarme.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He is a former special assistant to
President Ronald Reagan and author of several books, including Foreign Follies: America's
New Global Empire .
Even before Uncle Sam was hopelessly overdrawn, expecting to run an annual trillion
dollar deficit well into the future.
Donald Trump has been mimicking the Reagan economic policy of "borrow and spend"
Now we are faced with another crash and we have no choice - but we never paid off any of
the debt or closed the budget deficit. I cannot imagine that anyone believes that "Borrow
when things are good and borrow more when they are bad!", is sustainable.
Yes. That has been the economic elephant in the room for decades, especially in the last
twenty years. With every crisis we are less prepared to spend our way out of it than the
last time. We were in a smoking hot economy with a mature bull market and yet running
higher deficits than ever (with continuously low interest rates), while essentially
ignoring our core problems at home (infrastructure, health care) and spending shocking
amounts of money in wars that do us no good. Now things are exponentially worse. It's
inexcusable. Every bit of it.
Yes, the wars and continual low level conflicts represent the absolute worst of our
irresponsible spending. In my view, that is indisputable and therefore ripe for calling out
as you do. And not even the hyper-partisans of either side can find a flaw in your
argument. I would just like to add that the contribution of low level conflicts to the
problem is greatly underrated. They amount to trillions over decades.
Notice how the crises seem to be happening more and more frequently, even though the
emergency measures from the last crisis never get fully phased out? What are we on now, QE
4.0 or is it 5.0?
Two trillion here, three trillion there. The numbers stop meaning anything, especially
since we're putting the debt on the national credit card and our children and grandchildren
will be the ones to suffer under its weight, while we carry on unawares. This ruse can
continue until the creditors turn off the spigot. By then, I suppose our elites will have
wired out their cash, packed up their things, and schlepped off to foreign lands leaving
the dehydrated shell of this nation behind.
Taxes? No where in the article does it recommend the obvious: return to the prior rate of
taxation that existed even two decades ago, let alone three or four. Perhaps having Amazon
pay taxes would be a step in the right direction? Then, mandating that all employers have
to pay for health insurance and benefits for their employees, rather than skirting the
issue by limiting their hours (Walmart, Amazon, Home Depot, Lowes, McDonalds, CVS, etc),
while raising the minimum hourly wage to a level where a family could live off of. Add in
taxing the wealthy back to prior levels, and restoring the inheritance tax. Put a cap on
executive pay and benefits. Restrict stock market selling, eliminating short selling and
other modern inventions which creates a more volatile market, as well as companies grossly
manipulated and over-valued. Then stop socializing risks, and privatizing profits; either
choose true socialism or true capitalism, or perhaps inverse the concerns for once. Stop
letting private companies mine American assets for their private profit. Support small
businesses as the foundation of our economy, which will instill innovation. Eliminate
incentives to private companies without any return (NY state gave Tesla over $1 Billion to
build a largely automated factory, where is the incentive for the state?). -- The root of
this issue requires transformative change, with a paradigm shift of how American culture
conducts itself. What nation do we wish to be?
Why begin at 2008? let's look at 2000-2020. Afghan and Iraq wars plus the Great Big Cheney
Tax Cuts and the Cheney TARP bailout were significant contributors. Got the ball rolling,
as it were.
Obama was a big disappointment to me, especially with how quickly he folded to the MIC,
but standing next to Bush/Cheney and Trump, he was a pillar of financial and personal
rectitude, IMO. At least he occasionally addressed average Americans as though he thought
some of us might be adults,
Now, standing expectantly in line, we see Joe Biden. It is enough to make me want to
drink heavily, or worse...
No argument there regarding economics. For that matter, we could go back to 1980 if you
like. Or even 1965, when LBJ started running bigger deficits to pay for the War on Vietnam
and The Great Society simultaneously.
I chose 2008 because that was when the purported Great Recovery began, and because the
recovery accelerated the trends we have been seeing since before I was born, throwing them
into even sharper relief.
"I remember when the dems had control of the house, senate, and presidency under Obama.
I remember Obama choosing to fill his cabinet with people not tied in with wall street. I
remember how hard dems fought to get single payer health care and to protect SS, Medicare,
Medicaid, and workers' rights. I remember how they bailed out the people first and then
gave a little help to wall street. I remember how Obama saved 10 million families from
foreclosure and losing their homes and kept small businesses afloat with interest-free
loans. I remember how Obama and Biden put on their comfortable shoes and walked the picket
lines with the teachers in Wisconsin. I remember how obama's justice dept. prosecuted the
wall street gang responsible for the great recession. I remember how Obama protected
whistleblowers like Ed Snowden and Chelsea Manning. I remember that when democrats ran into
obstruction by the republicans, they stood firm on their principles and fought for the
american people. {{{alarm clock}}} Wait, what? (wipes eyes) I had a dream ."
Well, I guess that counts as one person's opinion, doesn't it? But is it supposed to prove
something?
I'm sure I could find plenty of unsympathetic interpretations of Obama, if I took a few
hours to do it. Lord knows I've read many, and I even said he was a disappointment to me.
I'm not even going to comb the internet to prove or disprove any, let alone all, of those
loaded assertions from that website.
Sure, it was very telling that they didn't jail any of the Wall Street bandits.But I
must say, "...walked the picket lines with the teachers in Wisconsin..." is really a
howler. Jesus Christ, what president ever would have done anything like that?! Plus that
was in 2011. i don't know who
nakedcapitalism.com is, but that point would get laughed out of a junior high school
debate. I have no doubt, though, that the writer really hates Obama.
If you're trying to intimate that both parties are the same as to sharing an
overwhelming commitment to global capitalism and the primacy of the military-indiustrial
complex as a vehicle for world hegemony, then I agree with you. If you're making the point
that Obama was the same breed of cat as Bush/Cheney and Trump, I'm sorry, but I must
demur.
Those guys are provable, life-long hustlers, scumbags and underachievers. Obama was a
wide-eyed, idealistic (relatively) guy who found out that winning an election didn't really
make him all that powerful.
If the Obama presidency changed my mind about anything, it was that. That is, at this
point, changing the power structure is beyond the reach of any president. It's a big
system, made up of gangs of very powerful people, many of whose names we don't even know.
We're not going to get out of this until the whole system crashes, which could happen
sooner, than anyone thinks.
This pandemic has shown that no one in the world cares what the U,S. does or thinks
anymore. No one looks to us for "leadership." That's an enormous change from just a few
short years ago, in my opinion...and that's all it is...my opinion.
The difference between Obama and Bush is Barry didn't come up on the WASP country club
circuit. Still, the closest he ever came to real work was his time spent slacking at Baskin
Robbins.
1. It was Obama that claimed that he'd put on his comfortable shoes and walk that picket
line. Foolish to take him seriously.
2. Nobody is arguing in favor of Bush/Cheney here. Nor is anyone suggesting that Trump
is a paragon of leadership. He simply says the quiet parts out loud.
Although, considering the evils that US leadership has wrought since 1991 or so, Team R
and Team D, the world could do with a little less such "leadership".
So anybody that self-identifies (or is otherwise identified) as a conservative can't argue
for financial and fiscal responsibility? Let's put our impulse to label things
"conservative" or "liberal" in the dust bin.
When Bill Clinton left the White House, the Federal government was actually running a small
annual surplus (at least by government accounting standards). For a very short time,
economists wondered how the Fed would conduct monetary policy if all of the Treasury debt
were retired in the coming decade. They need not have worried. Bush 43 reversed that fiscal
improvement with his tax cuts and his very expensive Middle East wars. Even before the
coronavirus pushed the presidential race off of the front page of newspapers and web sites,
the country was wallowing in debt. The latest crisis will make matters that much worse.
We need to stop thinking of ourselves as exceptional and we certainly cannot afford to
continue playing the role of policeman of the world. Westchester County, NY which is home
to some of the wealthiest people in the country, now has more virus cases than all of
Canada, with the former's population being only about 1/35th of our northern neighbor. The
county's property taxes are among the highest in the country. I don't know how New York
state will cope with this fiscal disaster without driving out even more businesses and high
income residents.
This state among others will face a fiscal crisis no later than 2022 and will reorganize at
the point of a gun, because it does not have enough cred in DC to get a bailout, and its
establishment is now viewed as a barrier to any reform.
Change the name of DoD to the Department of War. There is nothing defensive in DoD and in
US general Foreign policy. The National Security issue that drives US Foreign Policy is to
be the No 1 and the Hegemon and extract obedience and profits from every other economy of
the world. Just a protection racket that Russians, Chinese, Iranians, etc. do not want to
pay.
I don't agree with Cato guys on economics, but on foreign policy they are usually dead
right from what I have seen. Defending our country does not mean engaging in endless
destructive and failing interventions overseas.
And I hope everyone realizes at this point that we can't even agree on how to run our
own country, so why would anyone think we could successfully remake another very different
society even if we had the right to do so?
Not that I think our intentions are actually all that noble. But even if they were,
there is no reason to trust our competence.
Sound advice but there is a powerful propaganda machine screaming over the top of you.
Strange thing is that many voters will agree with the idea of reeling in military
adventurism until they get a dose of spin about the next adventure in 'protecting our
freedoms'. One problem is that both America First and the idea of being the worlds
policeman have been anointed with the red white and blue. Also agree with Tom Sadlowski!
I do agree that the US no longer has the money for the vast network of military bases all
over the world nor do we have the money for endless fruitless proxy wars for (so called)
allies. The US must focus strategically on what areas of the world we have a real interest,
we have real allies and where we have real threats. Trump has already started to draw that
map with his trade deals but even Trump can be swayed by the neocons and the lobbyists and
the military industrial complex...and where Trump cannot be swayed the Congress and Senate
can!
However the US must also face the cold hard fact that even a prudent examination of our
defense and homeland security spending will not make much of a dent in our deficits. THE US
MUST TACKLE LYNDON BAYNES JOHNSON'S GREAT SOCIETY AND THAT INCLUDES THE 1965 IMMIGRATION
ACT. I STRONGLY OPPOSE AN ACROSS THE BOARD CUT IS SOCIAL SECURITY OR DISABILITY OR MEDICARE
BENEFITS BECAUSE IT IS NOT FAIR FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE PAID INTO THE SYSTEM THEIR ENTIRE LIVES
TO BE RATIONED BENEFITS BECAUSE THE PROGRAMS HAVE BEEN STUFFED TO THE GILLS WITH
IMMIGRANTS. THESE PROGRAMS NEED TO BE PAIRED BACK TO COVER WHAT THEY WERE INTENDED TO COVER
AND NOT EVERY IMMIGRANT WHO MANAGED TO GET CITIZENSHIP. FURTHER IMMIGRATION LOTTERY, E1B,
H1B VISAS FOR EDUCATION AND WORK, REFUGEE, ASYLUM, BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, ETC AND ALL THE
GOVT PROGRAMS FROM WELFARE TO FOOD STAMPS TO MEDICAID NEED TO BE ELIMINATED. THE US WILL
NEVER TACKLE ENTITLEMENT REFORM WITHOUT STANDING UP TO THE BUSINESS LOBBY THAT WANTS CHEAP
IMMIGRANT FOREIGN LABOR. ONE WAY THE US COULD STAND UP TO THE BUSINESS LOBBY IS TO TAX EACH
EMPLOYER OF A FOREIGN WORKER $100,000 FOR THE COST OF IMMIGRANT SOCIAL SERVICES.
THE SAME SHOULD BE SAID FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, GOVT GUARANTEED STUDENT LOANS AND GRANTS WHICH INDENTURE STUDENTS WITH WORTHLESS
GARBAGE DEGREES WHILE ENRICHING COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES. ITS THESE WORTHLESS GARBAGE
DEGREES THAT ARE CREATING THE STUDENT FINANCIAL LOAN CRISIS AND JOBLESS RADICAL
ANTI-AMERICAN ANARCHISTS.
Trade with China only feeds Maoist militarists, and fuels the arms race. And who supplies
Xi with submarines, jet engines and space technology? Why Putin of course. Ending his oil
stranglehold would be the most positive short term measure I could think of to reduce the
MIC.
What might help is lifting the cap on FICA contributions and limiting tax exempt status to
truly religious activities. No more "religious" theme parks. This would mean Liberal and
Conservatives would see the value of limiting government expenditures since all would be
paying taxes.
These programs are not gifts nor entitlements from the US government. They are the
fruits of a persons lifetime of labor which are extracted via threats of implied coercion
without the ability for a person to say no thank you and opt-out.
A lot of people paid little or nothing in FICA taxes, especially stay at home spouses
whether they had children or not. Single people are also subject to Medicare premium
surcharges and the Obamacare tax on investment income at much lower income levels than
married couple filing a joint return.
Russia insists the "West takes its interests into account". And a power ignores the core
interests of an opponent at its own peril. Removing existential threat – or the
conditions that might lead to it – is the ultimate aim of any state: but history
warns that foreign policy can create the very dénouement the nation is aiming to
avoid.
https://www.ghostsofhistory...
"These officials "failed us" in the same way that our media "fails us": they serve the
interests of the EMPIRE-FIRST Deep State."
Yuppp. Our error is to assume all 17 intelligence agencies; the presstitudes; and US
"leadership" exist to serve the American people. And so, yes, they "fail" the people. But, from the point of view of the controllers of those agencies and of those "leaders",
they hardly ever fail !!!
While the people argue over virulent minutae, they are once again helping themselves to
the US Treasury.... Trillions of USDs.... LOL
".... was then told to STOP TESTING...... A medical person would not try to suppress testing.
That would be a "management decision" and its the Nation Security Council that was running
the show (and which had classified all discussions related to virus preparations)...."
Thanks for reminding us of Dr Chu's story. What if the US leadership:
Knew the coronavirus was already out in the wild in the US by Sep 2019;
Decided to set up China to be the "origin" to be blamed;
Realized that a "pandemic" can be the cover for kicking the table over to do the Great
Financial Reset;
When reading any article concerning current events (ie. Ukraine, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, or Coronavirus) consider how the The
Seven Principles of Propaganda may apply. (repost):
Avoid abstract ideas - appeal to the emotions. When we think emotionally, we are more prone to be irrational and
less critical in our thinking. I can remember several instances where this has been employed by the US to prepare the public
with a justification of their actions. Here are four examples:
The Invasion of Grenada during the Reagan administration was said to be necessary to rescue American students being held
hostage by Grenadian coup authorities after a coup that overthrew the government. I had a friend in the 82nd airborne division
that participated in the rescue. He told me the students said they were hiding in the school to avoid the fighting by the US
military, and had never been threatened by any Grenadian authority and were only hiding in the school to avoid all the fighting.
Film of the actual rescue broadcast on the mainstream media was taken out of context; the students were never in danger.
The invasion of Panama in the late 80's was supposedly to capture the dictator Manual Noriega for international crimes related
to drugs and weapons. I remember a headline covered by all the media where a Navy lieutenant and his wife were detained by
the police. His wife was sexually assaulted while in custody, according to the story. Unfortunately, it never happened. It
was intended to get the public emotionally involved to support the action.
The invasion of Iraq in the early 90's was preceded by a speech by a girl describing the Iraqi army throwing babies out
of incubators so the equipment could be transferred to Iraq. It turns out the girl was the daughter of one of the Kuwait's
ruling sheiks and the event never occurred. However, it served its purpose by getting the American public involved emotionally
supporting the war.
During the build up to the bombing campaign by NATO against Libya, a woman entered a hotel where reporters were staying
claiming she was raped by several police officers of the Gaddafi security services. The report was carried by most media outlets
as representative of the brutality of the Gaddafi regime. I was not able to verify if this story was true or not, but it fits
the usual method employed to gain public support through propaganda for military interventions.
The greatest emotion in us is fear and fear is used extensively to make us think irrationally. I remember growing up during
the cold war having the fear of nuclear war or 'The Russians are coming!' After the cold war without an obvious enemy, it was
Al Qaeda even before 911, so we had 'Al Qaeda is coming!' Now we have 'ISIS is coming!' with media blasting us with terrorist
fears. Whenever I hear a government promoting an emotional issue or fear mongering, I ignore them knowing there is a hidden
Truth behind the issue.
Constantly repeat just a few ideas. Use stereotyped phrases. This could be stated more plainly as 'Keep it simple,
stupid!' The most notorious use of this technique recently was the Bush administration. Everyone can remember 'We must fight
them over there rather than over here' or my favourite 'They hate us for our freedoms'. Neither of these phrases made any rational
sense despite 911. The last thing Muslims in the Middle East care about is American's freedoms, maybe it was all the bombs
the US was dropping on them.
Give only one side of the argument and obscure history. Watching mainstream media in the US,
you can see all the news is biased to the American view as an example. This is prevalent within Australian commercial media
and newspapers giving only a western view, but fortunately, we have the SBS and the ABC that are very good, certainly not perfect,
at providing both sides of a story. In addition, any historical perspective is ignored keeping the citizenry focused on the
here and now. Can any of you remember any news organisation giving an in depth history of Ukraine or Palestine? I cannot.
Demonize the enemy or pick out one special "enemy" for special vilification. This is obvious in politics where politicians
continuously criticise their opponents. Of course, demonization is more productively applied to international figures or nations
such as Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Gaddafi in Libya, Assad in Syria, the Taliban and just recently Vladimir Putin over
the Ukraine, Crimea and Syria. It establishes a negative emotional view of either a nation (i.e. Iran) or a known figure (i.e.
Putin) making us again think emotionally, rather than rationally, making it easier to promote evil acts upon a nation or a
known figure. Certainly some of these groups or individuals were less than benign, but not necessarily demons as depicted in
the west.
Appear humanitarian in work and motivations. The US has used this technique often to validate foreign interventions
or ongoing conflicts where the term 'Right to Protect' is used for justification. Everyone should remember the many stories
about the abuse of women in Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein's supposed brutality toward his people. The recent attack on Syria
by the US, UK, and France was depicted as an Humanitarian intervention by the UK Government, which was far from the truth.
One thing that always amazes me is when the US sends humanitarian aid to a country it is accompanied by the US military. In
Haiti some years back, the US sent troops with no other country doing so. The recent Ebola outbreak in Africa saw US troops
sent to the area. How are troops going to fight a medical outbreak? No doubt, they are there for other reasons.
Obscure one's economic interests. Who believes the invasion of Iraq was for weapons of mass destruction? Or the
constant threats against Iran are for their nuclear program? Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no one has presented
firm evidence Iran intends to produce nuclear weapons. The West has been interfering in the Middle East since the British in
the late 19th century. It is all about oil and the control over the resources. In fact, if one researches the cause of wars
over the last hundred years, you will always find economics was a major component driving the rush to war for most of them.
Monopolize the flow of information. This is the most important principle and mainly entails setting the narrative
by which all subsequent events can be based upon or interpreted in such a way as to reinforce the narrative. The narrative
does not need to be true; in fact, it can be anything that suits the monopoliser as long as it is based loosely on some event.
It is critical to have at least majority control of media and the ability to control the message so the flow of information
is consistent with the narrative. This has been played out on mainstream media concerning the Ukrainian conflict, Syrian conflict,
and the Skirpal affair. Just over the last couple of years, we have all been subjected to propaganda in one form or another.
Remember the US wanting to bomb Syria because of the sarin gas attack, it was later determined to be false (see Seymour Hersh
'Whose Sarin'). The shoot down of MH17 was immediately blamed on Russia by the west without any convincing proof (setting the
narrative). It amazes me just how fast the story died after the initial saturation in the media. When I awoke that morning
in July, I heard on the news PM Tony Abbot blaming Russia for the incident only hours afterward. How could he know Russia shot
down the plane? The investigation into the incident had not even begun, so I suspect he was singing from the West's hymnbook
in a standard setting the narrative scenario.
"... the Iranian population is the world's most lung-weakest. Almost all men over the age of sixty suffer from the after-effects of the US combat gases used by the Iraqi army during the First Gulf War (1980-88), as did the Germans and the French after the First World War. Any traveller to Iran has been struck by the number of serious lung ailments. ..."
"... The Diamond Princess is an Israeli-American ship, owned by Micky Arison, brother of Shari Arison, the richest woman in Israel. The Arisons are turning this incident into a public relations operation. The Trump administration and several other countries airlifted their nationals to be quarantined at home. The international press devoted its headlines to this story. Referring to the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918-1919, it asserts that the epidemic could spread throughout the world and potentially threaten the human species with extinction [ 2 ]. This apocalyptic hypothesis, not based on any facts, will nevertheless become the word of the Gospel. ..."
"... It is not known at this time whether tycoons deliberately spread panic about Covid-19, making this vulgar epidemic seem like the "end of the world". However, one distortion after another, governments have become involved. Of course, it is no longer a question of selling advertising screens by frightening people, but of dominating populations by exploiting this fear. ..."
"... Let us remember that never in history has the confinement of a healthy population been used to fight a disease. Above all, let us remember that this epidemic will have no significant consequences in terms of mortality. ..."
"... The two governments panic their populations by distributing unnecessary instructions disavowed by infectious diseases doctors: they encourage people to wear gloves and masks in all circumstances and to keep at least one metre away from any other human being. ..."
"... It is too early to say what real goal the Conte and Macron governments are pursuing. The only thing that is certain is that it is not a question of fighting Covid-19. ..."
Returning to the Covid-19 epidemic and the way governments are reacting to it, Thierry
Meyssan stresses that the authoritarian decisions of Italy and France have no medical
justification. They contradict the observations of the best infectiologists and the
instructions of the World Health Organization.
The Chinese Prime Minister, Li Keqiang, came to lead the operations in Wuhan and restore
the "celestial mandate" on January 27, 2020.
On November 17, 2019, the first case of a person infected with Covid-19 was diagnosed in
Hubei Province, China. Initially, doctors tried to communicate the seriousness of the disease,
but clashed with regional authorities. It was only when the number of cases increased and the
population saw the seriousness of the disease that the central government intervened.
This epidemic is not statistically significant. It kills very few people, although those it
does kill experience terrible respiratory distress.
Since ancient times, in Chinese culture, Heaven has given a mandate to the Emperor to govern
his subjects [ 1 ]. When he withdraws it, a disaster
strikes the country: epidemic, earthquake, etc. Although we are in modern times, President XI
felt threatened by the mismanagement of the Hubei regional government. The Council of State
therefore took matters into its own hands. It forced the population of Hubei's capital, Wuhan,
to remain confined to their homes. Within days, it built hospitals; sent teams to each house to
take the temperature of each inhabitant; took all potentially infected people to hospitals for
testing; treated those infected with chloroquine phosphate and sent others home; and treated
the critically ill with recombinant interferon Alfa 2B (IFNrec) for resuscitation. This vast
operation had no public health necessity, other than to prove that the Communist Party still
has the heavenly mandate.
During a press conference on Covid-19, the Iranian Deputy Minister of Health, Iraj
Harirchi, appeared contaminated.
Propagation in Iran
The epidemic spreads from China to Iran in mid-February 2020. These two countries have been
closely linked since ancient times. They share many common cultural elements. However, the
Iranian population is the world's most lung-weakest. Almost all men over the age of sixty
suffer from the after-effects of the US combat gases used by the Iraqi army during the First
Gulf War (1980-88), as did the Germans and the French after the First World War. Any traveller
to Iran has been struck by the number of serious lung ailments.
When air pollution in Tehran increased beyond what they could bear, schools and government
offices were closed and half of the families moved to the countryside with their grandparents.
This has been happening several times a year for thirty-five years and seems normal.
The government and parliament are almost exclusively composed of veterans of the Iraq-Iran
war, that is, people who are extremely fragile in relation to Covid-19. So when these groups
were infected, many personalities developed the disease.
In view of the US sanctions, no Western bank covers the transport of medicines. Iran found
itself unable to treat the infected and care for the sick until the UAE broke the embargo and
sent two planes of medical equipment.
People who would not suffer in the other country died from the first coughs due to the
wounds in their lungs. As usual, the government closed schools. In addition, it deprogrammed
several cultural and sporting events, but did not ban pilgrimages. Some areas have closed
hotels to prevent the movement of sick people who can no longer find hospitals close to their
homes.
Quarantine in Japan
On February 4, 2020, a passenger on the US cruise ship Diamond Princess was diagnosed ill
from the Covid-19 and ten passengers were infected. The Japanese Minister of Health, Katsunobu
Kato, then imposed a two-week quarantine on the ship in Yokohama in order to prevent the
contagion from spreading to his country. In the end, out of the 3,711 people on board, the vast
majority of whom are over 70 years old, there would be 7 deaths.
The Diamond Princess is an Israeli-American ship, owned by Micky Arison, brother of Shari
Arison, the richest woman in Israel. The Arisons are turning this incident into a public
relations operation. The Trump administration and several other countries airlifted their
nationals to be quarantined at home. The international press devoted its headlines to this
story. Referring to the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918-1919, it asserts that the epidemic could
spread throughout the world and potentially threaten the human species with extinction [
2 ]. This
apocalyptic hypothesis, not based on any facts, will nevertheless become the word of the
Gospel.
We remember that in 1898, William Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, in order to increase the sales
of their daily newspapers, published false information in order to deliberately provoke a war
between the United States and the Spanish colony of Cuba. This was the beginning of "yellow
journalism" (publishing anything to make money). Today it is called "fake news".
It is not known at this time whether tycoons deliberately spread panic about Covid-19,
making this vulgar epidemic seem like the "end of the world". However, one distortion after
another, governments have become involved. Of course, it is no longer a question of selling
advertising screens by frightening people, but of dominating populations by exploiting this
fear.
For the WHO Director, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, China and South Korea have set an
example by generalising screening tests; a way of saying that the Italian and French methods
are medical nonsense.
WHO intervention
The World Health Organization (WHO), which monitored the entire operation, noted the spread
of the disease outside China. On February 11th and 12th, it organized a global forum on
research and innovation on the epidemic in Geneva. At the forum, WHO Director-General Dr Tedros
Adhanom Ghebreyesus called in very measured terms for global collaboration [ 3 ].
In all of its messages, the WHO stressed : the low demographic impact of the epidemic; the
futility of border closures; the ineffectiveness of wearing gloves, masks (except for health
care workers) and certain "barrier measures" (for example, the distance of one metre only makes
sense with infected people, but not with healthy people); the need to raise the level of
hygiene, including hand washing, water disinfection and increased ventilation of confined
spaces. Finally, use disposable tissues or, failing that, sneeze into your elbow.
However, the WHO is not a medical organization, but a United Nations agency dealing with
health issues. Its officials, even if they are doctors, are also and above all politicians. It
cannot therefore denounce the abuses of certain states. Furthermore, since the controversy over
the H1N1 epidemic, the WHO must publicly justify all its recommendations. In 2009, it was
accused of having let itself be swayed by the interests of big pharmaceutical companies and of
having hastily sounded the alarm in a disproportionate manner [ 4 ]. This time it used the word
"pandemic" only as a last resort, on March 12th, four months later.
At the Franco-Italian summit in Naples on February 27, the French and Italian presidents,
Giuseppe Conte and Emmanuel Macron, announced that they would react together to the
pandemic.
Instrumentation in Italy and France
Modern propaganda should not be limited to the publication of false news as the United
Kingdom did to convince its people to enter the First World War, but should also be used in the
same way as Germany did to convince its people to fight in the Second World War. The recipe is
always the same: to exert psychological pressure to induce subjects to voluntarily practice
acts that they know are useless, but which will lead them to lie [ 5 ]. For example, in 2001, it was
common knowledge that those accused of hijacking planes on 9/11 were not on the passenger
boarding lists. Yet, in shock, most accepted without question the inane accusations made by FBI
Director Robert Muller against "19 hijackers". Or, as is well known, President Hussein's Iraq
had only old Soviet Scud launchers with a range of up to 700 kilometers, but many Americans
caulked the windows and doors of their homes to protect themselves from the deadly gases with
which the evil dictator was going to attack America. This time, in the case of the Covid-19, it
is the voluntary confinement in the home that forces the person who accepts it to convince
himself of the veracity of the threat.
Let us remember that never in history has the confinement of a healthy population been
used to fight a disease. Above all, let us remember that this epidemic will have no significant
consequences in terms of mortality.
In Italy, the first step was to isolate the contaminated regions according to the principle
of quarantine, and then to isolate all citizens from each other, which follows a different
logic.
According to the President of the Italian Council, Giuseppe Conte, and the French President,
Emmanuel Macron, the aim of confining the entire population at home is not to overcome the
epidemic, but to spread it out over time so that the sick do not arrive at the same time in
hospitals and saturate them. In other words, it is not a medical measure, but an exclusively
administrative one. It will not reduce the number of infected people, but will postpone it in
time.
In order to convince the Italians and the French of the merits of their decision, Presidents
Conte and Macron first enlisted the support of committees of scientific experts. While these
committees had no objection to people staying at home, they had no objection to people going
about their business. Then Chairs Conte and Macron made it mandatory to have an official form
to go for a walk. This document on the letterheads of the respective ministries of the interior
is drawn up on honour and is not subject to any checks or sanctions.
The two governments panic their populations by distributing unnecessary instructions
disavowed by infectious diseases doctors: they encourage people to wear gloves and masks in all
circumstances and to keep at least one metre away from any other human being.
The French "reference daily" (sic) Le Monde, Facebook France and the French Ministry of
Health undertook to censor a video of Professor Didier Raoult, one of the world's most renowned
infectiologists, because by announcing the existence of a proven drug in China against
Covid-19, he highlighted the lack of a medical basis for the measures taken by President Macron
[ 6 ].
It is too early to say what real goal the Conte and Macron governments are pursuing. The
only thing that is certain is that it is not a question of fighting
Covid-19.
Trump does not have a party with the program that at least pretends to pursue "socialism for a given ethnic group". He is
more far right nationalist then national socialist. But to the extent neoliberalism can be viewed as neofascism Trump is
neo-fascist, he definitly can be called a "national neoliberal."
Notable quotes:
"... I am nothing if not a realist. The idea that Sanders might have become the Democratic candidate was always a fantasy, not unlike my youthful dreams of one day becoming an NFL quarterback. Even after Sanders' triumph in the Nevada caucuses, I never thought the party establishment would ever allow a socialist -- even a mild social democratic one, such as Sanders -- to head its ticket. ..."
"... Of the two campaigns, Trump's will be decidedly more toxic. The "Make America Great Again" slogan that propelled Trump to victory in 2016 and the "Keep America Great" slogan he will try to sell this time around are neo-fascist in nature, designed to invoke an imaginary and false state of mythical past national glory ..."
"... The fascist designation is not a label I apply to Trump cavalierly. I use it, as I have before in this column , because Trump meets many of the standard and widely respected definitions of the term. ..."
"... Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. ..."
"... An appeal to a frustrated middle class that is suffering from an economic crisis of humiliation and fear of the pressure exerted by lower social groups. ..."
"... Joe Biden is not a fascist. He is, instead, a standard-bearer of neoliberalism. As with fascism, there are different definitions of neoliberalism, prompting some exceptionally smug mainstream commentators like New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait to claim that the concept is little more than a left-wing insult. In truth, however, the concept describes an all-too-real set of governing principles. ..."
"... Neoliberalism , by contrast, deemphasizes federal economic intervention in favor of initiatives calling for deregulation, corporate tax cuts, private-public partnerships, and international trade agreements that augment the free flow of capital while undermining the power and influence of trade unions. ..."
"... Until the arrival of Trump and his brand of neo-fascism, both major parties since Reagan had embraced this ideology. And while neoliberals remain more benign on issues of race and gender than Trump and Trumpism ever will be, neoliberalism offers little to challenge hierarchies based on social class. Indeed, income inequality accelerated during the Obama years and today rivals that of the Gilded Age . ..."
Now that the Michigan Democratic primary is over and Joe Biden has been
declared the
winner , it's time to read the handwriting on the political wall: Biden will be the
Democratic nominee for president, and Bernie Sanders will be the runner-up once again come the
party's convention in July. Sanders might influence the party's platform, but platforms are
never binding for the nominee. Sanders has lost, and so have his many progressive supporters,
myself included.
I am nothing if not a realist. The idea that Sanders might have become the Democratic
candidate was always a fantasy, not unlike my youthful dreams of one day becoming an NFL
quarterback. Even after Sanders' triumph in the Nevada caucuses, I never thought the party
establishment would ever allow a socialist -- even a mild social democratic one, such as
Sanders -- to head its ticket.
Funded by wealthy donors, run by Beltway insiders and aided and abetted by a corporate media
dedicated to promoting the notion that Sanders was "
unelectable ," the Democratic Party never welcomed Sanders as a legitimate contender. Not
in 2016 and not in 2020. In several instances, it even resorted to some good old-fashioned
red-baiting
to frighten voters; the party is, after all, a capitalist institution. Working and middle-class
families support the Democrats largely because they have no other place to go on Election Day
besides the completely corrupt and craven GOP.
Now we are left with Donald Trump and Biden to duke it out in the fall. Yes, it has come to
that.
In terms of campaign rhetoric and party policies, the general election campaign will be a
battle for America's past far more than it will be a contest for its future. The battle will be
fueled on both sides by narratives and visions that are illusory, regressive and, in important
respects, downright dangerous.
Of the two campaigns, Trump's will be decidedly more toxic. The "Make America Great Again"
slogan that propelled Trump to victory in 2016 and the "Keep America Great" slogan he will try
to sell this time around are neo-fascist in nature, designed to invoke an imaginary and false
state of mythical past national glory that ignores our deeply entrenched history of patriarchal
white supremacy and brutal class domination.
The fascist designation is not a label I apply to Trump cavalierly. I use it, as I have
before in this
column , because Trump meets many of the standard and widely respected definitions of the
term.
As the celebrated Marxist playwright Bertolt Brecht wrote in 1935 , fascism
"is a historic phase of capitalism the nakedest, most shameless, most oppressive and most
treacherous form of capitalism." Trumpism, along with its international analogs in Brazil,
India and Western Europe, neatly accords with Brecht's theory.
Trumpism similarly meets the definition of fascism offered by Robert Paxton in his classic
2004 study, "
The Anatomy of Fascism ":
Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation
with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy,
and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy
but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues
with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing
and external expansion.
Trump and Trumpism similarly embody the 14 common factors of fascism identified by the great
writer Umberto Eco in his 1995 essay, Ur Fascism :
A cult of traditionalism.
The rejection of modernism.
A cult of action for its own sake and a distrust of intellectualism.
The view that disagreement or opposition is treasonous.
A fear of difference. Fascism is racist by definition.
An appeal to a frustrated middle class that is suffering from an economic crisis of
humiliation and fear of the pressure exerted by lower social groups.
An obsession with the plots and machinations of the movement's identified enemies.
A requirement that the movement's enemies be simultaneously seen as omnipotent and weak,
conniving and cowardly.
A rejection of pacifism.
Contempt for weakness.
A cult of heroism.
Hypermasculinity and homophobia.
A selective populism, relying on chauvinist definitions of "the people" that the movement
claims to represent.
Heavy usage of "newspeak" and an impoverished discourse of elementary syntax and
resistance to complex and critical reasoning.
Joe Biden is not a fascist. He is, instead, a standard-bearer of neoliberalism. As with
fascism, there are different definitions of neoliberalism, prompting some exceptionally smug
mainstream commentators like New York Magazine's
Jonathan Chait to claim that the concept is little more than a left-wing insult. In truth,
however, the concept describes an all-too-real set of governing principles.
To grasp what neoliberalism means, it's necessary to understand that it does not refer to a
revival of the liberalism of the New Deal and New Society programs of the 1930s and 1960s. That
brand of liberalism advocated the active intervention of the federal government in the economy
to mitigate the harshest effects of private enterprise through such programs as Social
Security, the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Medicare, and the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. That brand of liberalism imposed high taxes on the wealthy and
significantly mitigated income inequality in America.
Neoliberalism
, by contrast, deemphasizes federal economic intervention in favor of initiatives calling for
deregulation, corporate tax cuts, private-public partnerships, and international trade
agreements that augment the free flow of capital while undermining the power and influence of
trade unions.
Until the arrival of Trump and his brand of neo-fascism, both major parties since Reagan had
embraced this ideology. And while neoliberals remain more benign on issues of race and gender
than Trump and Trumpism ever will be, neoliberalism offers little to challenge hierarchies
based on social class. Indeed, income inequality accelerated during the
Obama years and today rivals that of the Gilded Age .
As transformational a politician as Barack Obama was in terms of race, he too pursued a
predominantly neoliberal agenda. The Affordable Care Act, Obama's singular domestic legislative
achievement, is a perfect example of neoliberal private-public collaboration that left intact a
health industry dominated by for-profit drug manufacturers and rapacious insurance companies,
rather than setting the stage for Medicare for All, as championed by Sanders.
Biden never tires of reminding any audience willing to put up with his gaffes, verbal ticks
and miscues that he served as Obama's vice president. Those ties are likely to remain the
centerpiece of his campaign, as he promises a return to the civility of the Obama era and a
restoration of America's standing in the world.
History, however, only moves forward. As charming and comforting as Biden's imagery of the
past may be, it is, like Trump's darker outlook, a mirage. If Trump has taught us anything
worthwhile, it is that the past cannot be replicated, no matter how much we might wish
otherwise.
"... Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. ..."
Now that the Michigan Democratic primary is over and Joe Biden has been
declared the
winner , it's time to read the handwriting on the political wall: Biden will be the
Democratic nominee for president, and Bernie Sanders will be the runner-up once again come the
party's convention in July. Sanders might influence the party's platform, but platforms are
never binding for the nominee. Sanders has lost, and so have his many progressive supporters,
myself included.
I am nothing if not a realist. The idea that Sanders might have become the Democratic
candidate was always a fantasy, not unlike my youthful dreams of one day becoming an NFL
quarterback. Even after Sanders' triumph in the Nevada caucuses, I never thought the party
establishment would ever allow a socialist -- even a mild social democratic one, such as
Sanders -- to head its ticket.
Funded by wealthy donors, run by Beltway insiders and aided and abetted by a corporate media
dedicated to promoting the notion that Sanders was "
unelectable ," the Democratic Party never welcomed Sanders as a legitimate contender. Not
in 2016 and not in 2020. In several instances, it even resorted to some good old-fashioned
red-baiting
to frighten voters; the party is, after all, a capitalist institution. Working and middle-class
families support the Democrats largely because they have no other place to go on Election Day
besides the completely corrupt and craven GOP.
Now we are left with Donald Trump and Biden to duke it out in the fall. Yes, it has come to
that.
In terms of campaign rhetoric and party policies, the general election campaign will be a
battle for America's past far more than it will be a contest for its future. The battle will be
fueled on both sides by narratives and visions that are illusory, regressive and, in important
respects, downright dangerous.
Of the two campaigns, Trump's will be decidedly more toxic. The "Make America Great Again"
slogan that propelled Trump to victory in 2016 and the "Keep America Great" slogan he will try
to sell this time around are neo-fascist in nature, designed to invoke an imaginary and false
state of mythical past national glory that ignores our deeply entrenched history of patriarchal
white supremacy and brutal class domination.
The fascist designation is not a label I apply to Trump cavalierly. I use it, as I have
before in this
column , because Trump meets many of the standard and widely respected definitions of the
term.
As the celebrated Marxist playwright Bertolt Brecht wrote in 1935 , fascism
"is a historic phase of capitalism the nakedest, most shameless, most oppressive and most
treacherous form of capitalism." Trumpism, along with its international analogs in Brazil,
India and Western Europe, neatly accords with Brecht's theory.
Trumpism similarly meets the definition of fascism offered by Robert Paxton in his classic
2004 study, "
The Anatomy of Fascism ":
Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation
with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy,
and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy
but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues
with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing
and external expansion.
Trump and Trumpism similarly embody the 14 common factors of fascism identified by the great
writer Umberto Eco in his 1995 essay, Ur Fascism :
A cult of traditionalism.
The rejection of modernism.
A cult of action for its own sake and a distrust of intellectualism.
The view that disagreement or opposition is treasonous.
A fear of difference. Fascism is racist by definition.
An appeal to a frustrated middle class that is suffering from an economic crisis of
humiliation and fear of the pressure exerted by lower social groups.
An obsession with the plots and machinations of the movement's identified enemies.
A requirement that the movement's enemies be simultaneously seen as omnipotent and weak,
conniving and cowardly.
A rejection of pacifism.
Contempt for weakness.
A cult of heroism.
Hypermasculinity and homophobia.
A selective populism, relying on chauvinist definitions of "the people" that the movement
claims to represent.
Heavy usage of "newspeak" and an impoverished discourse of elementary syntax and
resistance to complex and critical reasoning.
Joe Biden is not a fascist. He is, instead, a standard-bearer of neoliberalism. As with
fascism, there are different definitions of neoliberalism, prompting some exceptionally smug
mainstream commentators like New York Magazine's
Jonathan Chait to claim that the concept is little more than a left-wing insult. In truth,
however, the concept describes an all-too-real set of governing principles.
To grasp what neoliberalism means, it's necessary to understand that it does not refer to a
revival of the liberalism of the New Deal and New Society programs of the 1930s and 1960s. That
brand of liberalism advocated the active intervention of the federal government in the economy
to mitigate the harshest effects of private enterprise through such programs as Social
Security, the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Medicare, and the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. That brand of liberalism imposed high taxes on the wealthy and
significantly mitigated income inequality in America.
Neoliberalism
, by contrast, deemphasizes federal economic intervention in favor of initiatives calling for
deregulation, corporate tax cuts, private-public partnerships, and international trade
agreements that augment the free flow of capital while undermining the power and influence of
trade unions.
Until the arrival of Trump and his brand of neo-fascism, both major parties since Reagan had
embraced this ideology. And while neoliberals remain more benign on issues of race and gender
than Trump and Trumpism ever will be, neoliberalism offers little to challenge hierarchies
based on social class. Indeed, income inequality accelerated during the
Obama years and today rivals that of the Gilded Age .
As transformational a politician as Barack Obama was in terms of race, he too pursued a
predominantly neoliberal agenda. The Affordable Care Act, Obama's singular domestic legislative
achievement, is a perfect example of neoliberal private-public collaboration that left intact a
health industry dominated by for-profit drug manufacturers and rapacious insurance companies,
rather than setting the stage for Medicare for All, as championed by Sanders.
Biden never tires of reminding any audience willing to put up with his gaffes, verbal ticks
and miscues that he served as Obama's vice president. Those ties are likely to remain the
centerpiece of his campaign, as he promises a return to the civility of the Obama era and a
restoration of America's standing in the world.
History, however, only moves forward. As charming and comforting as Biden's imagery of the
past may be, it is, like Trump's darker outlook, a mirage. If Trump has taught us anything
worthwhile, it is that the past cannot be replicated, no matter how much we might wish
otherwise.
"... Nothing speaks more loudly of the dumbed down, idiotic, Fakebook groupthink of the age than the current rush to buy toilet roll as a response to the Coronavirus crisis. ..."
No need to worry about the corona virus - it'll all be okay as long as you buy enough toilet
roll...
Nothing speaks more loudly of the dumbed down, idiotic, Fakebook groupthink of the age
than the current rush to buy toilet roll as a response to the Coronavirus crisis.
You've seen it on the tele and (un)social media – supermarket shelves denuded of bog
roll and fat birds beating seven shades of sh*t out of each other over the last bag of ass
wipe.
I mean, what the hell!? Is this how stupid and pathetic we've become? Someone sees a post
on Fakebook that says its a good idea to respond to a potentially fatal virus by buying lots
of bog roll and within 5 minutes there's a massive rush on the stuff – after all, you
gotta buy it, right, COS IT SAYS SO ON FAKEBOOK...
Dunford defended the troubled plane and was rewarded with a Lockheed position within months
of leaving the Pentagon. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Joseph Dunford. Credit:
Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff/Flickr
In 2015, things weren't looking great for the Marine Corps' F-35B fighter jet. Reports
from the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) and
Department of Defense inspector general had found dozens of problems with the aircraft.
Engine failures, software bugs, supply chain issues, and fundamental design flaws were making
headlines. The program was becoming synonymous in the press with
"boondoggle."
Lockheed Martin, the program's lead contractor, desperately needed a win.
Luckily for Lockheed, it had a powerful ally in the commandant of the Marine Corps, General
Joseph
Dunford . Five years later, Dunford would be out of the service and ready to collect his
first Lockheed Martin paycheck as a member of its board of directors.
Back in 2015, the F-35 program, already years behind schedule, faced a key program
milestone. The goal was to have the F-35B ready for a planned July initial operational
capability (IOC) declaration, a major step for the program, greenlighting the plane to be used
in combat. The declaration is a sign that the aircraft is nearly ready for full deployment,
that things are going well, that the contract, awarded in 2006, was finally producing a usable
product. The ultimate decision was in Dunford's hands.
About a week before the declaration, some in the Pentagon expressed serious doubts about the
aircraft. The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) obtained a memo from the Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation that
called foul on the test that was meant to demonstrate the ability of the F-35B to operate
in realistic conditions.
Dunford, however, said he had "
full confidence " in the aircraft's ability to support Marines in combat, despite the
testing office's report stating that if the aircraft encountered enemies, it would need to "
avoid threat engagement " -- in other words, to flee at the first sign of an enemy.
Ignoring the issues raised internally, Dunford signed off on the initial operational
capability. Lockheed Martin was thrilled . "Fifty years
from now, historians will look back on the success of the F-35 Program and point to Marine
Corps IOC as the milestone that ushered in a new era in military aviation," the company said in
a statement.
Lockheed's CEO was apparently elated, declaring it "send a strong message to everyone that
this program is on track."
But problems continued to plague the "combat ready" aircraft in the months afterwards. And
Dunford downplayed cost overruns and sang the aircraft's praises at a press event in 2017. When
the moderator asked routine questions submitted by the audience (Will the aircraft continue as
a program? Is it too expensive to maintain?),
Dunford responded by calling the questions loaded and accusing the audience member of
having an "agenda."
Retirement and a Reward
On September 30, 2019, Dunford, the military's highest ranked official, stepped down from
his position as chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He had served in the Marine Corps since 1977,
working his way up to the highest tier of the armed services over 42 years.
Just four months and 11 days later, he joined the Pentagon's top contractor, Lockheed
Martin, as a director on the board.
In announcing Dunford's hire, a January
press release from Lockheed Martin quotes CEO Marillyn Hewson: "General Dunford's service
to the nation at the highest levels of military leadership will bring valuable insight to our
board."
Dunford's consistent cheerleading of the F-35 and his subsequent hiring at its manufacturer
create the perception of a conflict of interest and raised the eyebrows of at least one former
senior military official.
"Here he is having been an advocate for it, having pressed it, having pushed for it and now
he's going to work for the company that makes the aircraft, that just, to me, stinks to high
heavens," retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as special assistant to Colin Powell
when he led the Joint Chiefs, told POGO.
Dunford's Rolodex of Pentagon decision-makers is valuable to defense contractors, and with
just over four months to "cool off," many of those relationships will likely be intact.
Lockheed Martin was the top recipient of Department of Defense dollars in fiscal year 2019,
taking in over $48
billion , according to government data. The company spent over $13 million
lobbying the federal government in 2019, according to data compiled by the Center for
Responsive Politics.
The Revolving Door Spins On
"I think anybody that gives out these big contracts should never ever, during their
lifetime, be allowed to work for a defense company, for a company that makes that product,"
then-President-elect Donald Trump
said in a December 2016 rally in Louisiana. "I don't know, it makes sense to me."
Fast forward more than three years and the revolving door is spinning right along, defense
stocks are
surging , and Lockheed Martin has arecord backlogof
unfulfilled contracts . While Trump did issue an
ethics executive order for his appointees, it did not include a lifetime ban on lobbying
for contractors.
A POGO analysis of the post-government employment of retired chairs of the Joint Chiefs
found that only four of the 19 people who previously held the position went immediately to work
for a major defense contractor within two years after leaving the government. In addition to
Dunford, Admiral William J. Crowe joined General
Dynamics , General John Shalikashvili joined the boards of
Boeing and L-3, and General Richard Myers joined the boards of Northrop Grumman and United
Technologies Corp.
Former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs have many lucrative career opportunities that don't
create conflicts, actual or implied. Retired General Martin Dempsey, who held the position
before Dunford, went on to teach at Duke University and was elected chairman of USA Basketball.
Admiral Michael Mullen, who preceded Dempsey, joined the board of General Motors and later
telecom giant Sprint.
According to Wilkerson, then-Chairman Powell was conscious of the appearance of conflicts of
interest and instilled in his employees a sensitivity.
Wilkerson recalled a conversation he had with Powell right after his retirement. "What's
next, boss?" Wilkerson asked Powell. "Well, it'll not be some defense contractor or some
beltway bandit. That practice is pernicious," he responded. Powell spoke to various members of
Congress about their responsibility to rein in the practice, and tried to raise awareness of
how widespread it was becoming, according to Wilkerson.
Current ethics laws include cooling off periods that limit a former government employee's
job options. But a POGO study of the revolving door in
2018 found that current ethics regulations are insufficient, rely on self-reporting, and are
full of loopholes. These cooling off periods range from a few years to a lifetime, depending on
how much an individual was personally involved in the decisions to award contracts. This means
top officials actually have fewer restrictions than contracting officers that were directly
involved in the awards, even though they have more influence and likely more valuable
connections. And the restrictions mostly prevent former officials from taking positions that
involve representing or lobbying for a contractor, which is why there was no restriction on
Dunford joining Lockheed's board.
The Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told POGO that Dunford "has certain post-government
employment restrictions," but wouldn't go into more detail. Dunford "at all times complied with
his ethics obligations related to post-government employment," according to the emailed
statement. POGO has filed Freedom of Information Act Requests to learn more about Dunford's
ethical restrictions.
Additionally, enforcement of the regulations is rare, with only four former Pentagon
employees prosecuted for violations in the past 16 years. It is impossible to know if the low
frequency of prosecutions in the current system is due to inadequate enforcement or high
compliance with lax laws.
Loading Boards with Political Influence
Since 2008, POGO found 42 senior
defense officials "revolved" into Lockheed within two years of leaving the government.
The boards of the top five defense contractors all have at least two sitting former
high-ranking military officials. General Dynamics and Raytheon had four each, Lockheed, Boeing
and Northrop Grumman had two each.
The full number of revolvers is difficult to determine. POGO's database currently contains 408
individuals who either went to work directly with defense contractors that were awarded over
$10 million that year or went to work with lobbying firms that list defense industry clients.
The POGO database relies on open source information. Another
study found that between 2009 and 2011, 70% of three and four-star generals and admirals
who retired took gigs with defense contractors or consultancies.
A GAO study found
that in 2006, about 86,000 military and civilian personnel who had left service since 2001 were
employed by 52 major defense contractors. The study also found that 1,581 former senior
officials were employed by just seven contractors. The office estimated that 422 former
officials could have worked on contracts related to their former agencies.
From 25 Hearings in One Year, to None in 60 Years
This issue is far from new. In a 1959 alone, there were 25 hearings before the House Armed
Services Committee's Subcommittee for Special Investigations on the topic of the revolving door
and its malign influences. President Dwight D. Eisenhower gave his famous farewell address
warning of the military-industrial complex just two years later.
An analysis by POGO did not find a congressional hearing explicitly on the issue of the
Pentagon revolving door in over 60 years.
There is some hope that the law will soon start to catch up. In May of last year, Senator
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Representative Jackie Speier (D-CA) introduced
legislation that would impose a four-year ban on contactors hiring senior officials who
managed that company's contracts, and extend existing bans. It would also require contractors
to submit annual reports on the employment of former senior officials and would ban senior
officials from owning stock in major defense contractors.
Another bill , passed by the House in March 2019, would broaden ethics rules and expands
prohibitions on former officials receiving compensation from contractors. It is sitting on
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's desk.
The American public should be able to be confident that our top military officials are
making decisions in the interest of national security, not to secure a cushy board
position.
Jason Paladino is the National Security Investigative Reporter for the Straus Military
Reform Project at the Project on Government Oversight (POGO).
Interviewed there in the 90s. Hiring manager picked me up at the hotel, took me out to
dinner and told me, flat out, that he was NSA. I doubt it has changed much.
(I said, to myself, "f*ck this", flagged the waiter and ordered the most expensive cab on
the menu, then another)
Uncovering The CIA's Audacious Operation That Gave Them Access To State Secrets
(interview) WaPo. "So we end up with ostensibly private company that is secretly owned by
two intelligence services." That company is probably just an outlier , even
though this operation is presented as incredibly successful.
I've helpfully underlined the irony. I should add Surveillance Valley to my reading
list, I suppose
Contrary to the depiction in Western media, the Syria war is not a civil war. This is because
the initiators, financiers and a large part of the anti-government fighters come from
abroad.
Nor is the Syria war a religious war, for Syria was and still is one of the most
secular countries in the region, and the Syrian army, like its direct opponents,
is itself mainly composed of Sunnis.
But the Syria war is also not a pipeline war, as some critics suspected, because
the allegedly competing gas pipeline projects never existed to begin with, as even the
Syrian president confirmed.
Instead, the Syria war is a war of conquest and regime change, which developed
into a geopolitical proxy war between NATO states on one side – especially the
US, Great Britain and France – and Russia, Iran, and China on the other side.
What follows are the unit prices, rounded to the nearest dollar, that the
various branches of the U.S. military expect to pay for various air-launched weapons in the
2021 Fiscal Year as they appear in the official budget documents. Air-to-Air Missiles:
These unit prices are averages for the entire projected 2021 Fiscal Year orders for
both services, which include lots of AIM-9X-2 Block II and AIM-9X-3 Block II+ missiles,
the latter of which
is specifically for variants F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
AIM-120D Advanced Medium-Range Air To Air Missile (AMRAAM) (Air Force)- $1.095
million
AIM-120D Advanced Medium-Range Air To Air Missile (AMRAAM) (Navy)- $995,018
Air-to-Surface Missiles:
AGM-88G Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile-Extended Range (AARGM-ER) (Navy) - $6.149
million
This unit price is an average for the entire projected 2021 Fiscal Year order, which
may include a variety of Hellfire missiles in Air Force service, including, but not
limited to the AGM-114R2, AGM-114R4,
AGM-114R9E , and AGM-114R12.
This is also the unit price for orders in the base budget. The Air Force is also
looking to purchase a much larger number of AGM-114 variants through the supplemental
Overseas Contingency Operations budget at an average unit cost $31,000.
AGM-114 Hellfire (Army) - $213,143
This unit price is an average for the entire projected 2021 Fiscal Year order, which
may include a variety of Hellfire missiles in Army service, including various different
variants of
the AGM-114R , as well as the millimeter-wave radar-guided
AGM-114L .
This is also the unit price for orders in the base budget. The Army is also looking
to purchase a much larger number of AGM-114R variants through the supplemental Overseas
Contingency Operations budget at an average unit cost $76,461.
AGM-114 Hellfire (Navy) - $45,409
This unit price is an average for the entire projected 2021 Fiscal Year order, which
may include a variety of Hellfire missiles in
Navy and Marine Corps service, including, but not limited to the AGM-114K/K2,
AGM-114M, AGM-114N, AGM-114P/P2, and AGM-114Q.
This unit price is an average for the entire projected 2021 Fiscal Year order, which
includes examples of the AGM-158A JASSM and AGM-158B JASSM-Extended Range
(JASSM-ER).
The Air Force also expects the complete 2021 Fiscal Year JASSM order will also
include the purchase of the first batch of low rate initial production AGM-158D
JASSM-Extreme Range (JASSM-XR) missiles.
AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) (Air Force) - $3.960 million
AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) (Navy) - $3.518 million
This unit price is an average for the entire projected 2021 Fiscal Year order, which
may include the GBU-39A/B Focused Lethality Munition (FLM) variants, which has a special
carbon fiber body intended to reduce the chance of collateral damage, and GBU-39B/B
Laser SDBs.
Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) (Navy) - $22,208
These are the unit prices for orders in the base budget. The Air Force is also
looking to purchase a much smaller number of JDAM kits through the supplemental Overseas
Contingency Operations budget at an average unit cost of $36,000. The Navy is also
looking to purchase a smaller number of JDAM kits through the supplemental Overseas
Contingency Operations budget at an average unit cost of $23,074.
These unit prices are also averages for the entire projected 2021 Fiscal Year orders
for both services and apply to the JDAM guidance kits only for 500, 1,000, and
2,000-pound class bombs.
This unit price average also includes multi-mode
Laser JDAM kits.
The different JDAM guidance kits will work with a
wide variety of
different dumb bomb types within those classes, but some, such as the new
BLU-137/B 2,000-pound class bunker buster, require certain weapon-specific
modifications that impact the specific price point.
Per the Air Force budget, a standard, unguided Mk 82 500-pound class bomb has a unit
price of $4,000, while 2,000-pound class Mk 84 unguided bombs cost $16,000 apiece.
It's important to note that a number of air-launched munitions that are in active service
across the U.S. military, such as the AGM-65E Maverick laser-guided
missiles, AGM-154
Joint Stand Off Weapon (JSOW) glide bombs,
AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship cruise missiles, and
Paveway laser and
multi-mode guidance kits for various types of bombs, are not mentioned above. This is
because the services are not planning to buy new stocks of them in the 2021 Fiscal Year or they
are included include broader sections of the budget where their exact unit cost is not readily
apparent. There are requests for funds for sustainment of many of those weapons, as well as
modifications and upgrades, too. The Navy is notably expecting to begin purchasing a powered
derivative of the AGM-154, known as the
JSOW-Extended Range (JSOW-ER), in the 2022 Fiscal Year.
Regardless, now, the next time you see a U.S. military combat aircraft, drone or helicopter,
you'll have a head start figuring out just how much its loadout of bombs and missiles actually
cost.
Without any proof, The New York Times and Washington Post run "Russia
helping Sanders" stories, and Sanders responds by bashing Russia, writes Joe Lauria.
W ith Democratic frontrunner Bernie Sanders spooking the Democratic establishment, The
Washington Post Friday reported damaging information from intelligence sources against
Sanders by saying that Russia is trying to help his campaign.
If the story is true and if intelligence agencies are truly committed to protecting U.S.
citizens, the Sanders campaign would have been quietly informed and shown evidence to back up
the claims.
Instead the story wound up on the front page of the Post , "according to people
familiar with the matter." Zero evidence was produced to back up the intelligence agencies'
assertion.
"It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken," the Post reported.
That would tell any traditional news editor that there was no story until it is known.
Instead major U.S. media are again playing the role of laundering totally unverified
"information" just because it comes from an intelligence source. Reporting such assertions
without proof amounts to an abdication of journalistic responsibility. It shows total trust in
U.S. intelligence despite decades of deception and skullduggery from these agencies.
Centrist Democratic Party leaders have expressed extreme unease with Sanders leading the
Democratic pack. Politicoreported
Friday that former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg's entry into the race is explicitly to stop
Sanders from winning on the first ballot at the party convention.
A day after The New York Times
reported , also without evidence, that Russia is again trying to help Donald Trump win in
November, the Post reports Moscow is trying to help Sanders too, again without
substance. Both candidates whom the establishment loathes were smeared on successive days.
In a Tough Spot
The Times followed the Post report Friday by making it appear that Sanders
himself had chosen to make public the intelligence assessment about "Russian interference" in
his campaign.
But Sanders had known for a month about this assessment and only issued a statement after
the Post asked him for comment before publishing its uncorroborated story based on
anonymous sources.
Sanders was put in a difficult spot. If he said, "Show me the proof that Russia is trying to
help me," he ran the risk of being attacked for disbelieving (even disloyalty to) U.S.
intelligence, and, by default, defending the Kremlin.
So politician that he is, and one who is trying to win the White House, Sanders told the
Post :
"I don't care, frankly, who Putin wants to be president. My message to Putin is clear:
Stay out of American elections, and as president I will make sure that you do. In 2016,
Russia used Internet propaganda to sow division in our country, and my understanding is that
they are doing it again in 2020."
The Times quoted Sanders as calling Russian President Vladimir Putin an "autocratic
thug." The paper reported Sanders saying in a statement: "Let's be clear, the Russians want to
undermine American democracy by dividing us up and, unlike the current president, I stand
firmly against their efforts and any other foreign power that wants to interfere in our
election."
Responding to a cacophony of criticism that Sanders' supporters are especially vicious
online, as opposed to the millions of other vicious people online, Sanders attempted to use
Russia as a scapegoat, the way the Clinton campaign did in 2016. He said: "Some of the ugly
stuff on the Internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real
supporters."
But no matter how strong Sander's denunciations of Russia, his opponents will now target him
as being a tool of the Kremlin.
Mission accomplished.
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent
forThe Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe,Sunday Timesof London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached at[email protected]and
followed on Twitter @unjoe .
Let`s face it,even though Bernie is a moderate Social Democrat,at best.He`s the only one
capable of beating "the Orange"version of Hitler.But he sounds as if the DNC,big wigs,decide
to deny him the nomination;he`d go along with it.Just like before;when he even campaigned for
the"Crooked One(Hillary).I guess we`ll see.
Kim Dixon , February 24, 2020 at 04:31
The most-important element missed in this piece is this: Sanders is helping the DNC and
the MIC gin up fear of, and hatred for, the only other nuclear superpower on earth.
If you were around during the McCarthy years, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the '73
Arab/Israeli war, and all the other almost-Armageddon crises of Cold War One, you know that
nothing could be stupider and more-dangerous than that. The missiles still sit in their
silos, waiting for the next early-warning misunderstanding or proxy-war miscalculation to
send them flying.
Sanders lived through it all. He's supposed to be the furthest-Left pol in Congress. So
how can he possibly advocate for anything but detente and disarmament?
SteveK9 , February 24, 2020 at 20:18
I would really like to support Bernie, but statements like this make me shake my head.
It's more a reflection of America today I guess. Politicians believe to a man (or woman) that
they must put the hate on Putin and Russia or they have no chance. It doesn't matter that the
Russia garbage is 100% false. And, I don't mean they 'interfered' only a little there was
nothing, nothing at all. Even Trump has to go along with this propaganda. I don't know how
anyone can believe this idiotic (and incredibly dangerous, as you point out) rubbish at this
point. But you can't call your friends blanking morons.
J Gray , February 25, 2020 at 02:55
I think he successfully dodged a bullet but set himself up to offer comprehensive election
reform if he pulls out a victory .
or it is an early sign that he, the DNC & MIC are coming to terms. It doesn't have
that ring to it to me, like when Trump called for regime-change war in Venezuela &
defunding schools to build a space army. That was a clear on-the-record sell-out & got
him off the Impeachment hook the next day. Similar to when the Clinton signed the Telecom Act
to get off his.
They are still coming after Sanders too hard w/their McCarthiast attacks to feel like he
is siding with them. I think he has to do this because they are bundling his movement,
Venezuela and Russia into the new Red Scare.
"#JoeLauria's piece in #ConsortiumNews is excellent. He calmly sets out #Sanders'
political dilemma. The latest line from US intelligence agency stenographer media like
#NYTimes is that #Russians are helping both #Trump and Sanders because they simply want to
sow discord and cynicism about US democracy , they do not care who wins. #CaitlinJohnstone
neatly satirises this by writing a spoof article claiming that US intelligence agencies have
discovered #Bloomberg is being helped by Russians because he has two Russian
grandfathers.
It has reached the point , as Lauria shows, where any criticism of such US MSM nonsense
leaves the speaker open to the allegation that he is soft on/ naive about/complicit in
Russian election meddling. Without being a Trump supporter, one can understand Trump's rage
and contempt for what is going on .
Justin Glyn. Consortium News. Joe Lauria. Tony Kevin"
Tony Kevin , February 23, 2020 at 21:32
Sanders and Trump will survive this Deep State manipulation and attempted blackmail . They
will see off the Clintonistas and Deep State moles, and will go on to fight a tough but fair
election. Americans are sick of Russophobia.
jack , February 24, 2020 at 15:25
agreed – the Russiagate psyop is past its shelf life – BUT Deep State will
carry on – it's a global entity and they're into literally everything – no idea
how any known, normal governing structure can deal with it
Enough with the "Russia" BS already! It is clear to me the wealthy corporate Dems and the
MSM are behind all of the smear tactics against Bernie and anyone else who serves the
people
Enough with the "Russia" BS already! It is clear to me the wealthy corporate Dems and the
MSM are behind all of the smear tactics against Bernie and anyone else who serves the
people
Dfnslblty , February 23, 2020 at 09:07
Front page drama plus zero evidence began long ago with 'anonymous sources said "!
Complete lack of accountability on the part of the sources and on the part of the
reporters.
Thus we receive a "reality teevee " potus , and we are pleased to be hypnotised and
titillated.
A true revolution would demand CN-quality reportage and reject msm pablum.
JohnDoe , February 23, 2020 at 03:43
It's enough to look at the news on mainstream media to understand who's, as usual,
meddling in the elections. In the latest period for the first time I saw a lot of
enthusiastic comments and articles about Bernie Sanders. It's clear they are pushing him. But
why those who isolated him in during the primaries against Clinton are now supporting him?
It's obvious, that they want to get rid of Elizabeth Warren, first push ahead the weaker
candidates, then they'll switch their support towards another candidate, probably
Bloomberg.
delia ruhe , February 23, 2020 at 00:14
Well, thank you Joe Lauria! I am in trouble in several comment threads for suggesting that
the intel community is at it again, trying to ruin two campaigns by identifying the
candidates with Putin and the Kremlin. Now I can quote you. Excellent piece, as usual.
Deniz , February 22, 2020 at 22:44
Imagine Sanders and Trump, putting their differences aside and declaring war on the deep
state during a debate. They have the same enemies.
The same people who planted Steele's dirty dosier are going to try to steal Sanders
election from him. It wont be Trump and the Republicans who rigs the election against
Sanders.
SteveK9 , February 24, 2020 at 20:21
Trump actually seemed to want to help Bernie a bit (well, he keeps calling him 'Crazy
Bernie as well). He put out some tweet calling this latest rubbish, Hoax #7. But Bernie would
rather say something stupid, like 'I'm not a friend of Putin he is' talk about 5-year
olds.
Deniz , February 25, 2020 at 00:49
Its disappointing. Sanders heart seems to be in the right place, but when it comes time to
face the sinister forces that run the country for their own benefit, he will be absolutely
crushed.
This will never end.
No president will ever change anything.
The deep state tentacles will eventually kill us all.
I am going to go and enjoy what's left.
Marko , February 22, 2020 at 20:24
" But Sanders had known for a month about this assessment and only issued a statement
after the Post asked him for comment before publishing its uncorroborated story based on
anonymous sources Sanders was put in a difficult spot. If he said, "Show me the proof that
Russia is trying to help me," he ran the risk of being attacked for disbelieving (even
disloyalty to) U.S. intelligence, and, by default, defending the Kremlin. "
I suspect that Sanders was given a classified briefing a month ago , which he couldn't
disclose to the public. If so , and given that he didn't make this clear immediately after
being accused of withholding this information , he has only himself to blame for the
resulting "bad look".
JWalters , February 22, 2020 at 19:06
The corporate media has revealed itself to be a monopoly behind the scenes, working in
unison to trash Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. Even though Gabbard is only at a few
percent in the polls, her message is potentially devastating to the war profiteers who own
America's Vichy MSM.
"Congressman Oscar Callaway lost his Congressional election for opposing US entry into WW
1. Before he left office, he demanded investigation into JP Morgan & Co for purchasing
control over America's leading 25 newspapers in order to propagandize US public opinion in
favor of his corporate and banking interests, including profits from US participation in the
war."
war * profiteerstory. * blogspot. * com/p/war-profiteers-and-israels-bank.html
Thankfully, there is still a free American press, of which Consortium News is a stellar
example.
elmerfudzie , February 22, 2020 at 13:25
The CIA and DIA (it has about a dozen agencies under it and is much larger than any other
Intel agency) are supposed to monitor threats to our national security, that originate
abroad. Aside from a few closed door sessions with a select group of congresspersons, our
Intel agencies have practically no real democratic oversight and remain, for all intents and
purposes, a parallel government(s) well hidden from public view. In particular how they are
financed and what their actual annual budgets really are. How these agencies every managed to
seep into any electioneering process what so ever, is beyond me, since they are all
intentionally very surreptitious- by design. We ask questions and these Intel agencies are
quick to tout the usual phrase; that subject area is secret and needs to be addressed in
closed session, blah, blah, blah. Of course "secrecy" translates into, we do what we want
when we want and use information any way we want because our parallel governments represent
the best example(s) of a perpetual motion machine that does not require outside monitoring.
The origins of these "parallel entities" can be traced to the Rockefeller brothers and their
associated international corporations. There's the rub folks. Our citizens at large will
never overtake for the purposes of real monitoring, this empire and elephant in the room,
directly. However we do have one avenue left and it requires a rank and file demand from the
people to their state representatives demanding two long standing issues, they remain
unresolved and until a solution is found, will permit dark powers to side step every level of
democratic governments-anywhere.
The first is true campaign finance reform and the second is assigning, or rather, removing
the status of person-hood to corporate entities. The Rockefeller's used their corporate power
and wealth to influence legislative, judicial and executive bodies. They cannot help but do
as the puppet master commands! Be it some form of, corporatism, fascism, feudalism, monarchy,
oligarchy, even bankster-ism or any other "ism We as citizens at large must make every effort
to again, obtain true campaign finance reform and remove the lobbying presence inside the
beltway. Today, the corporate entity has risen to a level that completely overtakes and
smothers any authentic democratic representation, of and by the people. Originally (circa the
early1800's) American corporations were permitted to exist and papers were drawn based on the
specific duties they were about to perform, this for the benefit of the local community for
example, building a bridge. Once the job was completed, the incorporation was either
liquidated or remanded over to the relevant governing body for the purposes of reevaluating
the necessity of re-certifying the original incorporation papers. Old man Rockefeller changed
the governance and oversight privilege by forcing and promulgating legislation(s) such as
limited liability clauses, strategies to oppose competition, tax evasion schemes and
(eventually) assigning person-hood to corporate entities, thus creating a parallel government
within the government. It all began in Delaware and until we clear our heads and assign names
to the actual problems, as I've itemized here, our citizenry will never experience the
freedom to fashion our destiny. Please visit TUC radio's two part expose' by Richard
Grossman. It will help CONSORTIUMNEWS readers to understand just what a monumental task is
ahead for all of us. Work for a fair and equitable future in America, demand campaign finance
reform and kick the hustling lobbyists out of our government. Voters being choked to death
with senseless debates and useless candidates.
Jeff Harrison , February 22, 2020 at 12:36
The real threats to our democracy are our unaccountable surveillance state and the craven
politicians in Washington, DC. And, no, Ben, we can't keep our republic because we don't have
a sufficient mass of critical thinkers to run it. If we did, this kind of BS, having been
shot full of holes once, wouldn't get any air.
Alan Ross , February 22, 2020 at 10:37
Sanders may win the nomination and the election but he cannot get a break from some
purists on the left. His reaction may have been quite astute. When Sanders says that we
should station troops on the borders of Russia or arm the Ukrainians, then you can say he
really is anti-Russian. I have not heard all that he has said, but what I have heard sounds
so much like hot air put out by a left politician trying to deal with the ages-old
establishment and right wing smear that he is a pawn of the commies, a fellow traveler, a
pinko, and now an agent of a foreign power, a Russian asset and so on. There is real
criticism of Sanders, but his statements about Putin and Russia do not add up to much.
Skip Scott , February 22, 2020 at 09:51
Anyone who is still under the influence of the MSM hypnosis of RussiaGate, led by Rachel
Madcow, needs to think long and hard about this latest propaganda campaign. The real message
here is unless you support corporate sponsored warmonger from column A or B, you are a tool
of the "evil Rooskies". And the funny thing is, Sanders is "weak tea" when it comes to issues
of war and peace, and the feeding of the war machine at the government trough with no
limits.
The purpose of this BIG LIE of the "Intelligence" agencies is to make it impossible for
someone to be against the Forever War without being tarred as a "Foreign Agent", or at least
a "useful idiot", of the "EVIL ROOSKIES". To simply want peaceful coexistence on its own
merits is impossible.
Imagine if Sanders dared to mention that Putin enjoys substantial majority support inside
Russia, and seeks peaceful coexistence in a multi-polar world, instead of calling him an
"autocratic thug". Often for politicians, speaking the truth is a "bridge too far". I wonder
if Sanders (like Hillary) finds it necessary to hold "private" positions that differ from his
"public" positions? Or does he really believe his own BS?
I had not seen Mr Joe Lauria's article when I commented on Mr Ben Norton's story, but my
reply could fit here as well.
The idiot American public dismays me. To them, the "MSM news" and "celebrity gossip reports"
are equal and both to be wholeheartedly believed.
There is no point in trying to educate a resistant public in the differences between data and
gossip -- public doesn't care.
I weep for what we have lost -- a Constitution, a nation of free thinkers. My heart breaks
for the world's people, and what my country tries to do to them, with only a few resistant
other countries confronting and challenging America.
It is so difficult to know the truth of a situation and yet to know that almost no one
(statistically speaking) believes you.
Jim Hartz , February 23, 2020 at 12:04
A better distinction might be, concerning the intelligence of the American public, the one
Chomsky has used, rooted in Ancient Greek culture, that between KNOWLEDGE and OPINION.
Americans, of course, have OPINIONS about everything, but little KNOWLEDGE about much of
anything. And it seems their idea of FREEDOM is related to, bound up with, their having
OPINIONS about virtually EVERYTHING.
So much for our being a HIGHER life form.
We're in the process of destroying EVERYTHING, not just HIGHER LIFE FORMS [us], but all
flora and fauna, water and air on the planet–as I said, EVERYTHING. To paraphrase from
memory a citation by Perry Anderson from the work of heterodox Italian Marxist, Sebastiano
Timpanaro, "What we are witnessing is not the triumph of man over history, but the victory of
nature over man."
Tony , February 22, 2020 at 07:40
The Trump administration has pulled out of the INF missile treaty citing totally unproven
claims of Russian violations.
It also looks like allowing the START treaty on strategic nuclear missiles to lapse if we do
not stop it.
And so, in what sense would Putin want Trump to get re-elected?
Van Jones of CNN once described the original allegations of Russian meddling in US
elections as a 'great big nothing burger'.
Sounds right to me.
Sam F , February 22, 2020 at 07:24
When the secret agencies and mass media stop manipulating public opinion, despite their
oligarchy masters' ability to control election results anyway, we will know that they no
longer need deception to control the People. Simple force will do the job, with a few
marketing claims to assist in hiring goons to suppress any popular movement. Democracy is
completely lost, and the pretense of democracy will soon follow.
michael , February 22, 2020 at 07:03
Another foray into domestic politics by the CIA, with anonymous sources and no evidence
shown (as no evidence exists). Perhaps the CIA (which probably works for Putin, or Bloomberg,
or anyone who pays them best, but they are loyal to the US dollar only; and maybe heroin?) is
even now making up another Chris Steele/ Fusion GPS/ CrowdStrike dossier, getting that
Russian caterer to the Kremlin to pump out clickbait and sink both Trump and Sanders. Because
RUSSIANS!!! are "genetically driven" to interfere in American democracy. Next we'll have the
DNC (CIA) pushing Superpredator tropes such as "this enormous cohort of black and Latino
males" who "don't know how to behave in the workplace" and "don't have any prospects." With
this Clintonian (and Biden and Bloomberg) mindset, America will be increasing incarceration
once again. That $500,000 bribe the Clintons took from Putin in 2010 when Hillary was
Secretary of State probably plays a role.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Mark Esper have surprisingly noted that China,
not Russia, is America's #1 concern: "America's concerns about Beijing's commercial and
military expansion should be your concerns as well." Since Bill Clinton's Chinagate fiasco in
1996, Communist China, for a measly $million or so in illegal campaign donations, gained
permanent trade status, took millions of American jobs, and suddenly were allowed access to
advanced, even military technologies. This was the impetus for China's rise to be the
strongest nation in the world. There are no doubt statues of the Clintons all over China, and
soon to Hunter Biden, if his Chinese backed hedge funds do well. There are some rumors that
Bloomberg has transacted business with China, although doubtful he tried to build a hotel in
Beijing or Moscow, or the CIA would be all over it (for a cut)!
Realist , February 24, 2020 at 00:22
Esper is a dangerously deranged man who seems, at least to me, to be telegraphing his
intent, and certainly his desire, to get into a kinetic war with both Russia and China
(Washington already has most of the hybrid war tactics already fully operational), unless
English usage has changed so drastically that insults, overt threats and unrestrained bombast
are now part of calm, rational cordial diplomacy. I would not be surprised if neocon
mouthpieces like Esper are not secretly honing their rhetorical style to emulate the
exaggerated volume and enunciation of der ursprüngliche Führer.
Ma Laoshi , February 22, 2020 at 06:04
"So politician that he is" -- isn't this already on the slippery slope towards double
standards, that is, would say Hillary get a similar pass for making McCarthyite statements
like this? Isn't a dispassionate reading of the situation that Bernie is an inveterate
liar , and moreover specializing in the particular brand of lies that could get us all
into nuclear war? Whether it's character or merely age, haven't we seen enough to conclude
that Mr. Sanders would be much weaker still vis-a-vis the Deep State than Donald Trump turned
out to be?
For those without a dog in this fight, shouldn't it cause great merriment if the various
RussiaGaters devour each other? Mr. Sanders has seen for years that the "muh Putin" hoax will
be turned against him whenever needed. If he nonetheless persists, doesn't that show his
resignation that his role in this election circus is a very temporary one, like in '16? How
was that definition of insanity again?
If you want to fix America, then the Empire and Zionism are your enemies; so is the Dem
party that is inextricably wedded to these forces. Play along with them and–well what
can you expect.
aNanyMouse , February 22, 2020 at 13:29
Yeah, and Bernie sucked up to the Dem brass on the impeachment crap, even tho Tulsi had
the stones to at least abstain. How sad.
GMCasey , February 21, 2020 at 22:33
Dear DNC:
KNOCK IT OFF! The only person I am voting for President is the only one who is capable -- and
that is Bernie Sanders.
And really, with NATO breaking the agreement where they agreed to NOT go up to Russia's
border : it is getting very sad and embarrassing to be an American because the elected ones
make agreements and yet break so many. What with Turkey and Israel and Saudi Arabia trying to
disrupt the area, I am sure that Russia is too busy to bother disrupting America . Lately
America seems to disrupt itself for many ridiculous reasons. I am sorry that the gossip rags,
which used to be important newspapers have failed in supporting their First Amendment right
of Free speech . I just finished reading "ALL the Presidents Men. " What has happened to you,
Washington Post, because as a newspaper, you really used to be somebody. Please review your
past and become what you once were, a real genuine news source.
Sam F , February 23, 2020 at 09:18
Wikipedia: "In October 2013, the paper's longtime controlling family, the Graham family,
sold the newspaper to Nash Holdings, a holding company established by Jeff Bezos, for $250
million in cash."
Jim Hartz , February 23, 2020 at 12:37
One of the craziest ongoing media phenomena, prevalent in the Impeachment Hearings, is the
repeated claim that RUSSIA IS AT WAR WITH UKRAINE.
What kind of "Higher Life Form" enthusiastically EATS IT'S OWN SHIT?
Sam F , February 21, 2020 at 22:10
Mass media denouncing politicians based upon "information" from secret agencies are
propaganda operations, and should be sued for proof of their claims. But of course the
judiciary are tools of oligarchy as much as the mass media. No one has constitutional rights
in the US under our utterly corrupt judiciary, only paid party privileges.
Eddie S , February 21, 2020 at 21:55
Hmmm.. so those oh-so-clever Russkies (I mean they MUST-BE if they were able to outwit ALL
the US politicos -- who are immersed in the US political culture 24/7 as well as having
grown-up in this country and having billions of $ to spend -- in 2016 with a mere $100k of
Facebook ads) messed-up this time! They're supporting OPPOSING candidates, effectively
canceling-out their efforts ? Kinda strange, unless that whole 'Russia meddling' thing was a
vastly exaggerated distraction by a losing hawkish candidate and her party, further inflated
by a sensationalistic media and a predictably antagonistic military & intelligence
community??
There is NO "intel"; plenty of un-intel, shameless mendacity from these info=dictators
zionazi NYT and Wapoop drivel; hopefully the insouciant public is starting to see what a sham
these rats are. Hearst outdistanced.
Daniel , February 22, 2020 at 10:45
"Kinda strange, unless that whole 'Russia meddling' thing was a vastly exaggerated
distraction by a losing hawkish candidate and her party, further inflated by a
sensationalistic media and a predictably antagonistic military & intelligence
community??"
Exactly. Shame on Hillary Clinton and all who view the electorate with such disdain as to
have pushed this propaganda on us for the last three years, and continue to do so, obviously.
If either Hillary Clinton or the "sensationalistic media and a predictably antagonistic
military & intelligence community" had any integrity at all, they would have beaten Trump
handily in 2016, just as they condescendingly told us they would. They did not, though, and
have been outraged to have been exposed as the frauds they are ever since.
When your political party is nothing more than a marketing scheme designed to fool the
population, that population will turn on you. Imagine that. And no amount of Russia-gating
will save you. Shame on all who would continue this charade.
John Drake , February 21, 2020 at 21:33
Gosh I wish those so called intel people could make up their mind about whom the big bad
Ruskies are trying to help. One week its Trump, the next it is Sanders. Frankly on the face,
it sounds like bad intel to me.
But fortunately I am a regular reader of this site and Ray McGovern; and know it's all, to
put it politely , disinformation; or less politely a pile of diarrhea invented by Hillarybots
after a really really bad election day three years ago.
The only thing that disturbs me is the way Bernie buys into this Russiagate thing himself.
Maybe you all could send him a trove of articles debunking the whole mess, especially Ray and
Bill's forensics.
Fred Dean , February 23, 2020 at 03:52
When Durham starts indicting people and the story of the Deep State coup against the
President becomes common knowledge, Bernie's statements on Russiagate will be a liability.
Trump's people are digging up whatever videos they can of Bernie talking smack about
Trump/Russia. It is a crack in Bernie's armor and we can expect Trump to exploit. Bernie has
been such a toadie to the DNC. He cowers to the Democratic establishment because he fears
they will pull his credentials to run as a Democrat.
OlyaPola , February 23, 2020 at 08:08
"Gosh I wish those so called intel people could make up their mind about whom the big bad
Ruskies are trying to help."
Output is a function of framing and consequently the intelligence community/opponents are
helping others including the Russians who encourage such help by doing nothing.
KiwiAntz , February 21, 2020 at 21:26
What a shambolic mess of a Nation that America is! Nothing more than a Billionaire's
Banana Republic? A International laughingstock ruled by a Oligarchy, masquerading as a
Democracy? And if all else fails to get rid of Bernie Saunders by vote rigging or
gerrymandering or other nefarious acts of sabotage with Superdelegates stealing the
nominations then resurrect the bogus Russiagate Conspiracy, a ridiculous failed & faked
experiment to gaslight, spook & confuse the population again? Wouldn't it be delicious if
Russiagate was actually TRUE, it would be payback for the USA, a Nation that meddles in the
affairs & politics of every other Country on Earth, overthrowing & regime changing
everyone who doesn't "bend the knee" to America, the most corrupt & evil Nation on Earth
since Nazi Germany! I've never seen a more propagandised or mindf**ked People on Earth than
the American people! It must be soul destroying to live in this Country & have to put up
with this nonsense, day in, day out?
Ian , February 22, 2020 at 02:47
Yes, it is. Living with the infuriating unreality and militaristic worldview that is so
cultivated here takes a personal emotional and intellectual toll. No place is perfect, but
when I travel to Europe I feel a weight lifted.
Broompilot , February 22, 2020 at 03:50
Kiwi you may have a point.
ML , February 22, 2020 at 09:19
Yep. But for those of us with our critical thinking skills intact, we won't let it be soul
destroying, Kiwi. Still, the daily crapload of bs we are fed in the "legacy" press is
aggravating beyond the beyonds. Cheers, fellow Earthling.
Daniel , February 22, 2020 at 11:09
I hear you, KiwiAntz. It IS soul destroying to withstand this onslaught of disinformation
each and every day. There is a rhythm to it that is undeniable, too. One can almost predict
when the next propaganda hit will come, as here – after their latest would-be savior,
Mike Bloomberg, imploded on live TV, and with Bernie looking more and more inevitable.
Our reality in the US today is that we have to fight against our own media to approach
anything resembling a reasonable discussion about what is important to vast majorities (mean
tweets and fake memes aren't it) or to champion candidates who display even the slightest
integrity. But, of course, it is not 'our' media. It is 'theirs.' And they will continue to
abuse us with it until we reject it completely.
robert e williamson jr , February 23, 2020 at 20:31
I see things pretty clearly for what they are and the billionaire democrats are heading
for a train wreck and I hate to admit I cannot look away.
Trump is just another self serving U.S. president leaving a stain in America's underwear
adding to the humongous pile of America's dirty laundry.
When the demographics finally dictate it change will come and likely not before. On that
note I wold like to reach out here. Justin King, who goes as Beau on the net runs a site
called the Fifth Column News and does a ton of informative and educational videos on many
various topics. .
If you go to youtube, search and watch each of the videos I'm about to list here you stand
to learn quite a lot about how Americans got screwed by the two party system without really
realizing it. Plenty of blame to go around , no doubt though. You will also learn of the
changing demographics in American politics. Many of the poor, minorities and youth of the
country are coming into politics for they stand to lose everything if they don't change the
status quo.
Feb 11 2020 runs 6:21 minutes and seconds- Search terms, Beau Lets talk about the parties
switching and the party of trump
Feb 15 2020 runs 4:11 Search terms, Beau Lets talk about dancing left and dancing
right
Feb 20 2020 runs 10:44 Search terms, Beau Lets talk about misunderstanding Bernie's
supporters
This last video is a long video by Justin's standards. Most of his videos are under 7
minutes.
Much thanks to CN this site and the Fifth Column New site give me strength and bolster my
courage by allowing me to know that there are those of us who know what gong on and know
things must change.
"... the American-led takedown of the post-World War II international system has shattered long-standing rules and norms of behavior. ..."
"... The combination of disorder at home and abroad is spawning changes that are increasingly disadvantageous to the United States. With Congress having essentially walked off the job, there is a need for America's universities to provide the information and analysis of international best practices that the political system does not. ..."
I think this would be very informative for anybody seriously interested in the USA foreign
policy. Listening to him is so sad to realize that instead of person of his caliber we have
Pompous Pompeo, who forever is frozen on the level of a tank repair mechanical engineer, as
the Secretary of State.
Published on Feb 24, 2020
In the United States and other democracies, political and economic systems still work in
theory, but not in practice. Meanwhile, the American-led takedown of the post-World War II
international system has shattered long-standing rules and norms of behavior.
The combination of disorder at home and abroad is spawning changes that are increasingly
disadvantageous to the United States. With Congress having essentially walked off the job,
there is a need for America's universities to provide the information and analysis of
international best practices that the political system does not.
Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. is a senior fellow at Brown University's Watson
Institute for International and Public Affairs, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of
Defense, ambassador to Saudi Arabia (during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm),
acting Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, and Chargé d'affaires at
both Bangkok and Beijing. He began his diplomatic career in India but specialized in
Chinese affairs. (He was the principal American interpreter during President Nixon's visit
to Beijing in 1972.)
Ambassador Freeman is a much sought-after public speaker (see http://chasfreeman.net ) and the author of several
well-received books on statecraft and diplomacy. His most recent book, America's Continuing
Misadventures in the Middle East was published in May 2016. Interesting Times: China,
America, and the Shifting Balance of Prestige, appeared in March 2013. America's
Misadventures in the Middle East came out in 2010, as did the most recent revision of The
Diplomat's Dictionary, the companion volume to Arts of Power: Statecraft and Diplomacy. He
was the editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on "diplomacy."
Chas Freeman studied at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and in
Taiwan, and earned an AB magna cum laude from Yale University as well as a JD from the
Harvard Law School.
He chairs Projects International, Inc., a Washington-based firm that for more than three
decades has helped its American and foreign clients create ventures across borders,
facilitating their establishment of new businesses through the design, negotiation,
capitalization, and implementation of greenfield investments, mergers and acquisitions,
joint ventures, franchises, one-off transactions, sales and agencies in other
countries.
He is the author of several books including the most recent
Interesting times: China, America, and the shifting balance of prestige
(2013)
"... Thus, it should be no surprise to anyone in the world at this point in history, that the CIA holds no allegiance to any country. And it can be hardly expected that a President, who is actively under attack from all sides within his own country, is in a position to hold the CIA accountable for its past and future crimes ..."
"There is a kind of character in thy life, That to the observer doth thy history, fully unfold."
– William Shakespeare
Once again we find ourselves in a situation of crisis, where the entire world holds its breath all at once and can only wait to
see whether this volatile black cloud floating amongst us will breakout into a thunderstorm of nuclear war or harmlessly pass us
by. The majority in the world seem to have the impression that this destructive fate totters back and forth at the whim of one man.
It is only normal then, that during such times of crisis, we find ourselves trying to analyze and predict the thoughts and motives
of just this one person. The assassination of Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, a true hero for his fellow countrymen and undeniably an
essential key figure in combating terrorism in Southwest Asia, was a terrible crime, an abhorrently repugnant provocation. It was
meant to cause an apoplectic fervour, it was meant to make us who desire peace, lose our minds in indignation. And therefore, that
is exactly what we should not do.
In order to assess such situations, we cannot lose sight of the whole picture, and righteous indignation unfortunately causes
the opposite to occur. Our focus becomes narrower and narrower to the point where we can only see or react moment to moment with
what is right in front of our face. We are reduced to an obsession of twitter feeds, news blips and the doublespeak of 'official
government statements'.
Thus, before we may find firm ground to stand on regarding the situation of today, we must first have an understanding as to what
caused the United States to enter into an endless campaign of regime-change warfare after WWII, or as former Chief of Special Operations
for the Joint Chiefs of Staff Col. Prouty stated, three decades of the Indochina war.
An Internal Shifting of Chess Pieces in the Shadows
It is interesting timing that on Sept 2, 1945, the very day that WWII ended, Ho Chi Minh would announce the independence of Indochina.
That on the very day that one of the most destructive wars to ever occur in history ended, another long war was declared at its doorstep.
Churchill would announce his "Iron Curtain" against communism on March 5th, 1946, and there was no turning back at that point. The
world had a mere 6 months to recover before it would be embroiled in another terrible war, except for the French, who would go to
war against the Viet Minh opponents in French Indochina only days after WWII was over.
In a previous paper I wrote titled
"On Churchill's Sinews
of Peace" , I went over a major re-organisation of the American government and its foreign intelligence bureau on the onset of
Truman's de facto presidency. Recall that there was an attempted military coup d'état, which was
exposed by General Butler in a public address in 1933,
against the Presidency of FDR who was only inaugurated that year. One could say that there was a very marked disapproval from shadowy
corners for how Roosevelt would organise the government.
One key element to this reorganisation under Truman was the dismantling of the previously existing foreign intelligence bureau
that was formed by FDR, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) on Sept 20, 1945 only two weeks after WWII was officially declared
over. The OSS would be replaced by the CIA officially on Sept 18, 1947, with two years of an American intelligence purge and the
internal shifting of chess pieces in the shadows. In addition, de-facto President Truman would also found the United States National
Security Council on Sept 18, 1947, the same day he founded the CIA. The NSC was a council whose intended function was to serve as
the President's principal arm for coordinating national security, foreign policies and policies among various government agencies.
" In 1955, I was designated to establish an office of special operations in compliance with National Security Council (NSC)
Directive #5412 of March 15, 1954. This NSC Directive for the first time in the history of the United States defined covert operations
and assigned that role to the Central Intelligence Agency to perform such missions , provided they had been directed to do so
by the NSC, and further ordered active-duty Armed Forces personnel to avoid such operations. At the same time, the Armed Forces
were directed to "provide the military support of the clandestine operations of the CIA" as an official function . "
What this meant, was that there was to be an intermarriage of the foreign intelligence bureau with the military, and that the
foreign intelligence bureau would act as top dog in the relationship, only taking orders from the NSC. Though the NSC includes the
President, as we will see, the President is very far from being in the position of determining the NSC's policies.
An Inheritance of Secret Wars
" There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare. "
– Sun Tzu
On January 20th, 1961, John F. Kennedy was inaugurated as President of the United States. Along with inheriting the responsibility
of the welfare of the country and its people, he was to also inherit a secret war with communist Cuba run by the CIA.
JFK was disliked from the onset by the CIA and certain corridors of the Pentagon, they knew where he stood on foreign matters
and that it would be in direct conflict for what they had been working towards for nearly 15 years. Kennedy would inherit the CIA
secret operation against Cuba, which Prouty confirms in his book, was quietly upgraded by the CIA from the Eisenhower administration's
March 1960 approval of a modest Cuban-exile support program (which included small air drop and over-the-beach operations) to a 3,000
man invasion brigade just before Kennedy entered office.
This was a massive change in plans that was determined by neither President Eisenhower, who warned at the end of his term of the
military industrial complex as a loose cannon, nor President Kennedy, but rather the foreign intelligence bureau who has never been
subject to election or judgement by the people. It shows the level of hostility that Kennedy encountered as soon as he entered office,
and the limitations of a President's power when he does not hold support from these intelligence and military quarters.
Within three months into JFK's term, Operation Bay of Pigs (April 17th to 20th 1961) was scheduled. As the popular revisionist
history goes; JFK refused to provide air cover for the exiled Cuban brigade and the land invasion was a calamitous failure and a
decisive victory for Castro's Cuba. It was indeed an embarrassment for President Kennedy who had to take public responsibility for
the failure, however, it was not an embarrassment because of his questionable competence as a leader. It was an embarrassment because,
had he not taken public responsibility, he would have had to explain the real reason why it failed. That the CIA and military were
against him and that he did not have control over them. If Kennedy were to admit such a thing, he would have lost all credibility
as a President in his own country and internationally, and would have put the people of the United States in immediate danger amidst
a Cold War.
What really occurred was that there was a cancellation of the essential pre-dawn airstrike, by the Cuban Exile Brigade bombers
from Nicaragua, to destroy Castro's last three combat jets. This airstrike was ordered by Kennedy himself. Kennedy was always against
an American invasion of Cuba, and striking Castro's last jets by the Cuban Exile Brigade would have limited Castro's threat, without
the U.S. directly supporting a regime change operation within Cuba. This went fully against the CIA's plan for Cuba.
Kennedy's order for the airstrike on Castro's jets would be cancelled by Special Assistant for National Security Affairs McGeorge
Bundy, four hours before the Exile Brigade's B-26s were to take off from Nicaragua, Kennedy was not brought into this decision. In
addition, the Director of Central Intelligence Allen Dulles, the man in charge of the Bay of Pigs operation was unbelievably out
of the country on the day of the landings.
Col. Prouty, who was Chief of Special Operations during this time, elaborates on this situation:
" Everyone connected with the planning of the Bay of Pigs invasion knew that the policy dictated by NSC 5412, positively prohibited
the utilization of active-duty military personnel in covert operations. At no time was an "air cover" position written into the
official invasion plan The "air cover" story that has been created is incorrect. "
As a result, JFK who well understood the source of this fiasco, set up a Cuban Study Group the day after and charged it with the
responsibility of determining the cause for the failure of the operation. The study group, consisting of Allen Dulles, Gen. Maxwell
Taylor, Adm. Arleigh Burke and Attorney General Robert Kennedy (the only member JFK could trust), concluded that the failure was
due to Bundy's telephone call to General Cabell (who was also CIA Deputy Director) that cancelled the President's air strike order.
Kennedy had them.
Humiliatingly, CIA Director Allen Dulles was part of formulating the conclusion that the Bay of Pigs op was a failure because
of the CIA's intervention into the President's orders. This allowed for Kennedy to issue the National Security Action Memorandum
#55 on June 28th, 1961, which began the process of changing the responsibility from the CIA to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As Prouty
states,
" When fully implemented, as Kennedy had planned, after his reelection in 1964, it would have taken the CIA out of the covert
operation business. This proved to be one of the first nails in John F. Kennedy's coffin. "
If this was not enough of a slap in the face to the CIA, Kennedy forced the resignation of CIA Director Allen Dulles, CIA Deputy
Director for Plans Richard M. Bissell Jr. and CIA Deputy Director Charles Cabell.
In Oct 1962, Kennedy was informed that Cuba had offensive Soviet missiles 90 miles from American shores. Soviet ships with more
missiles were on their way towards Cuba but ended up turning around last minute. Rumours started to abound that JFK had cut a secret
deal with Russian Premier Khrushchev, which was that the U.S. would not invade Cuba if the Soviets withdrew their missiles. Criticisms
of JFK being soft on communism began to stir.
NSAM #263, closely overseen by Kennedy, was released on Oct 11th, 1963, and outlined a policy decision " to withdraw 1,000
military personnel [from Vietnam] by the end of 1963 " and further stated that " It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of
U.S. personnel [including the CIA and military] by 1965. " The Armed Forces newspaper Stars and Stripes had the headline U.S.
TROOPS SEEN OUT OF VIET BY '65. Kennedy was winning the game and the American people.
This was to be the final nail in Kennedy's coffin.
Kennedy was brutally shot down only one month later, on Nov, 22nd 1963. His death should not just be seen as a tragic loss but,
more importantly, it should be recognised for the successful military coup d'état that it was and is . The CIA showed what lengths
it was ready to go to if a President stood in its way. (For more information on this coup refer to District Attorney of New Orleans
at the time, Jim Garrison's
book . And the excellently
researched Oliver Stone movie "JFK")
Through the Looking Glass
On Nov. 26th 1963, a full four days after Kennedy's murder, de facto President Johnson signed NSAM #273 to begin the change of
Kennedy's policy under #263. And on March 4th, 1964, Johnson signed NSAM #288 that marked the full escalation of the Vietnam War
and involved 2,709,918 Americans directly serving in Vietnam, with 9,087,000 serving with the U.S. Armed Forces during this period.
The Vietnam War, or more accurately the Indochina War, would continue for another 12 years after Kennedy's death, lasting a total
of 20 years for Americans.
Scattered black ops wars continued, but the next large scale-never ending war that would involve the world would begin full force
on Sept 11, 2001 under the laughable title War on Terror, which is basically another Iron Curtain, a continuation of a 74 year Cold
War. A war that is not meant to end until the ultimate regime changes are accomplished and the world sees the toppling of Russia
and China. Iraq was destined for invasion long before the vague Gulf War of 1990 and even before Saddam Hussein was being backed
by the Americans in the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s. Iran already suffered a CIA backed regime change in 1979.
It had been understood far in advance by the CIA and US military that the toppling of sovereignty in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran
needed to occur before Russia and China could be taken over. Such war tactics were formulaic after 3 decades of counterinsurgency
against the CIA fueled "communist-insurgency" of Indochina. This is how today's terrorist-inspired insurgency functions, as a perfect
CIA formula for an endless bloodbath.
Former CIA Deputy Director (2010-2013) Michael Morell, who was supporting Hillary Clinton during the presidential election campaign
and vehemently against the election of Trump, whom he claimed was being manipulated by Putin, said in a 2016 interview with Charlie
Rose that Russians and Iranians in Syria should be killed covertly
to 'pay the price' .
Therefore, when a drone stroke occurs assassinating an Iranian Maj. Gen., even if the U.S. President takes onus on it, I would
not be so quick as to believe that that is necessarily the case, or the full story. Just as I would not take the statements of President
Rouhani accepting responsibility for the Iranian military shooting down 'by accident' the Boeing 737-800 plane which contained 176
civilians, who were mostly Iranian, as something that can be relegated to criminal negligence, but rather that there is very likely
something else going on here.
I would also not be quick to dismiss the timely release, or better described as leaked, draft letter from the US Command in Baghdad
to the Iraqi government that suggests a removal of American forces from the country. Its timing certainly puts the President in a
compromised situation. Though the decision to keep the American forces within Iraq or not is hardly a simple matter that the President
alone can determine. In fact there is no reason why, after reviewing the case of JFK, we should think such a thing.
One could speculate that the President was set up, with the official designation of the IRGC as "terrorist" occurring in April
2019 by the US State Department, a decision that was strongly supported by both Bolton and Pompeo, who were both members of the NSC
at the time. This made it legal for a US military drone strike to occur against Soleimani under the 2001 AUMF, where the US military
can attack any armed group deemed to be a terrorist threat. Both Bolton and Pompeo made no secret that they were overjoyed by Soleimani's
assassination and Bolton went so far as to tweet "Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran." Bolton has also made it
no secret that he is eager to testify against Trump in his possible impeachment trial.
Former CIA Director Mike Pompeo was recorded at an unknown
conference recently, but judging from the gross laughter of the audience it consists of wannabe CIA agents, where he admits that
though West Points' cadet motto is "You will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do.", his training under the CIA was
the very opposite, stating " I was the CIA Director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. It was like we had entire training courses. (long
pause) It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment. "
Thus, it should be no surprise to anyone in the world at this point in history, that the CIA holds no allegiance to any country.
And it can be hardly expected that a President, who is actively under attack from all sides within his own country, is in a position
to hold the CIA accountable for its past and future crimes .
". . . the CIA holds no allegiance to any country." But they sure kiss the *** of the financial sociopaths who write their
paychecks and finance the black ops.
Fletcher Prouty's book The Secret Team is a must read... he was on the inside and watched the formation of the permanent team
established in the late 50s that assumed the power of the president.
Look at who the OSS recruited - Ivy League Skull and Bones types from rich families that made their fortunes in often questionable
ventures.
If you're the patriarch of some super wealthy family wouldn't you be thrilled to have younger family members working for the
nation's intelligence agencies? Sort of the ultimate in 'inside information'. Plus these families had experience in things like
drug smuggling, human trafficking and anything else you can imagine..... While the Brits started the opium trade with China, Americans
jumped right in bringing opium from Turkey.
Didn't take long before the now CIA became owned by the families whose members staffed it.
One major aspect pertaining American involvment in Veitnam was something like 90% of the rubber produced Globally came from
the region.
It is more diverse now, being 3rd, with the association revealing that in 2017, Vietnam earned US$2.3 billion from export of
1.4 million tonnes of natural rubber, up 36% in value and 11.4% in volume year on year.
Rockfellers formed the OSS then the CIA which is the brute force for the CFR which they also run and own. The bankers run y
our country and bought and blackmailed all your politicians... Only buttplug and pedo's get to be in charge now folks.... and
some 9th circle witches of course...
The USA is an imperial country. And wars is how empire is sustained and expanded. Bacevich does not even mention this
fact.
Notable quotes:
"... While perfunctory congressional hearings may yet occur, a meaningful response -- one that would demand accountability, for example -- is about as likely as a bipartisan resolution to the impeachment crisis. ..."
"... This implicit willingness to write off a costly, unwinnable, and arguably unnecessary war should itself prompt sober reflection. What we have here is a demonstration of how pervasive and deeply rooted American militarism has become. ..."
"... we have become a nation given to misusing military power, abusing American soldiers, and averting our gaze from the results. ..."
"... The impeachment hearings were probably the reason the WaPo published when it did. After all, the article tells us little that any semi-sentient observer hasn't known for over a decade now. ..."
"... Then, today, we have another American trooper killed in Afghanistan, with many Afghans. Then, we have Trump, jutting his jaw out, as usual, to show how tough he is and...by golly, how tough America is. How patriotic! Damn it! Rah rah. He pardons and receives a war criminal at the white house, one of those Seals that murdered Afghans. ..."
"... By military standards, there is supposed to be rules of engagement and punishment for outright breaking of such rules. But no, Trump is one ignorant, cold dude and the misery in numerous US invaded nations means nothing to this bum with a title and money ..."
"... Were our senior government leaders more familiar with military service, especially as front line soldiers, they might have been less inclined to dawdle in these matters, agree with obfuscated results for political reasons, and waste so much effort. ..."
The Afghanistan Papers could have been the start of redemption, but it's all been subsumed
by impeachment and an uninterested public.
....
While perfunctory congressional hearings may yet occur, a meaningful response -- one
that would demand accountability, for example -- is about as likely as a bipartisan resolution
to the impeachment crisis.
This implicit willingness to write off a costly, unwinnable, and arguably unnecessary war
should itself prompt sober reflection. What we have here is a demonstration of how pervasive
and deeply rooted American militarism has become.
Take seriously the speechifying heard on the floor of the House of Representatives in recent
days and you'll be reassured that the United States remains a nation of laws, with Democrats
and Republicans alike affirming their determination to defend our democracy and preserve the
Constitution, even while disagreeing on what that might require at present.
Take seriously the contents of the Afghanistan Papers and you'll reach a different
conclusion: we have become a nation given to misusing military power, abusing American
soldiers, and averting our gaze from the results. U.S. military expenditures and the Pentagon's
array of foreign bases far exceed those of any other nation on the planet. In our willingness
to use force, we (along with Israel) lead the pack. Putative adversaries such as China and
Russia are models of self-restraint by comparison. And when it comes to cumulative body count,
the United States is in a league of its own.
Yet since the end of the Cold War and especially since 9/11, U.S. forces have rarely
accomplished the purposes for which they are committed, the Pentagon concealing failure by
downsizing its purposes. Afghanistan offers a good example. What began as Operation Enduring
Freedom has become in all but name Operation Decent Interval, the aim being to disengage in a
manner that will appear responsible, if only for a few years until the bottom falls out.
So the real significance of the Post 's Afghanistan Papers is this: t hey invite
Americans to contemplate a particularly vivid example what our misplaced infatuation with
military power produces. Sadly, it appears evident that we will refuse the invitation. Don't
blame Trump for this particular example of Washington's egregious irresponsibility.
Andrew Bacevich is president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. His new
book, The Age of Illusions: How America Squandered Its Cold War Victory ,will
be published next month.
The impeachment hearings were probably the reason the WaPo published when it did. After all,
the article tells us little that any semi-sentient observer hasn't known for over a decade
now.
Anyway, nobody likes a bipartisan fiasco that cannot be neatly blamed on Team R (or Team
D).
Then, today, we have another American trooper killed in Afghanistan, with many Afghans.
Then, we have Trump, jutting his jaw out, as usual, to show how tough he is and...by golly,
how tough America is. How patriotic! Damn it! Rah rah.
He pardons and receives a war criminal at the white house, one of those Seals that murdered
Afghans.
By military standards, there is supposed to be rules of engagement and punishment for
outright breaking of such rules. But no, Trump is one ignorant, cold dude and the misery in
numerous US invaded nations means nothing to this bum with a title and money. What a joke
this nations foreign policy is and the ignorant, don't care American people have become. Like
never before. There were years when people actually talked about subjects. Not now, if you
mention the weather they cower and look pained. The old days really were better.
One example aside from the above: compare President Kennedy to Trump. What a riot...
Well, these documents are highly unsurprising. Everybody has known the facts for a long time.
Everybody also knows that the US "government" will not change its ways. Its sole purpose and
mission is to obliterate everything except Israel, and these documents are evidence of
massive SUCCESS in its mission, not evidence of failure.
Were our senior government leaders more familiar with military service, especially as front
line soldiers, they might have been less inclined to dawdle in these matters, agree with
obfuscated results for political reasons, and waste so much effort.
This is also to say that misleading documents and briefings from the military about
progress in Afghanistan, while contemptible, did not cause the strategic failure.
Contemporary reports from the press and other agencies indicated the effort was not working
out plainly to anyone who wanted to pay attention. Our political leaders chose to ignore the
truth for political gain.
A more realistic temperament chastened by experience would have been more inclined to
criticize and make corrections, and summon the courage to cut our losses rather than crow
ignominiously about "cutting and running." Few such temperaments, it seems at least, make it
to the top thee days.
"... Yet the mass media, freakishly, has had absolutely nothing to say about this extremely newsworthy story. ..."
"... The mass media's stone-dead silence on the OPCW scandal is becoming its own scandal, of equal or perhaps even greater significance than the OPCW scandal itself. It opens up a whole litany of questions which have tremendous importance for every citizen of the western world; questions like, how are people supposed to participate in democracy if all the outlets they normally turn to to make informed voting decisions adamantly refuse to tell them about the existence of massive news stories like the OPCW scandal? How are people meant to address such conspiracies of silence when there is no mechanism in place to hold the entire mass media to account for its complicity in it? And by what mechanism are all these outlets unifying in that conspiracy of silence? ..."
"... This is the FOURTH leak showing how the OPCW fabricated a report on a supposed Syrian 'chemical' attack," tweeted journalist Ben Norton. "And mainstream Western corporate media outlets are still silent, showing how authoritarian these 'democracies' are and how tightly they control info." "Media silence on this story is its own scandal," "Media silence on this story is its own scandal," "Media silence on this story is its own scandal," tweeted journalist Aaron Maté. ..."
This is getting really, really, really weird. WikiLeaks has WikiLeaks has
published yet another set of leaked
internal documents from within the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) adding even more material to
the mountain of evidence that we've been lied to about an alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria last year which resulted
in airstrikes upon that nation from the US, UK and France.
Maybe, the Dulles Brothers had a deeper understanding of the logic of the US-Empire then
Kinzer with their conviction that they could not allow third-world-countries to be
independent.
"... CNN concluded that "America's Russia nightmare is back." Maddow was ecstatic, bleating "Here we go again," recycling her failed conspiracy theories whole. Everybody quoted Adam Schiff firing off that Trump was "again jeopardizing our efforts to stop foreign meddling." Tying it all to the failed impeachment efforts, another writer said , "'Let the Voters Decide' doesn't work if Trump fires his national security staff so Russia can help him again." The NYT fretted , "Trump is intensifying his efforts to undermine the nation's intelligence agencies." John Brennan (after leaking for a while, most boils dry up and go away) said , "we are now in a full-blown national security crisis." The undead Hillary Clinton tweeted , "Putin's Puppet is at it again." ..."
"... But it's still a miss on Bernie. He did well in Nevada despite the leaks, though Russiagate II has a long way to go. Bernie himself assured us of that. Instead of pooh-poohing the idea that the Russians might be working for him, he instead gave it cred, saying , "Some of the ugly stuff on the internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real supporters." ..."
"... The world's greatest intelligence team can't seem to come up with anything more specific than "interfering" and "meddling," as if pesky Aunt Vladimir is gossiping at the general store again. CBS reports that House members pressed the ODNI for evidence, such as phone intercepts, to back up claims that Russia is trying to help Trump, but briefers had none to offer. Even Jake Tapper , a Deep State loyalty card holder, raised some doubts. WaPo , which hosted one of the leaks, had to admit "It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken." ..."
"... Yes, yes, they have to protect sources and methods, but of course the quickest way to stop Russian influence is to expose it. Instead the ODNI dropped the turd in the punchbowl and walked away. Why not tell the public what media is being bought, which outlets are working, willingly or not, with Putin? Did the Reds implant a radio chip in Biden's skull? Will we be left hanging with the info-free claim "something something social media" again? ..."
"... Because the intel community learned its lesson in Russiagate I. Details can be investigated. That's where the old story fell apart. The dossier wasn't true. Michael Cohen never met the Russians in Prague. The a-ha discovery was that voters don't read much anyway, so just make claims. You'll never really prosecute or impeach anyone, so why bother with evidence (see everything Ukraine)? Just throw out accusations and let the media fill it all in for you. ..."
"... The intel community crossed a line in 2016, albeit clumsily (what was all that with Comey and Hillary?), to play an overt role in the electoral process. When that didn't work out and Trump was elected, they pivoted and drove us to the brink of all hell breaking loose with Russiagate I. The media welcomed and supported them. The Dems welcomed and supported them. Far too many Americans welcomed and supported them in some elaborate version of the ends justifying the means. ..."
"... The good news from 2016 was that the Deep State turned out to be less competent than we originally feared. ..."
The Russians are back, alongside the American intelligence agencies playing deep inside our elections. Who should we fear more?
Hint: not the Russians.
On February 13, the election security czar in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI)
briefed the House Intelligence Committee that the Russians were meddling again and that they favored Donald Trump. A few weeks
earlier, the ODNI
briefed Bernie Sanders that the Russians were also meddling in the Democratic primaries, this time in his favor. Both briefings
remained secret until this past week, when the former was leaked to the New York Times in time to smear Trump for replacing
his DNI, and the latter leaked to the Washington Post ahead of the Nevada caucuses to try and damage Sanders.
Russiagate is back, baby. Everyone welcome Russiagate II.
You didn't think after 2016 the bad boys of the intel "community" (which makes it sound like they all live together down in Florida
somewhere) weren't going to play their games again, and that they wouldn't learn from their mistakes? Those errors were in retrospect
amateurish. A salacious
dossier
built around a pee tape? Nefarious academics
befriending minor Trump campaign staffers who would tell all to an Aussie ambassador trolling London's pubs looking for young, fit
Americans? Falsified FISA applications when it was all too obvious even Trumpkin greenhorns weren't dumb enough to sleep with FBI
honeypots? You'd think after influencing
85 elections across the globe since World War II, they'd be better at it. But you also knew that after failing to whomp a bumpkin
like Trump once, they would keep trying.
Like any good intel op, you start with a tickle, make it seem like the targets are figuring it out for themselves. Get it out
there that Trump offered
Wikileaks' Julian Assange a pardon if he would state publicly that Russia wasn't involved in the 2016 DNC leaks. The story was all
garbage, not the least of which because Assange has been clear for years that it wasn't the Russians. And there was no offer of a
pardon from the White House. And conveniently Assange is locked in a foreign prison and can't comment.
Whatever. Just make sure you time the Assange story to hit the day after Trump pardoned numerous high-profile, white-collar criminals,
so even the casual reader had Trump = bad, with a side of Russian conspiracy, on their minds. You could almost imagine an announcer's
voice: "Previously, on Russiagate I "
Then, only a day after the Assange story (why be subtle?), the sequel hit the theaters with timed leaks to the NYT and
WaPo . The mainstream media went Code Red (the CIA has a long
history of working with the media to influence elections).
CNN
concluded that "America's Russia nightmare is back." Maddow was ecstatic,
bleating "Here we go again," recycling her failed conspiracy theories whole. Everybody quoted Adam Schiff
firing off that Trump was "again jeopardizing our efforts to stop foreign meddling." Tying it all to the failed impeachment efforts,
another writer
said , "'Let the Voters Decide' doesn't work if Trump fires his national security staff so Russia can help him again." The
NYT
fretted , "Trump is intensifying his efforts to undermine the nation's intelligence agencies." John Brennan (after leaking for
a while, most boils dry up and go away)
said , "we are now in a
full-blown national security crisis." The undead Hillary Clinton
tweeted , "Putin's Puppet is at it again."
It is clear we'll be hearing breaking and developing reports about this from sources believed to be close to others through November.
Despite the sense of desperation in the recycled memes and the way the media rose on command to the bait, it's intel community 1,
Trump 0.
But it's still a miss on Bernie. He did well in Nevada despite the leaks, though Russiagate II has a long way to go. Bernie himself
assured us of that. Instead of pooh-poohing the idea that the Russians might be working for him, he instead gave it cred,
saying , "Some of the ugly stuff on the internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real supporters."
Sanders handed Russiagate II legs, signaling that he'll use it as cover for the Bros' online shenanigans, which were called out
at the last debate. That's playing with fire: it'll be too easy later on to invoke all this with "Komrade Bernie" memes in the already
wary purple states. "Putin and Trump are picking their opponent,"
opined Rahm Emanuel to get that ball rolling.
Summary to date: everyone is certain the Russians are working to influence the election (adopts cartoon Russian accent) but who
is the cat and who is the mouse?
Is Putin helping Trump get re-elected to remain his asset in place? Or is Putin helping Bernie "I Honeymooned in the Soviet Union"
Sanders to make him look like an asset to help Trump? Or are the Russkies really all in because Bernie is a True Socialist
sleeper
agent, the Emma Goldman of his time (Bernie's old enough to have taken Emma to high school prom)? Or is it not the Russians but the
American intel community helping Bernie to make it look like Putin is helping Bernie to help Trump? Or is it the Deep State saying
the Reds are helping Bernie to hurt Bernie to help their man Bloomberg? Are Russian spies tripping over American spies in caucus
hallways trying to get to the front of the room? Who can tell what is really afoot?
See, the devil is in the details, which is why we don't have any.
The world's greatest intelligence team can't seem to come up with anything more specific than "interfering" and "meddling," as
if pesky Aunt Vladimir is gossiping at the general store again. CBS
reports that House members pressed the ODNI for evidence, such as phone intercepts, to back up claims that Russia is trying to
help Trump, but briefers had none to offer. Even
Jake Tapper , a Deep State loyalty card holder, raised some doubts. WaPo , which hosted one of the leaks, had to admit
"It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken."
Yes, yes, they have to protect sources and methods, but of course the quickest way to stop Russian influence is to expose it.
Instead the ODNI dropped the turd in the punchbowl and walked away. Why not tell the public what media is being bought, which outlets
are working, willingly or not, with Putin? Did the Reds implant a radio chip in Biden's skull? Will we be left hanging with the info-free
claim "something something social media" again?
If you're going to scream that communist zombies with MAGA hats are inside the house , you're obligated to provide a little
bit more information. Why is it when specifics are required, the
response is always something like "Well, the Russians are sowing distrust and turning Americans against themselves in a way that
weakens national unity" as if we're all not eating enough green vegetables? Why leave us exposed to Russian influence for even a
second when it could all be shut down in an instant?
Because the intel community learned its lesson in Russiagate I. Details can be investigated. That's where the old story fell
apart. The dossier wasn't true. Michael
Cohen never met the
Russians in Prague. The a-ha discovery was that voters don't read much anyway, so just make claims. You'll never really prosecute
or impeach anyone, so why bother with evidence (see everything Ukraine)? Just throw out accusations and let the media fill it all
in for you. After all, they managed to convince a large number of Americans Trump's primary purpose in running for president
was to fill vacant hotel rooms at his properties. Let the nature of the source -- the brave lads of the intelligence agencies --
legitimize the accusations this time, not facts.
It will take a while to figure out who is playing whom. Is the goal to help Trump, help Bernie, or defeat both of them to support
Bloomberg? But don't let the challenge of seeing the whole picture obscure the obvious: the American intelligence agencies are once
again inside our election.
The intel community crossed a line in 2016, albeit clumsily (what was all that with Comey and Hillary?), to play an overt
role in the electoral process. When that didn't work out and Trump was elected, they
pivoted and drove us to
the brink of all hell breaking loose with Russiagate I. The media welcomed and supported them. The Dems welcomed and supported them.
Far too many Americans welcomed and supported them in some elaborate version of the ends justifying the means.
The good news from 2016 was that the Deep State turned out to be less competent than we originally feared. But they have
learned much from those mistakes, particularly how deft a tool a compliant MSM is. This election will be a historian's marker for
how a decent nation, fully warned in 2016, fooled itself in 2020 into self-harm. Forget about foreigners influencing our elections
from the outside; the zombies are already inside the house.
"... Although corporations are legally a person (see history below), they are in fact an entity. The sole goal of that entity is
profit. There is no corporate conscience. ..."
"... Perhaps it would be useful to look at the nature of our global expansion. The global expanse of US military bases is well-known,
but its actual territorial empire is largely hidden. The true map of America is not taught in our schools. Abby Martin interviews history
Professor Daniel Immerwahr about his new book, ' How To Hide An Empire ,' where he documents the story of our "Greater United States."
This is worth the 40 minute watch...I learned several new things. One more long clip. However this one is fine to just listen to as
you do things. This is a wonderful interview with Noam Chomsky. The man exudes wisdom. ..."
"... The oligarchy has been with us since perhaps the tribal origins of our species, but the corporation is a newer phenomenon.
A faceless, soulless profit machine. Ironically it is the 14th amendment which is used to justify corporate person-hood. ..."
"... Corporations aren't specifically mentioned in the 14th Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution. But going back to the
earliest years of the republic, when the Bank of the United States brought the first corporate rights case before the Supreme Court,
U.S. corporations have sought many of the same rights guaranteed to individuals, including the rights to own property, enter into contracts,
and to sue and be sued just like individuals. ..."
"... But it wasn't until the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road that the Court appeared to grant a corporation
the same rights as an individual under the 14th Amendment ..."
"... The United States is home to five of the world's 10 largest defense contractors, and American companies account for 57 percent
of total arms sales by the world's 100 largest defense contractors, based on SIPRI data. Maryland-based Lockheed Martin, the largest
defense contractor in the world, is estimated to have had $44.9 billion in arms sales in 2017 through deals with governments all over
the world. The company drew public scrutiny after a bomb it sold to Saudi Arabia was dropped on a school bus in Yemen, killing 40 boys
and 11 adults. Lockheed's revenue from the U.S. government alone is well more than the total annual budgets of the IRS and the Environmental
Protection Agency, combined. ..."
"... http://news.nidokidos.org/military-spending-20-companies-profiting-the-m... For a list of the 20 companies profiting most off
war... https://themindunleashed.com/2019/03/20-companies-profiting-war.html ..."
"... Capitalism, militarism and imperialism are disastrously intertwined ..."
"... Corporations are Religions Yes they are. They have ethics, goals, and priests. They have a god who determines everything "The
Invisible Hand". They believe themselves to be superior to the state. They have cult garb, or are we not going to pretend that there's
corporate dress codes, right down to the things you can wear on special days of the week. They determine what you can eat, drink and
read. If you say something wrong, they feel within their rights to punish you because they OWN the medium that you used to spread ideas.
OF course they don't own your thoughts... those belong to the OTHER god. ..."
Chris Hedges often says "The corporate coup is complete". Sadly I think he is correct. So this week I thought it might be interesting
to explore the techniques which are used here at home and abroad. The oligarchs' corporate control is global, but different strategies
are employed in various scenarios. Just thinking about the recent regime changes promoted by the US in this hemisphere...
The current attempts at the Venezuelan, Nicaraguan, Cuban, and Iranian coups are primarily conducted
using economic sanctions
.
The US doesn't even lie about past coups. They recently
released a report about the 1953
CIA led coup against Iran detailing the strategies. Here at home it is a compliant media and a new array of corporate laws designed
to protect and further enrich that spell the corporate capture of our culture and society. So let's begin by looking at the nature
of corporations...
The following 2.5 hour documentary from 2004 features commentary from Chris, Noam, Naomi, and many others you know. It has some
great old footage. It is best watched on a television so you have a bigger screen. (This clip is on the encore+ youtube channel and
does have commercials which you can skip after 5 seconds) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpQYsk-8dWg
Based on Joel Bakan's bestseller The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power , this 26-award-winning
documentary explores a corporation's inner workings, curious history, controversial impacts and possible futures.
One hundred
and fifty years ago, a corporation was a relatively insignificant entity. Today, it is a vivid, dramatic, and pervasive presence
in all our lives. Like the Church, the Monarchy and the Communist Party in other times and places, a corporation is today's dominant
institution.
Charting the rise of such an institution aimed at achieving specific economic goals, the documentary also recounts
victories against this apparently invincible force.
Although corporations are legally a person (see history below), they are in fact an entity. The sole goal of that entity is
profit. There is no corporate conscience. Some of the CEO's in the film discuss how all the people in the corporations are against
pollution and so on, but by law stockholder profit must be the objective. Now these entities are global operations with no loyalty
to their country of origin.
Perhaps it would be useful to look at the nature of our global expansion. The global expanse of US military bases is well-known,
but its actual territorial empire is largely hidden. The true map of America is not taught in our schools. Abby Martin interviews
history Professor Daniel Immerwahr about his new book, ' How To Hide An Empire ,' where he documents the story of our
"Greater United States." This is worth the 40 minute watch...I learned several new things. One more long clip. However this one is
fine to just listen to as you do things. This is a wonderful interview with Noam Chomsky. The man exudes wisdom.
So much of this conversation touches on today's topic of our corporate capture. Amy interviewed Ed Snowden this week... (video or text)
This is a system, the first system in history, that bore witness to everything. Every border you crossed, every purchase you
make, every call you dial, every cell phone tower you pass, friends you keep, article you write, site you visit and subject line
you type was now in the hands of a system whose reach is unlimited but whose safeguards were not. And I felt, despite what the
law said, that this was something that the public ought to know.
The oligarchy has been with us since perhaps the tribal origins of our species, but the corporation is a newer phenomenon.
A faceless, soulless profit machine. Ironically it is the 14th amendment which is used to justify corporate person-hood.
Corporations aren't specifically mentioned in the 14th Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution. But going back
to the earliest years of the republic, when the Bank of the United States brought the first corporate rights case before the Supreme
Court, U.S. corporations have sought many of the same rights guaranteed to individuals, including the rights to own property,
enter into contracts, and to sue and be sued just like individuals.
But it wasn't until the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road that the Court appeared to grant a corporation
the same rights as an individual under the 14th Amendment
More recently in 2010 (Citizens United v. FEC): In the run up to the 2008 election, the Federal Elections Commission blocked the
conservative nonprofit Citizens United from airing a film about Hillary Clinton based on a law barring companies from using their
funds for "electioneering communications" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. The organization sued, arguing
that, because people's campaign donations are a protected form of speech (see Buckley v. Valeo) and corporations and people enjoy
the same legal rights, the government can't limit a corporation's independent political donations. The Supreme Court agreed. The
Citizens United ruling may be the most sweeping expansion of corporate personhood to date.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/how-supreme-court-turned-co...
Do they really believe this is how we think?
More than just using the courts, corporations are knee deep in creating favorable laws, not just by lobbying, but by actually
writing legislation to feed the politicians that they own and control, especially at the state level.
Through ALEC, Global Corporations Are Scheming to Rewrite YOUR Rights and Boost THEIR Revenue. Through the corporate-funded
American Legislative Exchange Council, global corporations and state politicians vote behind closed doors to try to rewrite state
laws that govern your rights. These so-called "model bills" reach into almost every area of American life and often directly benefit
huge corporations.
In ALEC's own words, corporations have "a VOICE and a VOTE" on specific changes to the law that are then proposed in your state.
DO YOU? Numerous resources to help us expose ALEC are provided below. We have also created links to detailed discussions of key
issues...
There is very little effort to hide the blatant corruption. People seem to accept this behavior as business as usual, after all
it is.
Part of the current ALEC legislative agenda involves stifling protests.
I think it started in Texas...
A bill making its way through the Texas legislature would make protesting pipelines a third-degree felony, the same as attempted
murder.
H.B. 3557, which is under consideration in the state Senate after passing the state House earlier this month, ups penalties for
interfering in energy infrastructure construction by making the protests a felony. Sentences would range from two to 10 years.
Lawmakers in Wisconsin introduced a bill on September 5 designed to chill protests around oil and gas pipelines and other energy
infrastructure in the state by imposing harsh criminal penalties for trespassing on or damaging the property of a broad range
of "energy providers."
Senate Bill 386 echoes similar "critical infrastructure protection" model bills pushed out by the American Legislative Exchange
Council (ALEC) and the Council of State Governments over the last two years to prevent future protests like the one against the
Dakota Access Pipeline.
And Chris was on the evening RT news this week discussing how the US empire is striking back against leaders who help their own
people rather than our global corporations.
Financially, the cost of these wars is immense: more than $6 trillion dollars. The cost of these wars is just one element of
the $1.2 trillion the US government spends annually on wars and war making. Half of each dollar paid in federal income tax
goes towards some form or consequence of war . While the results of such spending are not hard to foresee or understand:
a cyclical and dependent relationship between the Pentagon, weapons industry and Congress, the creation of a whole new class of
worker and wealth distribution is not so understood or noticed, but exists and is especially malignant.
This is a ghastly redistribution of wealth, perhaps unlike any known in modern human history, certainly not in American history.
As taxpayers send trillions to Washington. DC, that money flows to the men and women that remotely oversee, manage and staff the
wars that kill and destroy millions of lives overseas and at home. Hundreds of thousands of federal employees and civilian contractors
servicing the wars take home six figure annual salaries allowing them second homes, luxury cars and plastic surgery, while veterans
put guns in their mouths, refugees die in capsized boats and as many as four million nameless souls scream silently in death.
These AUMFs (Authorization for Use of Military Force) and the wars have provided tens of thousands of recruits to international
terror groups; mass profits to the weapons industry and those that service it; promotions to generals and admirals, with
corporate board seats upon retirement ; and a perpetual and endless supply of bloody shirts for politicians to wave via
an unquestioning and obsequious corporate media to stoke compliant anger and malleable fear. What is hard to imagine, impossible
even, is anyone else who has benefited from these wars.
The United States is home to five of the world's 10 largest defense contractors, and American companies account for 57 percent
of total arms sales by the world's 100 largest defense contractors, based on SIPRI data. Maryland-based Lockheed Martin, the largest
defense contractor in the world, is estimated to have had $44.9 billion in arms sales in 2017 through deals with governments all
over the world. The company drew public scrutiny after a bomb it sold to Saudi Arabia was dropped on a school bus in Yemen, killing
40 boys and 11 adults. Lockheed's revenue from the U.S. government alone is well more than the total annual budgets of the IRS and
the Environmental Protection Agency, combined.
The obvious industry which was not included nor considered is the fossil fuel industry. Here's another example of mutual corporate
interests.
"Capitalism, militarism and imperialism are disastrously intertwined with the fossil fuel economy .A globalized economy
predicated on growth at any social or environmental costs, carbon dependent international trade, the limitless extraction of natural
resources, and a view of citizens as nothing more than consumers cannot be the basis for tackling climate change .Little wonder
then that the elites have nothing to offer beyond continued militarisation and trust in techno-fixes."
The US military is one of the largest consumers and emitters of carbon-dioxide equivalent (CO2e) in history, according to an
independent analysis of global fuel-buying practices of a "virtually unresearched" government agency.
If the US military were its own country, it would rank 47th between Peru and Portugal in terms of annual fuel purchases, totaling
almost 270,000 barrels of oil bought every day in 2017. In particular, the Air Force is the largest emitter of greenhouse gas
emissions and bought $4.9 billion of fuel in 2017 – nearly double that of the Navy ($2.8 billion).
The fossil fuel giants even try to control the climate talks...
Oil and gas groups were accused Saturday of seeking to influence climate talks in Madrid by paying millions in sponsorship
and sending dozens of lobbyists to delay what scientists say is a necessary and rapid cut in fossil fuel use.
The corporations are so entwined that it is difficult to tell where they begin and end. There's the unity of private prisons and
the war machine. And it's a global scheme...this example from the UK.
One thing is clear: the prison industrial complex and the global war machine are intimately connected. This summer's prison
strike that began in the United States and spread to other countries was the largest in history. It shows more than ever that
prisoners are resisting this penal regime, often at great risk to themselves. The battle to end prison slavery continues.
The 2017 tax bill cut taxes for most Americans, including the middle class, but it heavily benefits the wealthy and corporations
. It slashed the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, and its treatment of "pass-through" entities -- companies organized
as sole proprietorships, partnerships, LLCs, or S corporations -- will translate to an estimated $17 billion in tax savings for
millionaires this year. American corporations are showering their shareholders with stock buybacks, thanks in part to their tax
savings.
Even Robert Jackson Jr., commissioner at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Appointed to the SEC in 2017 by President Donald
Trump. Confirmed in January 2018 sees the corporate cuts as absurd.
"We have been to the movie of tax cuts and buybacks before, in the Republican administration during the George W. Bush era.
We enacted a quite substantial tax cut during that period. And studies after that showed very clearly that most corporations use
the funds from that tax cut for buybacks. And here's the kicker. That particular tax cut actually required that companies deploy
the capital for capital expenditures, wage increases and investments in their people. Yet studies showed that, in fact, the companies
use them for buybacks. So we've been to this movie before. And what you're describing to me, that corporations turned around and
took the Trump tax cut and didn't use it in investing in their people or in infrastructure, but instead for other purposes, shouldn't
surprise anybody at all."
So the corporations grow larger, wealthier, more powerful, buying evermore legislative influence along the way. They have crept
into almost every aspect of our lives. Some doctors are beginning to see the influence of big pharma and other corporate interests
are effecting the current practice of medicine.
Gary Fettke is a doctor from Tasmania who has been targeted for promoting a high fat low carb diet...threatened with losing
his medical qualifications. He doesn't pull punches in this presentation discussing the corporate control of big ag/food and big
pharma on medical practice and education. (27 min)
Corporations are Religions
Yes they are. They have ethics, goals, and priests. They have a god who determines everything "The Invisible Hand". They believe
themselves to be superior to the state. They have cult garb, or are we not going to pretend that there's corporate dress codes,
right down to the things you can wear on special days of the week. They determine what you can eat, drink and read. If you say
something wrong, they feel within their rights to punish you because they OWN the medium that you used to spread ideas. OF course
they don't own your thoughts... those belong to the OTHER god.
At least the crazy made up gods that I listen to don't usually
fuck over other human beings for a goddamn percentage. ON the other hand, if a corporation can make a profit, it's REQUIRED to
fuck you over. To do otherwise would be against it's morals. Which it does have, trust us... OH, and corporations get to make
fun of your beliefs, but you CANNOT make fun of theirs. Because that would be heresy against logic and reason.
In a local newspaper showed a couple coming out of a Wal-Mart with their carts piled high with big boxed foreign junk, then
shown cramming their SUV full of said junk. The headline read "Crazy Busy". It pretty much summed up what is wrong with the American
consumer culture. The next day's big headline spotlighted our senator's picture affixed to a LARGE headline boasting "$22 Billion
Submarine Contract Awarded". A good example of of what is wrong with the american war economy.
Thank you for your compilation Lookout! If we can get beyond the headlines, working at grass root and local solutions, maybe
even underground revolution, there may be hope for us. Barter for a better future.
My buddies always say about their mayor..."There's no way we will trade down after this election...but then we do." Perhaps
it is true for more than just their town.
The line running in my head is..."What if they gave a war and nobody came". I want to expand it to..."What if they made cheap
junk no one really wanted and nobody bought it". Or substitute junk food for cheap junk, or...
My point in today's conclusion is much as I try to walk away from corporate culture/control, I really can't totally escape...but
at least I spend most of my time in the open, breathing clean air, surrounded by forest. We do what we can.
Consumerism in our society is a plague, a disease perpetrated upon us by our corporate lords. It has taken over everything
about being an American.
I think the youth are catching on, as they are thrifting more, but they don't understand about food, and that's the rub. Our
youth will be more unhealthy until they understand what corporations are doing to us through food addictions.
We're expecting rain today for most of the day and actually it's just started. The person who will drill our well came by yesterday
and figured out some details. We are behind two other wells, so it will probably be the holiday week when it happens - we'll see.
I can wait til January and hope we do.
Ideas is that new deal of FDR's day had corporate opponents far different than those of today. Sanders does not seem to understand
that the corporations of yesterday, and what worked against them, will not work against the corporations of today. In the early part of the 20th century, corporations were still primarily domestic and local often with charters from the state
where they conducted their primary business, many times all of their business.
Regulation and unions were reasonable anti-dotes to the abuses of these local and domestic corporations. The state still had
some semblance of control over them.
But today corporations are global. They have no allegiance to, or concern for the domestic economy or local people. They do not fear of any anti-dotes that worked for years against domestic or local corporations. Global corporations just leave
and go elsewhere if they don't like the domestic or local situation if they have not managed to completely take over the government.
There is only one reason to incorporate in the first place. That is for the owner(s) of the business to avoid personal liability
or responsibility. The majority of people never understand this idea. Corporate owners are the people who are the genuine personal
responsibility avoiders. Not the poor. The only antidote to corporations these days is the total demise of the corporation and
its similar business entities that dodge personal responsibility. And the state must refuse to allow any such entities to do business.
It is the only way forward. Otherwise nation states will give way to corporate states. Corporate governance is the new feudalism
from which the old feudalism morphed.
Sanders isn't going to advocate doing away with corporate entities or other similar business entities. Nor will any of the
Democratic contenders. They all require corporations to rail against as the basis for their political policy.
...and I've always wondered just how Bernie would dismantle them. However like the impotence of the impeachment, is the impotence
of the primary process.
When the DNC was sued after 2016, they were
exonerated based on the ruling they were a private entity entitled to make rules as the wanted. The primary is so obviously
rigged I can almost guarantee Bernie will not be allowed the nomination, so the question to how he would change corporate control
is really moot.
@Lookout I probably
could get on board with a Sanders campaign if he would run as an Independent. But it is really hard to get on board with him as
a Democrat. If he loses the nomination, he will probably not run as an Independent once again. Once he bailed on an Independent
run last time, I and many others bailed on him. I would support his Independent candidacy just to screw with the Electoral College.
I thought last time an independent candidacy might have thrown the election to the House of Representatives. I could see a Democratically
controlled House voting for him over Trump in a three way EC split if the Democratic candidate took low EC numbers.
But he is so afraid of being tarred with the Nader moniker.
What I said many times on websites last election is that an EC vote is very similar to a Parliamentary Election. And that would
be an interesting change for sure. It would also be a means of having the popular vote winner restored if there is a big enough
margin in the House. And what would be equally cool is that the Senate picks the VP. So you could have President and VP from different
parties.
if Bernie got the nomination, I would vote for him, especially in this imaginary world, if Tulsi was his running mate. Then there
the question about your vote being counted? We'll just have to see what we see and make judgements based on outcomes, IMO.
#4.1 I probably could get on board with
a Sanders campaign if he would run as an Independent. But it is really hard to get on board with him as a Democrat. If he loses
the nomination, he will probably not run as an Independent once again. Once he bailed on an Independent run last time, I and
many others bailed on him. I would support his Independent candidacy just to screw with the Electoral College. I thought last
time an independent candidacy might have thrown the election to the House of Representatives. I could see a Democratically
controlled House voting for him over Trump in a three way EC split if the Democratic candidate took low EC numbers.
But he is so afraid of being tarred with the Nader moniker.
What I said many times on websites last election is that an EC vote is very similar to a Parliamentary Election. And that
would be an interesting change for sure. It would also be a means of having the popular vote winner restored if there is a
big enough margin in the House. And what would be equally cool is that the Senate picks the VP. So you could have President
and VP from different parties.
@Lookout The only
way the Democrats might beat Trump is to have Sanders run as an Independent and prevent Trump from reaching 270. That is a far
better way to beat Trump than impeachment. Would the house vote for the Democrat or an Independent? I guess it would depend on
how Sanders did in the popular vote and EC against his Democratic rival.
#4.1.1 if Bernie got the nomination, I would vote for him, especially in this imaginary world, if Tulsi was his running mate. Then
there the question about your vote being counted? We'll just have to see what we see and make judgements based on outcomes,
IMO.
If it was Hillary "Dewey Cheatem & Howe" Clinton, all bets are off.
#4.1.1.1 The only way the Democrats
might beat Trump is to have Sanders run as an Independent and prevent Trump from reaching 270. That is a far better way to
beat Trump than impeachment. Would the house vote for the Democrat or an Independent? I guess it would depend on how Sanders
did in the popular vote and EC against his Democratic rival.
Good lord.that she did that is unbelievable. Great point. Boycott Fox News, but go on Stern's show. It's going to be fun to
watch how much lower she falls.
MSNBC invited on two former Hillary Clinton aides to criticize Bernie Sanders for taking a "long time to get out of the
race" and that he didn't do "enough" campaigning for her in 2016. pic.twitter.com/6Vsqo0DKZI
@TheOtherMaven They
have to choose from actual EC vote getters. So if she is not the candidate she could not win.
Having Sanders run as an Independent and Warren or Biden run as a Democrat would be a much better strategy to ensure a Trump
loss in the House. Of course it might take some coordination as in asking the voters to vote for the candidate who has the best
chance of beating Trump in certain states. But voters could probably figure that out.
Or a candidate could just withdraw from a state in which the other candidate had a better chance of beating Trump.
Lookout as usual you have done an excellent job of giving me a lot of articles to read and think about this next week.
Of course I need to be loading my car and shutting this place down as I head to the Texas hill country. Will look for an article
about Kinder Morgan and small communities that are fighting the pipeline through their towns. The read was a little hopeful.
Watching the weather and it looks like sunshine and clear skies as I travel. Thanks for all your work in putting this together.
I like to travel on the old roads
I like the way it makes me feel
No destination just the old roads
Somehow it helps the heart to heal.
I hope your road trip is a good one. The less busy tracks are almost meditative....soaking in scenery as the world passes by.
Have fun and be careful.
Lookout as usual you have done an excellent job of giving me a lot of articles to read and think about this next week.
Of course I need to be loading my car and shutting this place down as I head to the Texas hill country. Will look for an
article about Kinder Morgan and small communities that are fighting the pipeline through their towns. The read was a little
hopeful.
Watching the weather and it looks like sunshine and clear skies as I travel. Thanks for all your work in putting this together.
Here are a couple of links to how free markets
help in the corporate takeover. Amazon a corp that has only made a profit by
never paying taxes and accounting fraud. It
became a trillion dollar corp through the use
of monopoly money(stock) it's nothing but the
perfect example of todays "unicorn" corp, i.e.
worth what it is w/out ever making a penny
Corporations can live far beyond a persons lifespan. Corporations can commit homicide and escape execution and justice. Unfortunately,
unions are just as likely to be on the corporations side to get jobs and wages, and bust heads if anything interferes with that.
If we protest we've seen the police ready to use deadly force at the drop of a hat, and get away with it. We get to vote on
candidates that some political club chose for us, and have little incentive to work for the 99%. The gov. has amassed so much
information on us we can't even fathom its depth. We have nowhere left, no unexplored lands out of reach of the government. We
think we own things, but if you think you own a home, see how long it is before the gov. confiscates it if you don't pay your
property taxes.
If I were younger, or a young person asked what to do, I would say.... learn some skill that would make you attractive for
emigrating to another country, because the US looks like it's over. It's people are only here to be exploited. And if Bernie were
to become president I hope he gets a food taster.
run to. No where to hide. As in the U.K., corporations are seeking to to dismantle the NHS and turn it into a for-profit system
like ours. Even as the gilllet-jaune protesters risk life and limb, Macron seeks to install true neoliberalism in France. And
the beat goes on.
Corporations can live far beyond a persons lifespan. Corporations can commit homicide and escape execution and justice.
Look at what chevron did to people in Borapol. I'm sure I spelled this wrong but hopefully people will know what I'm talking
about. They killed lots of people and poisoned their land for decades and the fight over it is still going on. How many decades
more will chevron get to skirt justice? Banks continue to commit fraud and they only get little fines that don't do jack to keep
them from doing it again. Even cities are screwing people. Owe a few dollars on your property taxes and they will take your home
and sell it for pennies on the dollar. How in hell can it be legal to charge people over 600% interest? What happened to usury
rules if that's the correct term.
The International Court of Justice at The Hague ruled last week that a prior ruling by an Ecuadorean court that fined Chevron
$9.5 billion in 2011 should be upheld, according to teleSUR, a Latin American news agency. Texaco, which is currently a part of
Chevron, is responsible for what is considered one of the world's largest environmental disasters while it drilled for oil in
the Ecuadorian rainforest from 1964 to 1990.
https://www.ecowatch.com/will-chevron-and-exxon-ever-be-held-responsible...
The legal battle has been tied up in the courts for years. Ecuador's highest court finally upheld the ruling in January
2014, but Chevron refused to pay.
This is another thing that corporations get away with. Contaminating land and then just walking away from it. How many superfund
sites have we had to pay for instead of the ones who created the mess. Just declared bankruptcy and walked away. Corporations
are people? Fine then they should be held as accountable as the people in the lower classes. Fat chance though right?
Weren't people killed by a gas cloud released from the plant? I read something recently that said the case is still going
through the courts. How much money have they spent trying not to spend more?
Byedone just needs to pack it in and drop out already. Today he was defending the republican party after someone said something
about them needing to go away. Joe said that we need another party so one does not get more power than the other. Yeah right,
Joe. It's not like the Pubs are already weilding power they don't have and them dems cowering and supporting them.
Newsweek reporter quit after being censored on the OPCW story.
I have collected evidence of how they suppressed the story in addition to evidence from another case where info inconvenient
to US govt was removed, though it was factually correct.
First frustrate us with gridlock. Then pass bills benefiting the corporate overlords. Then leading up
to elections pass bills like the one against animal cruelty (who doesn't love kitties and puppies?), or propose a bill to consider
regulating cosmetics. This second bipartisan effort is glaringly cynical since no one apparently knows what is in beauty products.
Sanders must have politicians worried for them to attempt something which has managed to go unregulated for so long.
All this bipartisanship is not even up to the level of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's more like wiping at
them with a dirty rag while the ship of state continues to sink. While animal cruelty and cosmetic safety are important issues,
they pale in comparison to the systemic ills America suffers. Our fearless leaders will continue to scratch the surface while
corruption and business as usual continue to fester. These bipartisan laws may look good on a politician's resume, but they won't
really help the 99%.
@snoopydawg
the propaganda to give NATO a raison d'ętre for a pivot to China. This will be doomed to complete failure just as the Russian
pivot has.
But Putin and Xi Jinping are both much too skilled and intelligent to defeat. American WWE trash talkers are completely outclassed
by an 8th dan in judo paired with a Sun Tzu scholar.
Tomoe nage - use your opponent's weight and aggression against him.
"If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent
is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest.
If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he
is unprepared, appear where you are not expected ."
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
@Lookout
What they want is
a controlled collapse. If they can get the US to continue to overspend on war mongering rather than programs of social uplift
the country will rot from the inside.
"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching
spiritual death." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
So much more to say really. Had to stop somewhere but as you know the corruption runs deep and is intermixed with the CIA/FBI/MIC
corporate government under which we live.
On we go as best we can!
There is great dignity in the objective truth. Perhaps because it never flows through the contaminated minds of the unworthy.
Corporate charters were initially meant to be for the public good if i'm not mistaken in recall, it was a trade-off for their
privilege to exist. Maybe a movement political leader could highlight this and move the pendulum back to accountability.
Had a conversation with good friend today, a 3M rep, and he was griping about his competitor's shady marketing product practices
apparently lying to manufacturers about the grades and contents of their competing products.
This is not "the reputation for hyperbole". This is attempt to defend the interests of MIC, including the
interests of intelligence agencies themselves in view of deteriorating financial position of the USA. And first of all the level
of the current funding. Like was the case in 2016 elections, the intelligence
agencies and first of all CIA should now be considered as the third party participating in the
2020 election which attempts to be the kingmaker. They are interested in continuing and intensifying the Cold War 2, as it secured
funding for them and MIC (of this they are essential part)
Notable quotes:
"... The official, Shelby Pierson, "appears to have overstated the intelligence community's formal assessment of Russian interference in the 2020 election, omitting important nuance during a briefing with lawmakers earlier this month," according to CNN . ..."
"... " The intelligence doesn't say that ," one senior national security official told CNN. "A more reasonable interpretation of the intelligence is not that they have a preference, it's a step short of that. It's more that they understand the President is someone they can work with, he's a dealmaker." - CNN ..."
"... To recap - Pierson told the House Intelligence Committee a lie , which was promptly leaked to the press - ostensibly by Democrats on the committee, and it's just now getting walked back with far less attention than the original 'bombshell' headline received. ..."
"... No biggie... the media just ran with hysteria for 3 years as gospel accusing people of treason ..."
"... Well guess what? It turns out the media and the DNC were the ones working for Russia, executing their long standing goal to create chaos better than Russia could have ever dreamed of. https://t.co/PhrJiES9ui ..."
The US intelligence community's top election security official who appears to have
overstated Russian interference in the 2020 election has a history of hyperbole - described
by the
Wall Street Journal as "a reputation for being injudicious with her words."
The official, Shelby Pierson, "appears to have overstated the intelligence community's
formal assessment of Russian interference in the 2020 election, omitting important nuance
during a briefing with lawmakers earlier this month," according to
CNN .
The official, Shelby Pierson, told lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee that
Russia is interfering in the 2020 election with the goal of helping President Donald Trump
get reelected .
The US intelligence community has assessed that Russia is interfering in the 2020
election and has separately assessed that Russia views Trump as a leader they can work
with. But the US does not have evidence that Russia's interference this cycle is aimed at
reelecting Trump , the officials said.
" The intelligence doesn't say that ," one senior national security official told CNN.
"A more reasonable interpretation of the intelligence is not that they have a preference,
it's a step short of that. It's more that they understand the President is someone they can
work with, he's a dealmaker." -
CNN
Pierson was reportedly peppered with questions from the House Intelligence Committee,
which 'caused her to overstep and assert that Russia has a preference for Trump to be
reelected,' according to the report. CNN notes that one intelligence official said that her
characterization was "misleading," while a national security official said she failed to
provide the "nuance" required to put the US intelligence conclusions in proper context.
To recap - Pierson told the House Intelligence Committee a lie , which was promptly leaked
to the press - ostensibly by Democrats on the committee, and it's just now getting walked
back with far less attention than the original 'bombshell' headline received.
Sound familiar?
No biggie... the media just ran with hysteria for 3 years as gospel accusing people of
treason
Well guess what? It turns out the media and the DNC were the ones working for Russia,
executing their long standing goal to create chaos better than Russia could have ever
dreamed of. https://t.co/PhrJiES9ui
In the language of the American Oligarchy and it's tame and owned presstitutes on the MSM,
any country targeted for destabilisation, destruction and rape – either because it
doesn't do what America tells it do (Russia), because it has rich natural resources or has a
'socialist' state (Venezuela) or because lunatic neo-cons and even more lunatic Christian
Evangelicals (hoping to provoke The End Times ) want it to happen (Syria and Iran) – is
first labelled as a 'regime'.
That's because the word 'regime' is associated with dictatorships and human rights abuses
and establishing a non-compliant country as a 'regime' is the US government's and MSM's first
step at manufacturing public consent for that country's destruction.
Unfortunately if you sit back and talk a cool-headed, factual look at actions and attitudes
that we're told constitute a regime then you have to conclude that America itself is 'a
regime'.
So, here's why America is a regime:
Regimes disobey international law. Like America's habit of blowing up wedding parties
with drones or the illegal presence of its troops in Syria, Iraq and God knows where
else.
Regimes carry out illegal assassination programs – I need say no more here than
Qasem Soleimani.
Regimes use their economic power to bully and impose their will – sanctioning
countries even when they know those sanctions will, for example, be responsible for the death
of 500,000 Iraqi children (the 'price worth paying', remember?).
Regimes renege on international treaties – like Iran nuclear treaty, for
example.
Regimes imprison and hound whistle-blowers – like Chelsea manning and Julian
Assange.
Regimes imprison people. America is the world leader in incarceration. It has 2.2 million
people in its prisons (more than China which has 5 times the US's population), that's 25% of
the world's prison population for 5% of the world's population, Why does America need so many
prisoners? Because it has a massive, prison-based, slave labour business that is hugely
profitable for the oligarchy.
Regimes censor free speech. Just recently, we've seen numerous non-narrative following
journalists and organisations kicked off numerous social media platforms. I didn't see lots
of US senators standing up and saying 'I disagree completely with what you say but I will
fight to the death to preserve your right to say it'. Did you?
Regimes are ruled by cliques. I don't need to tell you that America is kakistocratic
Oligarchy ruled by a tiny group of evil, rich, Old Men, do I?
Regimes keep bad company. Their allies are other 'regimes', and they're often lumped
together by using another favourite presstitute term – 'axis of evil'. America has its
own little axis of evil. It's two main allies are Saudi Arabia – a homophobic, women
hating, head chopping, terrorist financing state currently engaged in a war of genocide
(assisted by the US) in Yemen – and the racist, genocidal undeclared nuclear power
state of Israel.
Regimes commit human rights abuses. Here we could talk about ooh let's think. Last year's
treatment of child refugees from Latin America, the execution of African Americans for
'walking whilst black' by America's militarized, criminal police force or the millions of
dollars in cash and property seized from entirely innocent Americans by that same police
force under 'civil forfeiture' laws or maybe we could mention huge American corporations
getting tax refunds whilst ordinary Americans can't afford decent, effective healthcare.
Regimes finance terrorism. Mmmm .just like America financed terrorists to help destroy
Syria and Libya and invested $5 billion dollars to install another regime – the one of
anti-Semites and Nazis in Ukraine
Yup – America passes the 'sniff test' for Regime status.
If you're sick of being ruled by lying, psychopathic wankers then imagine a world,
much like this one but subtly different where, instead of always getting away with it all
the time, our psychopathic rulers occasionally got what they really, really deserved.
4
hours ago
America's Military is Killing – Americans!
In 2018, Republicans (AND Democrats) voted to cut $23 billion dollars from the budget
for food stamps (42 million Americans currently receive them).
Fats forward to 21 December 2019 and Donald Trump signed off on a US defense budget of a
mind boggling $738 billion dollars.
To put that in context -- the annual US government Education budget is
sround $68 billion dollars.
Did you get that -- $738 billion on defense, $68 billion on education?
That means the government spends more than ten times on preparations to kill people than
it does on preparing children for life in the adult world.
Wow!
How ******* psychotic and death-affirming is that? It gets even worse when you consider
that that $716 billion dollars is only the headline figure – it doesn't include
whatever the Deep State siphons away into black-ops and kick backs. And .America's military
isn't even very good – it's hasn't 'won' a conflict since the second world war, it's
proud (and horrifically expensive) aircraft carriers have been rendered obsolete by Chinese
and Russian hypersonic missiles and its 'cutting edge' weapons are so good (not) that
everyone wants to buy the cheaper and better Russian versions: classic example – the
F-35 jet program will screw $1.5 TRILLION (yes, TRILLION) dollars out of US taxpayers but
but it's a piece of **** plane that doesn't work properly which the Russians laughingly
refer to as 'a flying piano'.
In contrast to America's free money for the military industrial complex defense budget,
China spends $165 billion and Russia spends $61 billion on defense and I don't see anyone
attacking them (well, except America, that is be it only by proxy for now).
Or, put things another way. The United Kingdom spent £110 billion on it's National
Health Service in 2017. That means, if you get sick in England, you can see a doctor for
free. If you need drugs you pay a prescription charge of around $11.50(nothing, if
unemployed, a child or elderly), whatever the market price of the drugs. If you need to see
a consultant or medical specialist, you'll see one for free. If you need an operation,
you'll get one for free. If you need on-going care for a chronic illness, you'll get it for
free.
Fully socialised, free at the point of access, healthcare for all. How good is that?
US citizens could have that, too.
Allowing for the US's larger population, the UK National Health Service transplanted to
America could cost about $650 billion a year. That would still leave $66 billion dollars
left over from the proposed defense budget of $716 billion to finance weapons of death and
destruction -- more than those 'evil Ruskies' spend.
The US has now been at war, somewhere in the world (i.e in someone elses' country where
the US doesn't have any business being) continuously for 28 years. Those 28 years have
coincided with (for the 'ordinary people', anyway) declining living standards, declining
real wages, increased police violence, more repression and surveillance, declining
lifespans, declining educational and health outcomes, more every day misery in other words,
America's military is killing Americans. Oh, and millions of people in far away countries
(although, obviously, those deaths are in far away countries and they are of
brown-skinned people so they don't really count, do they?).
From comments (Is the USA government now a "regime"): In 2018, Republicans (AND Democrats) voted to cut $23 billion dollars from
the budget for food stamps (42 million Americans currently receive them). Regimes disobey international law. Like America's habit of
blowing up wedding parties with drones or the illegal presence of its troops in Syria, Iraq and God knows where else. Regimes carry
out illegal assassination programs – I need say no more here than Qasem Soleimani. Regimes use their economic power to bully and
impose their will – sanctioning countries even when they know those sanctions will, for example, be responsible for the death of
500,000 Iraqi children (the 'price worth paying', remember?). Regimes renege on international treaties – like Iran nuclear treaty,
for example. Regimes imprison and hound whistle-blowers – like Chelsea manning and Julian Assange. Regimes imprison people. America
is the world leader in incarceration. It has 2.2 million people in its prisons (more than China which has 5 times the US's
population), that's 25% of the world's prison population for 5% of the world's population, Why does America need so many prisoners?
Because it has a massive, prison-based, slave labour business that is hugely profitable for the oligarchy.
Regimes censor free speech. Just recently, we've seen numerous non-narrative following journalists and organisations kicked off
numerous social media platforms. I didn't see lots of US senators standing up and saying 'I disagree completely with what you say
but I will fight to the death to preserve your right to say it'. Did you?
Regimes are ruled by cliques. I don't need to tell you that America is kakistocratic Oligarchy ruled by a tiny group of evil,
rich, Old Men, do I?
Regimes keep bad company. Their allies are other 'regimes', and they're often lumped together by using another favourite presstitute
term – 'axis of evil'. America has its own little axis of evil. It's two main allies are Saudi Arabia – a homophobic, women hating,
head chopping, terrorist financing state currently engaged in a war of genocide (assisted by the US) in Yemen – and the racist,
genocidal undeclared nuclear power state of Israel.
Regimes commit human rights abuses. Here we could talk about…ooh…let's think. Last year's treatment of child refugees from Latin
America, the execution of African Americans for 'walking whilst black' by America's militarized, criminal police force or the
millions of dollars in cash and property seized from entirely innocent Americans by that same police force under 'civil forfeiture'
laws or maybe we could mention huge American corporations getting tax refunds whilst ordinary Americans can't afford decent,
effective healthcare.
Regimes finance terrorism. Mmmm….just like America financed terrorists to help destroy Syria and Libya and invested $5 billion
dollars to install another regime – the one of anti-Semites and Nazis in Ukraine…
Highly recommended!
Some comments edited for clarity...
Notable quotes:
"... But after retirement, Smedley Butler changed his tune. ..."
"... "I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service... And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street, and for the Bankers." ..."
"... Smedley Butler's Marine Corps and the military of his day was, in certain ways, a different sort of organization than today's highly professionalized armed forces. History rarely repeats itself, not in a literal sense anyway. Still, there are some disturbing similarities between the careers of Butler and today's generation of forever-war fighters. All of them served repeated tours of duty in (mostly) unsanctioned wars around the world. Butler's conflicts may have stretched west from Haiti across the oceans to China, whereas today's generals mostly lead missions from West Africa east to Central Asia, but both sets of conflicts seemed perpetual in their day and were motivated by barely concealed economic and imperial interests. ..."
"... When Smedley Butler retired in 1931, he was one of three Marine Corps major generals holding a rank just below that of only the Marine commandant and the Army chief of staff. Today, with about 900 generals and admirals currently serving on active duty, including 24 major generals in the Marine Corps alone, and with scores of flag officers retiring annually, not a single one has offered genuine public opposition to almost 19 years worth of ill-advised, remarkably unsuccessful American wars . As for the most senior officers, the 40 four-star generals and admirals whose vocal antimilitarism might make the biggest splash, there are more of them today than there were even at the height of the Vietnam War, although the active military is now about half the size it was then. Adulated as many of them may be, however, not one qualifies as a public critic of today's failing wars. ..."
"... The big three are Secretary of State Colin Powell's former chief of staff, retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson ; Vietnam veteran and onetime West Point history instructor, retired Colonel Andrew Bacevich ; and Iraq veteran and Afghan War whistleblower , retired Lieutenant Colonel Danny Davis . All three have proven to be genuine public servants, poignant voices, and -- on some level -- cherished personal mentors. For better or worse, however, none carry the potential clout of a retired senior theater commander or prominent four-star general offering the same critiques. ..."
"... Consider it an irony of sorts that this system first received criticism in our era of forever wars when General David Petraeus, then commanding the highly publicized " surge " in Iraq, had to leave that theater of war in 2007 to serve as the chair of that selection committee. The reason: he wanted to ensure that a twice passed-over colonel, a protégé of his -- future Trump National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster -- earned his star. ..."
"... At the roots of this system lay the obsession of the American officer corps with " professionalization " after the Vietnam War debacle. This first manifested itself in a decision to ditch the citizen-soldier tradition, end the draft, and create an "all-volunteer force." The elimination of conscription, as predicted by critics at the time, created an ever-growing civil-military divide, even as it increased public apathy regarding America's wars by erasing whatever " skin in the game " most citizens had. ..."
"... One group of generals, however, reportedly now does have it out for President Trump -- but not because they're opposed to endless war. Rather, they reportedly think that The Donald doesn't "listen enough to military advice" on, you know, how to wage war forever and a day. ..."
"... That beast, first identified by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, is now on steroids as American commanders in retirement regularly move directly from the military onto the boards of the giant defense contractors, a reality which only contributes to the dearth of Butlers in the military retiree community. For all the corruption of his time, the Pentagon didn't yet exist and the path from the military to, say, United Fruit Company, Standard Oil, or other typical corporate giants of that moment had yet to be normalized for retiring generals and admirals. Imagine what Butler would have had to say about the modern phenomenon of the " revolving door " in Washington. ..."
"... Today, generals don't seem to have a thought of their own even in retirement. And more's the pity... ..."
"... Am I the only one to notice that Hollywood and it's film distributors have gone full bore on "war" productions, glorifying these historical events while using poetic license to rewrite history. Prepping the numbheads. ..."
"... Forget rank. As Mr Sjursen implies, dissidents are no longer allowed in the higher ranks. "They" made sure to fix this as Mr Butler had too much of a mind of his own (US education system also programmed against creative, charismatic thinkers, btw). ..."
"... Today, the "Masters of the Permawars" refer to the international extortion, MIC, racket as "Defending American Interests"! .....With never any explanation to the public/American taxpayer just what "American Interests" the incredible expenditures of American lives, blood, and treasure are being defended! ..."
"... "The Americans follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous." - Jospeh Goebbels ..."
"... The greatest anti-imperialist of our times is Michael Parenti: ..."
"... The obvious types of American fascists are dealt with on the air and in the press. These demagogues and stooges are fronts for others. Dangerous as these people may be, they are not so significant as thousands of other people who have never been mentioned. The really dangerous American fascists are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power. ..."
"... If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. Most American fascists are enthusiastically supporting the war effort. ..."
There once lived an odd little man - five feet nine inches tall and barely 140 pounds
sopping wet - who rocked the lecture circuit and the nation itself. For all but a few activist
insiders and scholars, U.S. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Darlington Butler is now lost to
history. Yet more than a century ago, this strange contradiction
of a man would become a national war hero, celebrated in pulp adventure novels, and then, 30
years later, as one of this country's most prominent antiwar and anti-imperialist
dissidents.
Raised in West Chester, Pennsylvania, and educated in Quaker (pacifist) schools, the son of
an influential congressman, he would end up serving in nearly all of America's " Banana Wars " from 1898 to
1931. Wounded in combat and a rare recipient of two Congressional Medals of Honor, he would
retire as the youngest, most decorated major general in the Marines.
A teenage officer and a certified hero during an international intervention in the Chinese
Boxer Rebellion
of 1900, he would later become a constabulary leader of the Haitian gendarme, the police chief
of Philadelphia (while on an approved absence from the military), and a proponent of Marine
Corps football. In more standard fashion, he would serve in battle as well as in what might
today be labeled peacekeeping , counterinsurgency , and
advise-and-assist missions in Cuba, China, the Philippines, Panama, Nicaragua, Mexico,
Haiti, France, and China (again). While he showed early signs of skepticism about some of those
imperial campaigns or, as they were sardonically called by critics at the time, " Dollar Diplomacy "
operations -- that is, military campaigns waged on behalf of U.S. corporate business interests
-- until he retired he remained the prototypical loyal Marine.
But after retirement, Smedley Butler changed his tune. He began to blast the
imperialist foreign policy and interventionist bullying in which he'd only recently played such
a prominent part. Eventually, in 1935 during the Great Depression, in what became a classic
passage in his memoir, which he
titled "War Is a Racket," he wrote:
"I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service... And during
that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall
Street, and for the Bankers."
Seemingly overnight, the famous war hero transformed himself into an equally acclaimed
antiwar speaker and activist in a politically turbulent era. Those were, admittedly, uncommonly
anti-interventionist years, in which veterans and politicians alike promoted what (for America,
at least) had been fringe ideas. This was, after all, the height of what later pro-war
interventionists would pejoratively label American " isolationism ."
Nonetheless, Butler was unique (for that moment and certainly for our own) in his
unapologetic amenability to left-wing domestic politics and materialist critiques of American
militarism. In the last years of his life, he would face increasing criticism from his former
admirer, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the military establishment, and the interventionist
press. This was particularly true after Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany invaded Poland and later
France. Given the severity of the Nazi threat to mankind, hindsight undoubtedly proved Butler's
virulent opposition to U.S. intervention in World War II wrong.
Nevertheless, the long-term erasure of his decade of antiwar and anti-imperialist activism
and the assumption that all his assertions were irrelevant has proven historically deeply
misguided. In the wake of America's brief but bloody entry into the First World War, the
skepticism of Butler (and a significant part of an entire generation of veterans) about
intervention in a new European bloodbath should have been understandable. Above all, however,
his critique of American militarism of an earlier imperial era in the Pacific and in Latin
America remains prescient and all too timely today, especially coming as it did from one of the
most decorated and high-ranking general officers of his time. (In the era of the never-ending
war on terror, such a phenomenon is quite literally inconceivable.)
Smedley Butler's Marine Corps and the military of his day was, in certain ways, a different
sort of organization than today's highly professionalized armed forces. History rarely repeats
itself, not in a literal sense anyway. Still, there are some disturbing similarities between
the careers of Butler and today's generation of
forever-war fighters. All of them served repeated tours of duty in (mostly) unsanctioned
wars around the world. Butler's conflicts may have stretched west from Haiti across the oceans
to China, whereas today's generals mostly lead missions from West Africa east to Central Asia,
but both sets of conflicts seemed perpetual in their day and were motivated by barely concealed
economic and imperial interests.
Nonetheless, whereas this country's imperial campaigns of the first third of the twentieth
century generated a Smedley Butler, the hyper-interventionism of the first decades of this
century hasn't produced a single even faintly comparable figure. Not one. Zero. Zilch. Why that
is matters and illustrates much about the U.S. military establishment and contemporary national
culture, none of it particularly encouraging.
Why No Antiwar Generals
When Smedley Butler retired in 1931, he was one of three Marine Corps major generals holding
a rank just below that of only the Marine commandant and the Army chief of staff. Today, with
about 900 generals and admirals currently serving on active duty, including 24 major
generals in the Marine Corps alone, and with scores of flag officers retiring annually, not a
single one has offered genuine public opposition to almost 19 years worth of ill-advised,
remarkably unsuccessful American wars . As for the most senior officers, the 40 four-star
generals and admirals whose vocal antimilitarism might make the biggest splash, there are
more of them today than
there were even at the height of the Vietnam War, although the active military is now about
half the size it was then. Adulated as many of them may be, however, not one qualifies as a
public critic of today's failing wars.
Instead, the principal patriotic dissent against those terror wars has come from retired
colonels, lieutenant colonels, and occasionally more junior officers (like me), as well as
enlisted service members. Not that there are many of us to speak of either. I consider it
disturbing (and so should you) that I personally know just about every one of the retired
military figures who has spoken out against America's forever wars.
The big three are Secretary of State Colin Powell's former chief of staff, retired Colonel
Lawrence Wilkerson ;
Vietnam veteran and onetime West Point history instructor, retired Colonel Andrew Bacevich ; and Iraq veteran and
Afghan War
whistleblower , retired Lieutenant Colonel Danny Davis . All three have
proven to be genuine public servants, poignant voices, and -- on some level -- cherished
personal mentors. For better or worse, however, none carry the potential clout of a retired
senior theater commander or prominent four-star general offering the same critiques.
Something must account for veteran dissenters topping out at the level of colonel.
Obviously, there are personal reasons why individual officers chose early retirement or didn't
make general or admiral. Still, the system for selecting flag officers should raise at least a
few questions when it comes to the lack of antiwar voices among retired commanders. In fact, a
selection committee of top generals and admirals is appointed each year to choose the next
colonels to earn their first star. And perhaps you won't be surprised to learn that, according
to numerous reports , "the
members of this board are inclined, if not explicitly motivated, to seek candidates in their
own image -- officers whose careers look like theirs." At a minimal level, such a system is
hardly built to foster free thinkers, no less breed potential dissidents.
Consider it an irony of sorts that this system first received
criticism in our era of forever wars when General David Petraeus, then commanding the
highly publicized " surge " in Iraq, had to leave that
theater of war in 2007 to serve as the chair of that selection committee. The reason: he wanted
to ensure that a twice passed-over colonel, a protégé of his -- future Trump
National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster -- earned his star.
Mainstream national security analysts reported on this affair at the time as if it were a
major scandal, since most of them were convinced that Petraeus and his vaunted
counterinsurgency or " COINdinista "
protégés and their " new " war-fighting doctrine had the
magic touch that would turn around the failing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, Petraeus
tried to apply those very tactics twice -- once in each country -- as did acolytes of his
later, and you know the results
of that.
But here's the point: it took an eleventh-hour intervention by America's most acclaimed
general of that moment to get new stars handed out to prominent colonels who had, until then,
been stonewalled by Cold War-bred flag officers because they were promoting different (but also
strangely familiar) tactics in this country's wars. Imagine, then, how likely it would be for
such a leadership system to produce genuine dissenters with stars of any serious sort, no less
a crew of future Smedley Butlers.
At the roots of this system lay the obsession of the American officer corps with "
professionalization
" after the Vietnam War debacle. This first manifested itself in a decision to ditch the
citizen-soldier tradition, end the draft,
and create an "all-volunteer force." The elimination of conscription, as predicted
by critics at the time,
created an ever-growing civil-military divide, even as it increased public apathy regarding
America's wars by erasing whatever " skin in the game " most
citizens had.
More than just helping to squelch civilian antiwar activism, though, the professionalization
of the military, and of the officer corps in particular, ensured that any future Smedley
Butlers would be left in the dust (or in retirement at the level of lieutenant colonel or
colonel) by a system geared to producing faux warrior-monks. Typical of such figures is current
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army General Mark Milley. He may speak
gruffly and look like a man with a head of his own, but typically he's turned out to be
just another yes-man
for another
war-power -hungry president.
One group of generals, however,
reportedly now does have it out for President Trump -- but not because they're opposed to
endless war. Rather, they reportedly think that The Donald doesn't "listen enough to military
advice" on, you know, how to wage war forever and a day.
What Would Smedley Butler Think
Today?
In his years of retirement, Smedley Butler regularly focused on the economic component of
America's imperial war policies. He saw clearly that the conflicts he had fought in, the
elections he had helped rig, the coups he had supported, and the constabularies he had formed
and empowered in faraway lands had all served the interests of U.S. corporate investors. Though
less overtly the case today, this still remains a reality in America's post-9/11 conflicts,
even on occasion embarrassingly so (as when the Iraqi ministry of oil was essentially the
only public building protected by American troops as looters tore apart the Iraqi capital,
Baghdad, in the post-invasion chaos of April 2003). Mostly, however, such influence plays out
far more
subtly than that, both
abroad and here at home where those wars help maintain the record profits of the top
weapons makers of the military-industrial complex.
That beast, first identified by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, is now on
steroids as American commanders in retirement regularly
move directly from the military onto the boards of the giant defense contractors, a reality
which only contributes to the dearth of Butlers in the military retiree community. For all the
corruption of his time, the Pentagon didn't yet exist and the path from the military to, say,
United Fruit Company, Standard Oil, or other typical corporate giants of that moment had yet to
be normalized for retiring generals and admirals. Imagine what Butler would have had to say
about the modern phenomenon of the "
revolving door " in Washington.
Of course, he served in a very different moment, one in which military funding and troop
levels were still contested in Congress. As a longtime critic of capitalist excesses who wrote
for leftist publications and supported
the Socialist Party candidate in the 1936 presidential elections, Butler would have found
today's
nearly trillion-dollar annual defense budgets beyond belief. What the grizzled former
Marine long ago identified as a treacherous
nexus between warfare and capital "in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses
in lives" seems to have reached its natural end point in the twenty-first century. Case in
point: the record (and still
rising ) "defense" spending of the present moment, including -- to please a president --
the creation of a whole new military service aimed at the full-scale militarization of
space .
Sadly enough, in the age of Trump, as numerous
polls demonstrate, the U.S. military is the only public institution Americans still truly
trust. Under the circumstances, how useful it would be to have a high-ranking, highly
decorated, charismatic retired general in the Butler mold galvanize an apathetic public around
those forever wars of ours. Unfortunately, the likelihood of that is practically nil, given the
military system of our moment.
Of course, Butler didn't exactly end his life triumphantly. In late May 1940, having lost 25
pounds due to illness and exhaustion -- and demonized as a leftist, isolationist crank but
still maintaining a whirlwind speaking schedule -- he checked himself into the Philadelphia
Navy Yard Hospital for a "rest." He died there, probably of some sort of cancer, four weeks
later. Working himself to death in his 10-year retirement and second career as a born-again
antiwar activist, however, might just have constituted the very best service that the two-time
Medal of Honor winner could have given the nation he loved to the very end.
Someone of his credibility, character, and candor is needed more than ever today.
Unfortunately, this military generation is unlikely to produce such a figure. In retirement,
Butler himself boldly
confessed that, "like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of
my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I
obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical..."
Today, generals don't seem to have a thought of their own even in retirement. And more's
the pity...
2 minutes ago
Am I the only one to notice that Hollywood and it's film
distributors have gone full bore on "war" productions, glorifying these historical events while
using poetic license to rewrite history. Prepping the numbheads.
14 minutes ago
TULSI GABBARD.
Forget rank. As Mr Sjursen implies, dissidents are no longer allowed in the higher ranks.
"They" made sure to fix this as Mr Butler had too much of a mind of his own (US education
system also programmed against creative, charismatic thinkers, btw).
The US Space Force has been created as part of a plan to disclose the deep state's Secret
Space Program (SSP), which has been active for decades, and which has utilized, and repressed,
advanced technologies that would provide free, unlimited renewable energy, and thus eliminate
hunger and poverty on a planetary scale.
14 minutes ago
What imperialism?
We are spreading freedumb and dumbocracy.
We are saving the world from socialism and communism.
We are energy independent, with innate exceptionalism and #MAGA# will usher in a new era
of American prosperity.
Any and all accusations of USSA imperialism, are made by the "woke" and those jealous of
the greatest Capitalist system in the world.
The swamp is being drained as I speak, and therefore will continue with unwavering
support for my 5x draft dodging, Zionist supporting, multiple times bankrupt, keeper of
broken promises POTUS.
Smedley Butler's book is not worthy of reading once you have the seminal work known as
"The Art Of The Deal"
Sadly enough, in the age of Trump, as numerous
polls demonstrate, the U.S. military is the only public institution
Americans still truly trust. Under the circumstances, how useful it would be
to have a high-ranking, highly decorated, charismatic retired general in the
Butler mold galvanize an apathetic public around those forever wars of ours.
Unfortunately, the likelihood of that is practically nil, given the military
system of our moment.
This is why I feel an oath keeping constitutionally oriented American
general is what we need in power, clear out all 545 criminals in office now,
review their finances (and most of them will roll over on the others) and
punish accordingly, then the lobbyist, how many of them worked against the
country? You know what we do with those.
And then, finally, Hollywood, oh yes I long to see that **** hole burn with
everyone in it.
30 minutes ago
Republicrat: the two faces of the moar war whore.
32 minutes ago
Given the severity of the Nazi threat to mankind
Do tell, from what I've read the Nazis were really only a threat to a few
groups, the rest of us didn't need to worry.
35 minutes ago
Today, the "Masters
of the Permawars" refer to the international extortion, MIC, racket as
"Defending American Interests"! .....With never any explanation to the
public/American taxpayer just what "American Interests" the incredible
expenditures of American lives, blood, and treasure are being defended!
Why are we sending our children out into the hellholes of the world to be
maimed and killed in the fauxjew banksters' quest for world domination.
How stupid can we be!
41 minutes ago
(Edited) "Smedley Butler"... The last
time the UCMJ was actually used before being permanently turned into a "door
stop"!
49 minutes ago
He was correct about our staying out of WWII. Which, BTW,
would have never happened if we had stayed out of WWI.
22 minutes ago
(Edited)
Both wars were about the international fauxjew imposition of debt-money central
bankstering.
Both wars were promulgated by the Financial oligarchyof New York. The communist Red Army
of Russia was funded and supplied by the Financial oligarchyof New York. It was American Financial oligarchythat built the Russian Red Army that vexed the world and created the Cold War.
How many hundreds of millions of goyim were sacrificed to create both the
Russian and the Chinese Satanic behemoths.......and the communist horror that
is now embedded in American academia, publishing, American politics, so-called
news, entertainment, The worldwide Catholic religion, the Pentagon, and the
American deep state.......and more!
How stupid can we be. Every generation has the be dragged, kicking and
screaming, out of the eternal maw of historical ignorance to avoid falling back
into the myriad dark hellholes of history. As we all should know, people who
forget their own history are doomed to repeat it.
53 minutes ago
Today's
General is a robot with with a DNA.
54 minutes ago
All the General Staff is a
bunch of #asskissinglittlechickenshits
57 minutes ago
want to stop senseless
Empire wars>>well do this
War = jobs and profit..we get work "THEY" get the profit.. If we taxed all
war related profit at 99% how many wars would our rulers start? 1 hour ago
Here
is a simple straightforward trading maxim that might apply here: if it works or
is working keep doing it, but if it doesn't work or stops working, then STOP
doing it. There are plenty of people, now poorer, for not adhering to that
simple principle. Where is the Taxpayer's return on investment from the Combat
taking place on their behalf around the globe? 'Nuff said - it isn't working.
It is making a microscopic few richer & all others poorer so STOP doing it.
36 seconds ago We don't have to look far to figure out who they are that are
getting rich off the fauxjew permawars.
How can we be so stupid???
1 hour ago
See also:
TULSI GABBARD
1 hour ago
The main reason you don't see the generals
criticizing is that the current crop have not been in actual long term direct
combat with the enemy and have mostly been bureaucratic paper pushers.
Take the
Marine Major General who is the current commander of CENTCOM. By the time he
got into the Iraq/Afghanistan war he was already a Lieutenant Colonel and far
removed from direct action.
He was only there on and off for a few years. Here
are some of his other career highlights aft as they appear on his official
bio:
2006-07: he served as the Military Secretary to the 33rd and 34th
Commandants of the Marine Corps
2008: he was selected by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to be the
Director of the Chairman's New Administration Transition Team (CNATT)
2009: he reported to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in
Kabul, Afghanistan to serve as the Deputy to the Deputy Chief of Staff (DCOS)
for Stability. ..... Deputy to the Deputy for Stability ???? WTF is that?
2010: he was assigned as the Director, Strategy, Plans, and Policy (J-5) for
the U.S. Central Command
2012: he reported to Headquarters Marine Corps to serve as the Marine Corps
Representative to the Quadrennial Defense Review
In short, these top guys aren't warriors they're bureaucrats so why would we
expect them to be honest brokers of the truth?
51 minutes ago
are U saying
Chesty Puller he's NOT? 1 hour ago
(Edited) The purpose of war is to ensure
that the
Federal Reserve Note remains the world reserve paper currency of choice by
keeping it relevant and in demand across the globe by forcing pesky energy
producing nations to trade with it exclusively.
It is a 49 year old policy created by the private owners of quasi public
institutions called
central banks to ensure they remain the Wizards of Oz
doing gods work conjuring magic paper into existence with a secret
spell known as issuing credit.
How else is a technologically advanced society of billions of people
supposed to function w/out this
divinely inspired paper?
1 hour ago
Goebbels in "Churchill's Lie Factory"
where he said: "The Americans follow the principle that when one lies, one
should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of
looking ridiculous." - Jospeh Goebbels, "Aus Churchills Lügenfabrik,"
12. january 1941, Die Zeit ohne Beispiel
1 hour ago
The greatest
anti-imperialist of our times is Michael Parenti:
Imperialism has been the most powerful force in world history over the last
four or five centuries, carving up whole continents while oppressing indigenous
peoples and obliterating entire civilizations. Yet, it is seldom accorded any
serious attention by our academics, media commentators, and political leaders.
When not ignored outright, the subject of imperialism has been sanitized, so
that empires become "commonwealths," and colonies become "territories" or
"dominions" (or, as in the case of Puerto Rico, "commonwealths" too).
Imperialist military interventions become matters of "national defense,"
"national security," and maintaining "stability" in one or another region. In
this book I want to look at imperialism for what it really is.
"Imperialism has been the most powerful force in world
history over the last four or five centuries, carving up whole continents while
oppressing indigenous peoples and obliterating entire civilizations. Yet, it is
seldom accorded any serious attention by our academics, media commentators, and
political leaders."
Why would it when they who control academia, media and most of our
politicians are our enemies.
1 hour ago
"The big three are Secretary of State Colin Powell's former chief of
staff, retired Colonel
Lawrence
Wilkerson ; ..."
Yep, Wilkerson, who leaked Valerie Plame's name, not that it was a leak, to
Novak, and then stood by to watch the grand jury fry Scooter Libby. Wilkerson,
that paragon of moral rectitude. Wilkerson the silent, that *******.
sheesh,
1 hour ago
(Edited)
" A standing military force, with an overgrown
Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence
against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.
Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was
apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of
defending, have enslaved the people."
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a
standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the
rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia,
in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of
Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [I Annals
of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789])
A particularly pernicious example of intra-European
imperialism was the Nazi aggression during World War II, which gave the German
business cartels and the Nazi state an opportunity to plunder the resources and
exploit the labor of occupied Europe, including the slave labor of
concentration camps. - M. PARENTI, Against empire
See Alexander Parvus
1 hour ago
Collapse is the cure. It's
too far gone.
1 hour ago
Russia Wants to 'Jam' F-22 and F-35s in the Middle
East: Report
ZH retards think that the American mic is bad and all other mics are
good or don't exist. That's the power of brainwashing. Humans understand that
war in general is bad, but humans are becoming increasingly rare in this world.
1 hour ago
The obvious types of American fascists are dealt with on the air and
in the press. These demagogues and stooges are fronts for others. Dangerous as
these people may be, they are not so significant as thousands of other people
who have never been mentioned. The really dangerous American fascists are not
those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its
finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in
the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian
way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to
poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never
how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to
deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more
power.
If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and
power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million
fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if
we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money
and power are ruthless and deceitful. Most American fascists are
enthusiastically supporting the war effort.
The swamp is bigger than the military alone. Substitute Bureaucrat,
Statesman, or Beltway Bandit for General and Colonel in your writing above and
you've got a whole new article to post that is just as true.
2 hours ago
(Edited) War = jobs and profit..we get work "THEY" get the profit..If we taxed
all war related profit at 99% how many wars would our rulers start?
2 hours ago [edited for clarity]
War is a racket. And nobody loves a
racket more than Financial oligarchy. Americans come close though, that's why Financial oligarchy use them to
project their own rackets and provide protection reprisals.
If you fire 70% of the admirals and generals
you will increase the military capabilities of the US military by 40%.
They are incompetent hacks who are better on their knees in front of the MIC and Congress
then they are on any battlefield.
At least during WWII we had less of them and no one was hesitant to fire at least some of
them for incompetence. I say sum of them because many of the war hero generals needed to be
removed including Bradly, Eisenhower, Halsey, Nimitz, and even MacArthur.
But today, no one gets fired for anything.
Literally they have a special class of MBA's being generals and and strategic thinkers and
it has turned out to be a disaster for the military and the US.
An example by way of analogy is look at Boeing. How much better would Boeing be if they
fired all the MBA's and replaced them with engineers who loved air planes. Boeing would make a
lot less profit but its planes would be the best in the world.
"Williams was born in Colón, Panama, to parents Akin Jules Williams and Sharon
Williams, who were both Panamanian. He graduated in 1972 from Oakwood Friends School in Poughkeepsie, New York
where he became clerk of the student body, editor of the student paper and was captain of the
baseball, cross-country and championship basketball team. He attended Haverford College , from which he
graduated with a baccalaureate in philosophy in 1976." wiki
---------------
I am curious as to how JW (Foxnews' most prominent token Lefty) got from Colon in the
Republic of Panama where he was a son of the generally oppressed and typically impoverished
class of West Indian people settled in the Republic of Panama to the Oakwood Friends School and
then graduated from Haverford College. Both of these are private Quaker schools and not cheap.
I do not know the answer to my question.
I was stationed in the Canal Zone 1965 and 1966 as a member of the "8th Special Forces
Group" at Ft. Gulick. I was in the intelligence staff section of the Group Headquarters.
Because of that I spent a lot of time with the operatives of Army Intelligence and the CIA,
both of whom were engaged among other things in Force Protection activities designed to make
safe the Canal Zone and US forces stationed therein.
The Partido del Pueblo was the Cuban and Soviet aligned Communist Party. The national
government of Panama treated it as a deadly enemy and a conduit for Cuban subversion. The
Panamanian government encouraged the US to keep the Partido del Pueblo as weak as possible.
This party led street riots, bank robberies and looting of stores in Colon in 1964 and 1965.
Half a dozen US solders were killed by snipers in these fandangos, shot in the Canal Zone from
across the border.
To get a grip on this situation the CIA and Army Intelligence and probably the FBI
clandestinely recruited as assets most of the senior members of the party and the politburo of
the Partido del Pueblo. We had so many that if USI told the politburo to not attend a meeting
and stay home, they lacked a quorum. To achieve these recruitments, the standard lures were; US
money, assistance for relatives to move to the States and scholarships (full ride) for their
children at good US private schools and colleges whose benevolent leaders could be persuaded to
help (fully funded) 3rd world kids.
Thanks for asking again, Colonel, for since you revealed these "lures," I've often wondered
if they help explain Williams's career of fake-"Liberal" hackery.
Dear Colonel,
No need to post my earlier reply: just wanted you to know I'm still grateful for this
question + all your wisdom. And part of what I admire is how concise your work is. THANKS.
I am just plain interested in how he gor where he is. IMO his strident leftist stance is
largely an act designed to fulfill Foxnews' expectations of his role.
The National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC) released a new National Counterintelligence Strategy document on Monday
which outlines a "new approach" to US counterintelligence that places emphasis on "foreign" and "other adversarial threats" from
"non-state actors."
The document, entitled National Counterintelligence Strategy of the United States of America, 2020-2022, is dated January 7, 2020
and signed by President Donald Trump. It states that the US is facing an "expanding array of foreign intelligence threats by adversaries
who are using increasingly sophisticated methods to harm the United States."
As compared to the previous NCSC strategy released during the Obama administration at the end of 2015, the new orientation is
to the threats posed to the interests of US imperialism around the world by digital technologies, online information and social media.
In releasing the strategy document, NCSC Director William Evanina said that it represents a "paradigm shift in addressing foreign
intelligence threats as a nation."
The swearing in of William Evanina as Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC) on May 15, 2018 [Photo
credit: dni.gov]
Pointing to the ongoing partnership between US intelligence and the technology industry on a range of operations, Evanina said,
"With the private sector and democratic institutions increasingly under attack, this is no longer a problem the U.S. Government can
address alone. It requires a whole-of-society response involving the private sector, an informed American public, as well as our
allies."
The NCSC Director goes on, "Sound counterintelligence and security procedures must become part of everyday American business practices.
Implementing the strategy will require partnerships, information sharing, and innovation across public and private sectors." Evanina,
of course, does not mention the fact that no greater threat exists to "democratic institutions" and "an informed American public"
than the US national intelligence apparatus.
The intelligence strategy document is very brief, uses generalizations and is short on the details of any specific threats. It
also provides only broad outlines of its plan of action and does not go into the specifics of what counterintelligence measures will
be taken to combat the threats it does enumerate. This is the modus operandi of the American intelligence agencies: say as little
as possible, repeat the age-old lies about promoting "democracy" around the world and then get on with the secret and criminal business
of US-sponsored mayhem and murder.
The NCSC strategy document lists the top foreign intelligence threats to US interests as Russia -- repeating the well-worn but
never proven assertion that the country is seeking to "instigate and exacerbate tensions and instability in the United States, including
interfering with the security of our elections" -- and China.
The document also mentions the US "adversaries" Cuba, Iran and North Korea as well as the organizations Hezbollah, ISIS and al-Qaeda
only once before moving on to its primary concern: the "significant threats" posed by "the ideologically motivated entities such
as hacktivists, leaktivists and public disclosure organizations."
The inclusion of individuals and organizations involved in exposing government and corporate criminality -- such as WikiLeaks
and its publisher Julian Assange as well as other journalists and news sites both within and outside the country that are prepared
to tell the public the truth -- makes clear that left-wing, socialist and other alternative political websites will be the target
of sustained US counterintelligence activities in the coming period.
Of significant concern for US intelligence is the impact of alternative and socialist political ideas and perspectives being disseminated
among the US population under conditions of growing class conflict, political hostility to the government and both parties of the
capitalist ruling elite and distrust of the corporate-controlled media.
The NCSC document emphasizes "influence campaigns in the United States to undermine confidence in our democratic institutions
and processes and sow division in our society, exert leverage over the United States and weaken our alliances." This is the exact
same language used by US intelligence during the concocted campaign over "Russian meddling" in the 2016 presidential elections. While
no evidence was ever presented proving that the Russian state was engage in an "influence campaign" in 2016, the US corporate media
incessantly reported and continues to report it as well-established fact.
The document then states that the influence campaigns "are designed, for example, to sway public opinion against US Government
policies or in favor of foreign agendas, influence and deceive key decision makers, alter public perceptions, and amplify conspiracy
theories. Our adversaries regard deception or manipulation of the views of U.S. citizens and policymakers to be an effective, inexpensive,
and low-risk method for achieving their strategic objectives."
It then states that US adversaries are using "a range of communications media to enable their covert influence campaigns. Using
false U.S. personas, foreign intelligence entities develop and operate social media sites and other forums to draw the attention
of U.S. audiences, spread misinformation, and deliver divisive messages."
The NCSC is a department within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, a member of the US presidential Cabinet.
Joseph Maguire, a retired US Navy Vice Admiral after 36 years of military service, is currently the Acting Director of National Intelligence.
Officially, the purpose of US counterintelligence is to block the intelligence activities of foreign powers and to identity "entities
who are at risk of intelligence collection or attack by foreign adversaries." However, US counterintelligence operations have always
involved secret, murky and criminal activities carried out in the interests of US imperialism throughout the world.
The targeting of "hacktivists, leaktivists and public disclosure organizations" in the new strategy of US counterintelligence
makes it clear that a major assault on First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of the press is being prepared. Due to the
global nature of the internet, online publishing and social media, it is impossible for US state agencies to make a clear distinction
between what it considers "foreign" and "domestic" threats.
Proof that the blurring of national boundary lines of counterintelligence is already underway was evident in the statement made
by NCSC Director Evanina at a gathering of cybersecurity officials on February 4. As an example of the actions to come, Evanina presented
the Justice Department's recent charges against the head of Harvard's chemistry and biology department, Charles Lieber, for making
false statements about his participation in a Chinese research program.
Furthermore, the use of the Espionage Act against individuals -- including former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, who revealed
the massive and illegal surveillance of the public by the state -- for leaking information related to national security is part of
the escalation of state repression against whistleblowers.
The Trump administration brought multiple charges against Assange on May 23, 2019 as part of the campaign to have the WikiLeaks
founder and editor extradited to the US from Britain.
Assange faces a 175-year prison sentence, or possibly the death penalty, in the US for courageously exposing the crimes of US
imperialism against the people of the world. Meanwhile, whistleblower Chelsea Manning has been imprisoned for nearly a year for refusing
to testify against him.
The defense of basic democratic rights such as free speech and freedom of the press -- and the immediate release of Assange and
Manning -- requires a mass political struggle by the working class internationally against the drive by the capitalist system toward
dictatorship and war and for the abolition of the NSA, CIA, NCSC and all other such organizations.
"... Edward Lewis, who had also produced Spartacus with Douglas earlier, spearheaded this film which tells the story of a cabal of oligarchs who arrange the murder of John Kennedy using three teams of professional mercenaries (former CIA men fired after the Bay of Pigs fiasco). ..."
"... The oligarchs attempting to play God in today's world, just as their predecessors who oversaw JFK's murder know that hunger, war and disease are not the natural state of humanity, but simply means of checking population growth. ..."
"... Hacked emails from Sony pictures published on WikiLeaks provided a smoking gun when it was revealed that the Obama administration had courted Hollywood execs to the task of promoting films to "counter Russian narratives" ..."
"... This is how the propaganda always works. The shit they churn out is always "in response" to a phoney threat. Thus the US "combats" Soviet expansion by building American bases everywhere and then – Lo and Behold! It's the US empire which has expanded. ..."
Hollywood film legend Kirk Douglas' passing on February 5th at the age of 103 has resulted in a
sickening level of hypocrisy from the leftist mainstream media outlets.
These outlets have written countless homages and memorials honoring the life of the man who
"used his star
power and influence in the late 1950s to help break the Hollywood blacklist"
as CNN reported on February 6
. Similar eulogies have followed this line from MSNBC, the NY Times, Washington
Post, as well as many Hollywood celebrities.
What makes this so sickening is not that these memorials are untrue, but rather that it is these same
MSM/Hollywood forces that are the heirs to the fascist McCarthyite machine which Kirk Douglass and his close network
of collaborators fought so courageously against during their lives.
Hollywood and the CIA Today
In recent decades, barring a few exceptions, Hollywood (just like much of the mainstream media) has become a
branch of the CIA and broader military industrial complex. While fake news agencies as CNN spin false facts to the
intellects of mushy-minded Americans, Hollywood prepares the fertile soil for those false seeds to grow by shaping
the hearts and imagination in their victims through the important hypnotic power of storytelling.
Tom Clancy's
Jack Ryan
, Spielberg's
Bridge of Spies
,
Red Sparrow
and
Bitter Harvest
are just a few of the
most popular propaganda films
which portray Russians as the nefarious villains of the earth and heroically
elevate the CIA to patriotic heights.
Hacked emails from Sony pictures
published on WikiLeaks
provided a smoking gun when it was revealed that the Obama administration had courted
Hollywood execs to the task of promoting films to
"counter Russian narratives"
and all of this in the midst
of a renewed Cold War terror which has led to attacks on Chinese scholars in America and an attempted coup against a
sitting U.S. President.
YET, just as Hollywood can serve as a force of great evil, Kirk Douglas and his small network of collaborators
demonstrated that it could equally serve as a force of great good. This is because films exhibiting a spirit of
honesty and courage can bypass the gatekeepers of intellect and strike at the inner being of the audience rendering a
people, under certain circumstances better patriots of their nation and citizens of the world.
This brings us to the important question of
"what truly made Kirk Douglas and his small but influential
network of collaborators so important during such a dark period of World history during the peak of the Cold War?"
Ending the Blacklist: Douglas and Trumbo
The above quote from a CNN memorial cited Douglas's efforts to end the Hollywood Blacklist. For those who are not
aware, the blacklist was the name given to the "untouchables" of Hollywood.
Those writers, directors and producers who courageously refused to cooperate with the fascist hearings of the
House on Un-American Activities run under the dictatorial leadership of Senator Joseph McCarthy and FBI Director J.
Edgar Hoover.
By the end of the hearings, hundreds of careers were destroyed and examples were made of ten leading writers led
by the great Dalton Trumbo- who were not only given prison sentences for defending the US Constitution, but who
became un-hirable for years after their release. Not only this, but anyone caught employing them were threatened with
similar penalties.
In spite of that grim reality many of them continued to work under pseudonyms with Trumbo even winning two
uncredited academy awards during the 1950s (
Roman Holiday
and
The Brave One
).
During this dark period, a network of brave film makers formed who worked very closely together for 20 years which
centered around Trumbo, Kirk Douglas, David Miller, John Frankenheimer, Stanley Kramer, Burt Lancaster and producer
Edward Lewis.
Many of the films produced by these men not only carried stories which shook the foundations of the newly
reorganized deep state, but also strove to awaken the moral sensibilities of Americans whose complacency had
permitted the creation of a new Pax Americana abroad, and racist police state within.
Kirk Douglas responded to this early on by forming his own studio called Bryna Productions which created the
anti-war classic
Paths of Glory
(1957) and
Spartacus
(1960).
Paths of Glory
told the true story of the unjust execution of several French soldiers who refused to obey
a suicide mission during WW1 and provided a strong statement against irrational wars but also arbitrary political
power run amok.
Set in 72 BC, Spartacus told the true story of a Thracian slave who led a two year freedom struggle against Rome
and spoke directly to the civil rights movement in America and fight against imperialism more broadly.
What gave Spartacus its strategic potency to end the Blacklist was due to the fact that it was written by the
leading untouchable "commie-lover" of America Dalton Trumbo. Kirk Douglas' last minute decision to use Trumbo's real
name was more of a risk than most people realize, and in later years, Douglas described this period:
The choices were hard. The consequences were painful and very real. During the blacklist, I had friends who went
into exile when no one would hire them; actors who committed suicide in despair I was threatened that using a
Blacklisted writer for Spartacus -- my friend Dalton Trumbo -- would mark me as a 'Commie-lover' and end my career.
There are times when one has to stand up for principle. I am so proud of my fellow actors who use their public
influence to speak out against injustice. At 98 years old, I have learned one lesson from history: It very often
repeats itself. I hope that Trumbo, a fine film, will remind all of us that the Blacklist was a terrible time in
our country, but that we must learn from it so that it will never happen again.
When the newly-elected president John Kennedy and his brother Robert crossed anti-Communist picket lines to first
attend the film, and then endorsed it loudly, the foundations of the Blacklist were destroyed and the edifice of 15
years of terror came crashing down.
Kennedy's Murder and Trumbo's Revenge
Kennedy's death in 1963 sent America into a spiral of despair, drugs and insanity. Films like Frankenheimber's
Manchurian Candidate
(1962), and
7 Days in
May
(1964) attempted to shed light on the deep state takeover of America but it was too late.
During the 1960s, Douglas, Ed Lewis, Trumbo and Frankenheimber continued to work closely together on films like
Lonely are the Brave
,
Town without Pity
,
The Fixer
,
Last Sunset
,
Seconds
,
The Train
,
Devil's Disciple
,
Johny Got His Gun
,
The Horsemen
and more. Sadly, the
cultural rot had set in too deeply and nothing came as close to the artistry of the dense 1957-1964 period of
creative resistance.
One little known film stands out quite a bit however, and since so little is known of this small masterpiece, a
word must be said now.
Ten years after Kennedy's murder, Trumbo, Edward Lewis, David Miller, Mark Lane and Garry Horrowitz created a film
which could be called "Trumbo's last stand". This film was called
Executive Action
(1973) and starred Kirk Douglas' long-time collaborator Burt Lancaster as a leading coordinator of the plot to
assassinate President John F. Kennedy.
Edward Lewis, who had also produced Spartacus with Douglas earlier, spearheaded this film which tells the story of
a cabal of oligarchs who arrange the murder of John Kennedy using three teams of professional mercenaries (former CIA
men fired after the Bay of Pigs fiasco).
This incredibly well-researched storyline infused fiction with powerful facts and was based upon the work of Mark
Lane- a close friend of the Kennedys, NY State Attorney, and civil rights activist (the only legislator to be
arrested as a Freedom rider fighting segregation).
During a powerful dialogue between James Farrington (Lancaster) and the leader of the cabal Robert Foster (played
by Robert Ryan), the gauntlet is dropped, as the true reason is given for Kennedy's murder in chilling detail: Global
Depopulation.
Here Farrington is told by Foster:
"The real problem is this James. In two decades there will be seven billion human beings on this planet. Most
of them brown, yellow or black. All of them hungry. All of them determined to love. They'll swarm out of their
breeding grounds into Europe and North America Hence, Vietnam. An all-out effort there will give us control of
south Asia for decades to come. And with proper planning, we can reduce the population to 550 million by the end
of the century. I know I've seen the data."
James:
"We sound rather like Gods reading the
Doomsday book don't we?"
Foster:
"Well, someone has to do it. Not only will the nations affected be better off. But
the techniques developed there can be used to reduce our own excess population: blacks, Puerto Ricans, Mexican
Americans, poverty prone whites, and so forth"
.
Although the film was pulled from most American theaters, it still stands as one of the most direct and chilling
refutations of the lone-gunman narrative and is also the only film this author is aware of which showcases the deeper
neo-Malthusian agenda underlying the murder of Kennedy which feared the optimistic vision he had threatened to create
as outlined in my previous paper
Remembering JFK's Vision for the Future that Should Have Been
.
The oligarchs attempting to play God in today's world, just as their predecessors who oversaw JFK's murder know
that hunger, war and disease are not the natural state of humanity, but simply means of checking population growth.
" leftist mainstream [USAmerican] media" – !! Leftist and lamestream? Both? Does Matthew Ehret not see
the glaring oxymoron? Stopped me reading any further, right there in the first paragraph. I prefer
writers who use words in accordance with reality. I'm getting ever more inclined to ignore the pointless
political circus in the US, as it continues with it's thoroughly reality-detached circling of the drain
of empires
And clearly he's completely out of touch with the harsh reality of our most likely future,
which has far more in common with 'The Road' than with 'Startrek'. I don't see any prospect at all of
human colonies on the Moon or Mars. We – humankind – are up for some serious collisions with reality as
we find ourselves forced to dump our 'outward into the universe by space travel' myth. Myth in the old,
literate sense of the word: a foundation story of our culture, which tells us how to relate to life, the
universe, and everything. Sometime this century we're going to have to ditch that particular dream, as
The Limits To Growth finally catch up with us big time.
Charlotte Russe
,
The film "Executive Action" provides a shocking glimpse into the omnipotent power of the US
military/security/surveillance corporate state. The film gives psychological insights into the
psychopathic mentality of this cabal. It's particularly depicted in the following video clip which
perfectly captures the prescient nature of the script's dialogue:
Gramsci [circa 1920: revolution hindered by traditional culture among proletarians: nation, family,
religion.]
György Bernát Löwinger / Willi Munzenberg [1922 meeting: use intellectuals to make Western
Civilisation stink]
Frankfurter Schule [subvert traditional Western culture. Founded 1924, main influence since 50's/60's]
Felix Weil / Carl Grünberg / Max Horkheimer / Theodor Adorno / Ernst Bloch / Herbert Marcuse / Walter
Benjamin / Leo Lowenthal / Otto Kirchheimer / Frederick Pollock
Saul David Alinsky ['70s onwards]
S(oros)JW
Dungroanin
,
I perhaps object to Gramsci in that list – and you have left out the real culprits the Foundations of
Ford, Carnegie, Rockefellers all the way to Gates, George Lucas and no doubt Bezos the real cultural
marxists who aim to control thought & history through Pharma and 'Education'.
Robbobbobin
,
" the real cultural Marxists who aim to control thought & history through Pharma and 'Education'."
And misapopriated 'charity'. Plus, you left out Buffet.
Hugh O'Neill
,
This was a superb article until the last paragraph in favour of
" a revived space program to establish permanent human colonies on the Moon and Mars " .
Although I could think of a few I wouldn't mind volunteering to be extra-terrestrial colonists, I felt
this topic somewhat distracted from the essential truth of the rest of the piece. There is much common
ground between my views and Ehret's, but his sling-shot extra terrestrial tangents were a leap too far
for Mankind. I also suspect that JFK himself might object to his vision for Humanity being thus hijacked.
I approximate my favourite quote: "For in the final analysis, we all live on the same small planet. We
breathe the same air. We cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal". Although Ehret might
interpret what he will from such a quote, it speaks to me of a love for this Earth, and the respect due
Mother Nature.
BigB
,
Ehret takes a counterfeit and cherrypicked selection of JFK's speeches to present a spurious virtual
history version of JFK that even Camelotists do not recognise.
Tackling Malthus head on, JFK said to the National Academy of Sciences on October 22, 1963:
"Malthus argued a century and a half ago that man, by using up all his available resources,
would forever press on the limits of subsistence, thus condemning humanity to an indefinite future
of misery and poverty. We can now begin to hope and, I believe, know that Malthus was expressing
not a law of nature, but merely the limitation then of scientific and social wisdom."
Within a month of this speech Kennedy was dead and a new green paradigm of adaption to limits
grew like a virus in poisonous environment of LSD, cultural irrationalism and the Vietnam War.
[Follow his links. He's not shy of linking his narrative constructions to weave a peculiar counter
history. I'm sure LaRouche would be proud of his protégé?]
And insinuating his imaginary agenda was the real reason why JFK was murdered: global depopulation.
To which the remedy is infinite technological expansionism, nuclear fusion, and space colonisation a
la the delusional rantings of Lynton LaRouche. Which is about as deluded an agenda that one can
imagine. And then some.
Now, I know I lost the Camelot narrative construction debate. And facts are merely ideologically
plastic in the hands of the mythologisers. But this fellow takes the piss and elevates Camelotism to a
whole new stratospheric level. Everyone knows McCarthy was a close personal friend of the Kennedy's
which has never been denied. And RFK was chosen by McCarthy as a lowly counsel on his committee. So,
however a minor capacity, RFK was directly involved in the witchhunt. Which is the first sign of a
pangloss. Then he takes the piss after that.
So, whilst I have vowed never to raise the Camelot issue ever again: this guy goes too far. Which
is how narrative constructivism works like Chinese Whispers. Ehret's new stratospheric space-age
Camelot becomes assimilated and reified as the assumptive base for even further embellishment. And
OffG is giving him credence. Where there no other essays on Kirk Douglas? Ones that did not come with
a heavy subliminal propagandic undertone?
Robbobbobin
,
I always had a problem with Mr Douglas Sr's tooth grinding persona of overwhelming "masculinity".
But on the other hand, that was when he was in his heyday and most of the adult males I knew then
(when I was a teenage expected-to-be-apprentice in that craft) seemed to suffer from the same
sexual perversion, so maybe Mr Douglas was just fitting his persona in.
Hugh O'Neill
,
BigB, hold onto your hat: I actually agree with much of this comment. (Perhaps because you have
used less-contorted language?). I had never heard of either Ehren or LaRouche. A quick google on
the latter is mind-boggling, even allowing for layers of smear and disinformation. Was he perhaps a
construct to make the FBI and CIA looks relatively sane?
I also agree with you that the planet is finite and we cannot keep abusing it under the present
extreme Capitalist method. I am sure you will agree that the biggest enemy of Mother Earth is the
American Empire, which beast grows stronger on the backs of Human suffering, mind control and
maximum extractive exploitation of Creation – including gullible Mankind.
However (and there has to be a However) are you not a tad guilty yourself of putting your own
biased interpretations of JFK's (and RFK's) deeds (and mis-deeds)?
For the record, no-one in the JFK admin used the term Camelot: it was a chance turn of phrase that
Jackie used in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, and an allusion to the musical that
she and Jack enjoyed. Whatever it is, you spit the word with the force of a pejorative. The Holy
Grail will not be within your grasp with that attitude ;-).
I think pugnacious political Catholic McCarthy was indeed a friend of Ambassador Joe Kennedy's, and
the sons would have inherited some of that familial baggage. But from my vague recollection of
Schlesinger, Bobby began to distance himself from McCarthy. There was too a Catholic distrust of
atheist Communism which I recall from my childhood, and which would have been driven by the Vatican
Office of Propaganda.
Those "Camelot mythologisers" would doubtless include James Douglass. Douglass made the case that
people change: their ideas develop in the light of experience and reflection, thus JFK moved from
propagandised Cold Warrior to a more Christian (Buddhist?) embrace of Humanity ("Let us make the
world safe for diversity") and his unpublished book on Immigrants. RFK likewise changed and his
insights into GDP as being the defining measure of Capitalist success hits the nail on the head (in
a speech 3 weeks before he died).
To return to the conversation between James & Foster in the film "Executive Action", I could well
imagine such within the CIA (and in some pubs). There are some nutters out there
I am not saying this lends any credence to Ehren's point or the script of "Executive Action". I
am simply saying that the small minds of PTB were receptive to the philosophy of Eugenics. And
those same small minds would have been opposed to JFK.
Lysias
,
Unfortunately, Kirk Douglas was a down-the-line defender of Israel, including of its war crimes.
wardropper
,
In Kirk Douglas's heyday, we were ALL defenders of Israel, because we didn't know about its war
crimes. And most of the world is still in denial about them.
I'm only making the point that we wouldn't criticize Mozart for not being Stravinsky. Everyone is a
child of their time to some extent.
Robbobbobin
,
" we were ALL defenders of Israel "
Telling me. I even went there to join in the fun. Fortunately
I got to travel over most of its then territory with a sabra who couldn't quite accept it,
but–equally–couldn't wholeheartedly embrace it, so I spent a lot of time listening to tales like
'This is (Hebrew name), which used to be called (Arab name) until 1948 when all the Arabs mmm ran
away.'
Even so, it took me a while after I backed off to Blighty for a break, to get some perspective
on it all, before I really began to realize there was something wrong with the conventional story
(about 95% of it, roughly) and fail to return.
Mike Ellwood
,
I had incorrectly thought I remembered his being in the film "Exodus". However, instead, it was
probably this one:
It is also Hollywood's film violence and torture that gives their CIA inspiration away. Tarantino must
have been one of Gina Haspel's favorites apart from the "Saw" sequels. Prepping future Anglo soldiers for
the "right" mindset.
Sick.
Lysias
,
After watching the first half hour of "Inglourious Basterds", I had to stop. I couldn't watch any more
of the violence. Just like the Nazis showing "Jud Suess" to Wehrmacht soldiers.
wardropper
,
Except that Tarantino is an entertainer, not a propaganda minister.
His taste is not everyone's taste, but I have a hunch he doesn't expect anyone to take him too
seriously. It's also nice that in his movies, it is largely stupid, corrupt and downright evil
people who get their come-uppance, unlike the nauseating trend of recent decades – which I consider
to be deliberate political propaganda – of portraying hopelessness, despair and wretchedness as the
best outcome modern people can expect from "the authorities", as well as repeatedly portraying the
scenario that nobody in government should be punished for anything.
A movie is, after all, not the same thing as a real life, and when real life becomes almost
unbearable, it is worth having a fantasy counter-balance to remind us of other solutions and
possibilities.
I like Tarantino's violence. It is comic-book violence, and I have not become a violent person as a
result of appreciating his work as lively entertainment.
It is only natural, however, that others have had life experiences which make them too sensitive to
reminders of human brutality, and of course I respect that.
Dungroanin
,
Just an 'entertainer'!
Just as Noel Coward was or all propagandists of that era.
I don't want to get into a full on dissection of the new hollywood bratpackers of the 90's
onwards and their work for the state but just consider the first Tarantino success and its
title , what does it mean? What are reservoir rats? Why the glorification of such ultraviolence?
Why the associated video games?
One just needs to consider just how many PMC's have sprouted in the US and UK and A few other
countries comprising the 5+1 eyed monster empire.
wardropper
,
Merely expressing a personal assessment of Tarantino as an entertainer. In his fantasy world
he does what he does extremely well, and I have no interest in him beyond that.
The war-hero comics the kids of my generation read were in the same vein, but they have not
coloured my informed opinion of modern Germans. Nor do I even live in my own "fatherland".
Frankly, I feel at home wherever decent people live.
People are people, life is life, and games are games. Of course it is important to understand
the difference, wherever you live, and I do share with you a concern that there are many who
do not understand that difference, but is the answer to protect ourselves from ourselves, as
the neoliberals would like to do for us?
I am not convinced that many of those "bratpackers" really "work" for the state, but rather
that the state allows itself to use any and all whom it finds useful at any given time. That
is not so easy to put an end to either, although it is just as well to be aware of the
tremendous scope of what the modern state permits itself.
Lysias
,
Veit Harlan, the director of "Jud Suess", was also not a propaganda minister.
wardropper
,
Nor does Tarantino have a Goebbels standing over him.
He's a successful specimen, going out on his own limb because he has the money to do so.
lysias
,
Over him Tarantino had Harvey Weinstein, the delighted producer of the film.
Fair dinkum
,
Curiosity and skepticism have been suffocated by the bloody hands of the ruling class.
The average punter is too busy making ends meet to question the strident voices of authoritarians.
The ongoing climate collapse will wake a few.
Wilmers31
,
Society is allergic to the truth. The G increasingly likes p1ssyfooting around the issues; they explain
how dangerous the AfD in Germany is and disliked this comment (not too tame, I admit):
The AfD has just been bequeathed a large sum of money by a late engineer from Bückeburg. They cannot
be destroyed by taboos. Get rid of the asylum clause and people will be with you again.
Human beings are also territorial beings. They do not appreciate people coming from all corners of the
globe, take up housing, and public money. When no money is available to compensate people for the loss of
their land and a German unemployed (my late brother) needs to die for lack of funds after paying into the
system for 35 years, some people do not take that lying down.
The people in Germany are also aware that certain folks strengthen conflicts and wars which releases
refugees. The asylum clause in the constitution has been a problem for a very long time. I warned them in
1980 when I was still there.
And it's not just war refugees who tap into the German public resources; street children from Morocco
needed extra facilities. If you want to destroy Germany and Europe, go right ahead with vilifying what
you call the right and take them all in, from Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The so called right will
lose their reason to exist when the asylum clause will be deleted, which might be difficult to see from a
Washington think tank.
The comment vanished within minutes after I tried to correct that "Washington" to Georgia (US State)
where the writer was. I was trying to be helpful, helping them to understand instead of just displaying
wishful thinking.
BigB
,
What a steaming pile of absolute propagandic sh1te. Not the bit about Kirk Douglas: the Kennedy codicil
at the end. Kennedy was killed in a neo-Malthusean plot? This guy has so many screws loose: his head must
rattle as it turns.
Ehret is such an inveterate propagandist: he cannot help himself. His agenda is of
an infinite open (economic) system (read his other loose stool water dribblings) that JFK was about to
install. So the Malthusian eco-fascists killed him to further their own agenda of global depopulation.
And now they run Hollywood. If anyone other than Ehret believes this – they really need to restart taking
their meds.
Admin: does no one proof read this sh1te before publishing it? Do you really believe in Casey, JFK,
and LaRouche's deranged infinite futurist agenda? If so: why also publish the 'No Deal For Nature' site?
The two agenda's are diametrically opposed and totally incompatible. And in comparison: this is bullshit
propaganda that feeds an already overactive cultural imagination that we can infinitely expand. Which is
the entire predication of late modern politics. And much of the basis of the BTL commentary.
Is this the famed 'BBC Balance'? Because there can be no 'balance' to thermodynamics. It is not an
opinion, or even a belief it is a stone cold brute fact of nature. One which applied to natural systems
becomes a limit on economic absolutism: we cannot grow infinitely. Not because of some bullshit plot on
JFK: but because of the ironclad laws of the world we live in.
It is hard enough for those who stand with nature to get anyone to accept that there are natural
limitations on a finite planet – without giving breathing space to this nut job. If you are going to
promote LaRouche through Ehret: we might as well say a requiem for nature and humanity now. Read his
other pieces: or just his own linked piece:
He believed that the human mind could conquer all challenges that both nature, vice and ignorance
can throw at us. JFK didn't see the world through a zero sum lens, nor did he believe in the
Malthusian "limits to growth" paradigm which his killers promulgated after his death.
You must have noticed in talking to Cory the numbers against the cultural ideological machinery are
tiny. And the chances of success infinitesimally small. That is because propaganda is diffuse and
everywhere. That's without giving Ehret/LaRouchian infinitism the time of day. If we want to change the
dialogue and get an unmoored technocratic culture to embed itself within its natural limitations we need
to be a lot more savvy about promoting the opposite agenda. And making the infinitesimally short odds
just a little shorter.
Hey if you want to depopulate the planet so badly why don't you start with yourself?
BigB
,
If you actually believe in Ehret/LaRouche's delusions – you already are ideologically aligned with
global depopulation. And our our technologically accelerated rate of species extinctionism.
Including our own. I, for one, would rather we didn't follow this insanity into the grave.
Promoting this ideology – barely concealed as a tribute – does nothing to foster any sort of
resistance. Even if it is token. We are way beyond the time when we have to draw a line as to
whether we are for nature or against it. Where do you stand? I've made my stance clear over the
years. If you condemn it: you condemn yourself. There is only one nature: and the mind is not its
technological master as Ehret believes. We live within our ecological and biological limitations:
or we do not live at all. Which seems to be too hard for most to understand.
The reason the planet is unlivable is because of "primitive accumulation" by greedy capitalist
scum who have wrecked the environment by plundering it. This planet is quite capable of
sustaining billions without their greed. If there is any depopulation required it is the elite
who are wrecking this place. Not some poor African farmer and his family which seems to be the
target of the above elitist trash.
The ones on the receiving end of McCarthyism and Hoovers FBI knew first hand WHO the real enemies
were.
paul
,
Like most Hollywood epics, it was grossly historically inaccurate.
Spartacus was killed early on in his final battle. He wasn't captured and defended by fellow slaves,
and then executed.
John Wayne's Alamo epic is totally inaccurate from beginning to end.
Like the ludicrous Errol Flynn films of the 40s.
Any resemblance to historical reality is purely coincidental.
Richard Le Sarc
,
Saw 'Executive Action' at a proper cinema last year. It's a beauty! Every local presstitute, who would
swear on their mother's grave that Oswald was, indeed, the 'lone gunman', should be forced to watch it,
like Alex in 'A Clockwork Orange'.
I personally thought it was excellent movie. Even better than Stone's JFK which was too murky and
surreal which is what you want if obfuscation is your objective.
wardropper
,
I even bought the movie. But those presstitutes own the world today, and persuading the people of the
world that green is not purple is still a superhuman task – or that they should "see what you see; not
what you are
supposed
to see".
Just as persuading the Richard Dawkinses or Christopher Hitchenses of the world that their clever
brains are missing something is still a superhuman task.
But one soldiers on . . .
Ramdan
,
I clicked on the "Executive Action" link and got a "This video is not available" ..
Is this just
me? maybe is not available on the country I'm in???!!
no soup for you
,
It works in certain countries. (Or for certain people?) If it works you get a
trailer
with the option to "Buy or rent".
Ramdan
,
Thanks is the country I'm in a socialist one .so we are de facto russian assets or no money as to
be attractive (consumers) . 😁😁😊.
Hollywood the place where narcissism and hypocrisy meet. I noticed that Jane Fonda wore "sustainable"
diamonds and gold jewelry to the Academy Awards. Whatever that is? Hooray for Hollywood!
Dungroanin
,
Thankyou Matthew, it had got to me too.
Wouldn't be me if I still didn't find some thing nitty to pick
over 😉
So I give you 'TOUGH GUYS' (1986).
One of my personal favourites and a great comedy also featuring the great Eli Wallach.
These guys had style – unlike the modern day brat packers and CIA whores of Clooney and co!
-- -- -
Meanwhile our Junta after the December coup in the UK gets it's ducks in order for our very own
fascist state , with the the help of the dumb 'patriot' voters who bought into the Brexit lies – aided
and abetted by the media presstitutes of all shapes.
Dungroanin
,
Cheers for down tick – always warms the heart knowing that truth is hurting!
Dungroanin, the EU is over with. The French, Italians, Spanish and many of the rest won't be far
behind the Brits.
The revolt is all about neoliberalism, the 'name that is never mentioned'.
Do you really think that Europeans revolting against neoliberalism are going to embrace America.
Seriously?
Dungroanin
,
A neo-liberal EU along the lines if Thatcherite/Blairite/Cummingshite IS certainly over and Macron
the Banker is over. And the Nato Atlantic Council gangster 2% fire-insurance is over.
The 4 freedoms and Schengen one is doing perfectly fine and will only settle into its full glory
without us in their tent pissing over all the furniture and in peoples food and faces.
We'll be begging to get back the moment we leave with our HARD brexit in less then a years time.
George Mc
,
And on the topic of pertinent scripts that probably wouldn't get past the cutting room nowadays, I always
remember the following dialogue from the end of "Three Days of the Condor". Turner (Robert Redford) is a
minor CIA analyst who finds his team assassinated and has to go on the run. He has this conversation with
a CIA deputy director Higgins (Cliff Robertson):
Turner: Do we have plans to invade the Middle East?
Higgins: Are you crazy?
Turner: Am I?
Higgins: Look, Turner
Turner: Do we have plans?
Higgins: No. Absolutely not. We have games. That's all. We play games. What if? How many men? What
would it take? Is there a cheaper way to destabilize a regime? That's what we're paid to do.
Turner: So Atwood just took the games too seriously. He was really going to do it, wasn't he?
Higgins: A renegade operation. Atwood knew 54/12 would never authorize it, not with the heat on the
company.
Turner: What if there hadn't been any heat? Suppose I hadn't stumbled on their plan?
Higgins: Different ballgame. Fact is, there was nothing wrong with the plan. Oh, the plan was all
right, the plan would've worked.
Turner: Boy, what is it with you people? You think not getting caught in a lie is the same thing as
telling the truth?
Higgins: No. It's simple economics. Today it's oil, right? In ten or fifteen years, food. Plutonium.
And maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?
Turner: Ask them.
Higgins: Not now -- then! Ask 'em when they're running out. Ask 'em when there's no heat in their homes
and they're cold. Ask 'em when their engines stop. Ask 'em when people who have never known hunger
start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won't want us to ask 'em. They'll just want us to
get it for 'em!
Turner: Boy, have you found a home. There were seven people killed, Higgins.
Higgins: The company didn't order it.
Turner: Atwood did. Atwood did. And who the hell is Atwood? He's you. He's all you guys. Seven people
killed, and you play fucking games!
Higgins: Right. And the other side does, too. That's why we can't let you stay outside.
One of the few movies made that was actually better than the book it was based on. One of my all time
favorites. The book isn't so much but the script was written in a style very similar to Eric Ambler
who like LeCarre didn't glorify the craft of intelligence unlike Fleming.
Another movie that is
better than the book is the Sum of All Fears which was made just before 9/11 but was rescheduled which
is in many ways truer to actual events than that turkey United 93.
George Mc
,
Wasn't there a whole spate of movies based around Flight 93 i.e. the most evidence free part of
9/11? Who needs evidence when you have Hollywood to tell you what happened.
As far as I know there was a TV miniseries or maybe two. Never saw them though watching the
movie was bad enough but I subjected myself to it because I'm writing a book on 9/11. Believe me
the suspension of disbelief required to watch it qualifies heroic measures. Most of it adheres
to the official story thus the genre would be fantasy or maybe action fantasy.
milosevic
,
Who needs evidence when you have Hollywood to tell you what happened.
better yet, who needs evidence when you have Hollywood to tell you what WILL happen?
I think senile would be a better word. He actually writes better than he interviews. I've
noticed ex-spooks make bad interviewees because you need a secret decoder ring to actually
understand what they're saying.
George Mc
,
Hacked emails from Sony pictures published on WikiLeaks provided a smoking gun when it was revealed that
the Obama administration had courted Hollywood execs to the task of promoting films to "counter Russian
narratives"
This is how the propaganda always works. The shit they churn out is always "in response" to
a phoney threat. Thus the US "combats" Soviet expansion by building American bases everywhere and then –
Lo and Behold! It's the US empire which has expanded.
vwbeetle
,
Try reading "Reel Bad Arabs" by Jack Shaheen about how Hollywood vilifies an entire race of people. I
believe he also made a doco on the subject. Hollywood has always advanced the Zionist narrative
because well, we know why.
True. Black Monday is the epitome of such propaganda. So is True Lies and The Siege all written and
directed by Zionist trash trying to spook Americans into believing that Arab Terrorism was an
actual problem which is total BS according to actual stats:
And goes some way to explain why Mel Gibson has to make his own movies now Another Australian
actor in the '30's, 40's and fifties the Great, Errol Flynn used to show his contempt for
Hollywood's elite, knowing full well that he was their greatest money maker, until his looks and
his lifestyle faded away ..He's still a Legend today though
Red Sparrow was totally unadulterated BS. First of all KGB called them "swallows" not sparrows.
Obviously the writer must have been jerking off to an episode of Rocky and Bullwinkle featuring Boris
and Natasha when he or she wrote it.
One of the best depictions of Soviet penetration was the
Americans. An excellent series that had you rooting for the Rooskies 🙂
lundiel
,
A British film that left a huge mark on me was "
The
long and the short and the tall"
about the British campaign in Malaya during WWII. These days we only
have propaganda like 1917.
Militarism is destroying the USA economy and well-being of the population.
Notable quotes:
"... Candidate Trump said he was for a restoration of Glass-Steagal banking laws and he'd be wise to move on that before a 2008 style collapse hits again. ..."
"... Hillary is the single most prominent example of a class of Democratic apparatchiks who make an excellent living (mis)representing the interests of working Americans and shaking down corporate America using their political clout. It is a matter of shame for America that in her and her husbands careers in "public service" they have amassed a $150mn fortune. ..."
2. The young people who favor policies like "Medicare for all" are ignorant of economics and do not grasp the fact that they would
end by paying a great deal of taxes for that policy.
... ... ...
3. Democratic Party policy toward Trump is designed to prevent him governing.
4. The Democrats are seeking a new issue (anything will do) over which to impeach Trump again.
... ... ...
6. Trump's foreign policy in the ME is ignorant of anything but Zionist desires and ambitions.
7. In any deal with the Taliban the present Afghan government will inevitably be defeated and destroyed in the aftermath.
8. US ground forces are too large. We should adopt a foreign policy that will permit the maintenance of smaller ground forces.
9. Hillary has been behind much of the political devilment in the last three years and is scheming and hoping for a deadlocked
convention in which she will be nominated by acclamation.
10. Trump will wisely offer Tulsi Gabbard a job in his next administration. pl div
All good except #6 precludes #10, unless it was a bad faith offer.
I don't think the ZioCons will tolerate Trump offering Gabbard anything, even if he could ever get over her accurately describing
him as the Saudis' bitch.
Trump is very astute. He gets it. Bloomberg is going to buy the nomination with the full backing of the Deep State/Wall St
wing.
Mini Mike is a 5'4" mass of dead energy who does not want to be on the debate stage with these professional politicians. No
boxes please. He hates Crazy Bernie and will, with enough money, possibly stop him. Bernie's people will go nuts!
6-8 You are so correct. The question is: how will this affect our national interest over the next 5-10 years? Will it matter to
us?
I don't know and can't visualize the consequences very well. I assume the Muslim world will be arrayed against us for the foreseeable
future. How dangerous is that to our own safety?
With the fed now pumping upwards to 120 billion a day in the repo overnight loans market to keep the biggest banks solvent, I
wouldn't be so confident about the health of the economy.
Candidate Trump said he was for a restoration of Glass-Steagal banking laws and he'd be wise to move on that before a 2008
style collapse hits again.
Trumps emphasis on a blue collar boom and an NASA moon landing will be how the US economy remains strong not bailing out too
big to fail Wall Street bank.
Re point 2. We are already paying for health insurance. At least I am. It costs me $26k per year to health insure my family.
All other countries with socialize healthcare systems spend a lower proportion of their GDP on healthcare and almost all have
better health outcomes for their populations. The proportion less can be as much as half the percentage of GDP the US spends on
healthcare.
Taxes may well go up. Healthcare costs will go down for most people. And for those whose healthcare is paid by their employers,
the costs to the employers would go down too, meaning that wages could go up to offset (or more than offset) the additional taxes.
Sir;
I have been advocating point #9 for a year now. Few understand the monstrous ambition contained by HRH HRC. (Her Royal Highness
Hillary Rodham Clinton.)
The Clinton foundation basically took over the Democrat National Committee, (an avowedly private organization,) in 2016.
One does not generally purchase a new toy without wanting to play with it. Clinton's 'toy' is the DNC. What is the primary
purpose of the DNC? To run a political party. The primary functions of a political party, at least today's versions of political
parties, are to secure power for the leadership of the party and 'compensation' for the efforts of the nomenklaturas.
The economy is bad for most of the young and some of the old. This can be inferred by the rise in 2nd and 3rd jobs among the workforce.
2 I have already addressed.
I think points 3 and 4 are obviously true. Im not sure if it is the Dems leading the charge or the neocons. But a group is
attempting to block Trumps efforts to govern.
I am a Sanders supporter. I believe that 5 is partially correct. Sanders wishes to remove the free market operating in certain
key areas - most obviously Healthcare. I do not think you are right about Warren. I think she is seeking progressive votes, but
has no intention of delivering.
I think 6 is obviously true, although I also think Trumps instinct lead him to wish to withdraw troops. He is no match for
the "Borg".
7 is also clearly true.
8 is also clearly true.
9. I would modify this. Hillary is the single most prominent example of a class of Democratic apparatchiks who make an
excellent living (mis)representing the interests of working Americans and shaking down corporate America using their political
clout. It is a matter of shame for America that in her and her husbands careers in "public service" they have amassed a $150mn
fortune.
While I once read Michael Scheuer's blog for his wisdom on his areas of specialty (some examples of that wisdom concerning Afghanistan,
excerpted from his books, are collected at:
"Afghanistan: Michael
Scheuer's View" )
I was turned off by what seemed to be his appeals in his blog for violence against those whom he sees as America's internal
enemies. However, reading Col. Lang's point 7 above, which echoes what Scheuer said in his 2004 book Imperial Hubris (e.g.,
this ), prompted me to check out what he is currently saying. One quote
from his current blog I think will interest both Col. Lang and the CIA veteran Larry Johnson. Scheuer wrote:
The current CIA Director [ Gina Haspel ] is one of the officers I worked with, and she, almost single-handedly, helped
CIA's bin Laden unit destroy an al-Qaeda organization in Eurasia . I have always admired her greatly for her brains, personal
courage, and for never, in my experience, flinching from truth and duty.
I have no idea of the veracity of that, but I certainly do respect MS for his knowledge of the CIA, the Muslims, and Afghanistan.
Surely MS knows of what he speaks in this instance. I think his recommendation is worth noting.
You seem to be saying that "Medicare for all" is pie in the sky and can't work economically. But how do you explain the fact that
all the EU democracies, the UK, Canada etc can provide full health care, but the richest country in the world can't?
Government-funded health care would put more cash in the average guy's pocket which he would spend on consumption which would
strengthen the economy. It's a "win win" solution. When I was in business, I never minded paying for health care, but monthly
payments have ballooned to the point that it's out of reach for many people. I hope you agree with me that health care has gone
from being a vital service to an extortion racket.
Sometimes government can do some good. They could start by creating a system that's either affordable or puts the screws to
the health care Mafia.
All good, except pp.1 since the actual industrial output contracts (4 consecutive annual contractions) and manufacturing is even
worse--6 consecutive annual contractions.
Most "jobs" created are mostly part-time retail jobs due to season. Boeing situation devastated a contractor and supply chain
with massive layoffs (e.g. Spirit Wichita laid-off the third of its labor force)--and those are REAL jobs. The rest--subscribe
completely. Albeit, something has to be done with healthcare. What? I don't know.
2. My wife and I, in the US private sector now, pay $12,000 a year out of pocket before we get any "coverage" at all from the
Denial of Care industry. I'm 57, young people get even less for their money and will continue to vote for change until something
gets better for them. Medicare and the VA already provide over one third of US actual medical care and do it for a fraction of
what the Denial of Care industry does it for. It would be hilarious if Trump took up M4A and ran on it: he could probably implement
it, which he was in favor of back when he was a private business man because the rent extractions of the Denial of Care industry
make US labor uncompetitive against the rest of the world. The MED IC is in the tank for the Dem party and doing all it can to
stop M4A.
4. Which would make sense if the Dems were interested in governing, but if Obama proved anything it is that all the Dems want
to do is say, "those mean, evil Republicans won't let us do anything." Which is to say the current configuration of politics and
economy are working just fine for the Dem apparatchiks who's main function is to fleece guys like Bloomberg.
5. There are a world of economic models between our NeoLiberal (see Slobodian's "The Globalists") hyper extractive capitalism
and a Leninist command economy, it's straw-manning to call AOC, Sanders and even Warren Leninists when they are all somewhere
to the right of Eisenhower and Nixon.
6. Yes!
7. Seems likely.
8. Yes and they shouldn't be deployed to create chaotic ground conditions to facilitate looting by Globalist Multinationals.
jsn "when they are all somewhere to the right of Eisenhower and Nixon." Hey! I remember Eisenhower and Nixon and you are completely
full of it about them. Both of them were centrists.
"... Qanon suggests that the NSA and military include patriots who are trying to finesse a nonviolent transition away from the criminal pathology that has led the US to become an international vast organized crime organization, and purveyor of boundless atrocities. ..."
Does anyone have any thoughts ideas on the QANON phenomenon. I have swayed between
outright scepticism and then hope that it might be true - that some former high-ranking US
military personnel have hatched a plan and co-opted Trump, to drain the swamp, truth about
9-11 and prosecute all those involved, deal with Israel, End the Fed and restore proper money
etc.
Is it true? Or is it absolute bullshit and if so why?
QAnon=hope porn for Trump supporters. There's a video from a little over a year ago by a
couple of guys who make some good points about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e_e5WI_mjg
Regardless of what one might think of the presenters, they have done their homework.
Is it true? Or is it absolute bullshit and if so why?
Posted by: James McCumiskey | Feb 12 2020 13:59 utc | 1
James, from my perspective Qanon's impact is far greater and more beneficial than
indicated by the disparaging remarks that followed your question.
To be clear, I haven't paid a lot of attention to it, but have paid enough attention to
understand that many tens of thousands of people have 'entered' and benefited from the QAnon
'school'.
Now this is not to pretend to know what the actual results will be or even what the actual
intentions of Qanon are.
People who might be more or less in the process of waking up to, say, that we live in a
kind of upside down world, have been given very many clues and crumbs to follow, to research.
The process of waking up is a lifetime process, but it helps to begin at some point, to no
longer just doze away through life.
Qanon begins with the observation that whereas pathological criminality on high gained
power, became dominant over the vast majority of people, most people are more or less salt of
the earth decent folks in their intentions.
But to 'unbrainwash' the brainwashed previously asleep requires a process of education.
The Qanon process is somewhat reminiscent of a Socratic dialogue, whereby cryptic questions
are posed, hints are given, but in the end, the spur is to 'go down the rabbit holes' and
discover what's really going on.
Qanon suggests that the NSA and military include patriots who are trying to finesse a
nonviolent transition away from the criminal pathology that has led the US to become an
international vast organized crime organization, and purveyor of boundless
atrocities.
Trump then is to be understood as a flawed but handy and workable temporary leadership
means by which the system of tyranny can be decisively undermined.
Again, I'm not writing this as a fan of either Trump or Qanon, but am trying to answer
your question beyond a reflexive jeer that appears common currency among the
'enlightened'.
h/t: jtrue.com - I have an eclectic range on what I read... some I agree with ... some I
don't... but things are getting so weird I 'don't throw the baby out with the
bathwater'...
Does anyone have any thoughts ideas on the QANON phenomenon
Newly senile baby boomers and ideological conservatives psy-oping themselves. One of the
myriad of mental gymnastics routines used by the conservative crowd to justify the
continuation of the Obama presidency under Trump, which itself continued the Bush presidency,
which continued the Clinton presidency... and on and on. A replacement for scientific social
analysis by the equivalent of numerology and astrology, for people who don't know what
science is and are probably distrustful of it to begin with. A good example: a friend of
mine's dad is really hardcore into it. He's also a chiropractor. Not a coincidence. There's a
certain type of cognitive style that will latch onto this kind of absurd shit and it's the
duty of the scientifically minded to inoculate people against it.
Qanon is certainly a psyop. The question is whether it's a wishful thinking deep-state
conspiracy theorist sitting in abasement with Cheetos and Dr. Pepper, or a disaffected rogue
insider spreading crumbs of critical thinking to the dazed and confused mass of "Americans"
who are victims of the greatest psyop in the history of the known universe; propagandized for
90 some years into the cult Baseball, Mom and Apple Pie.
Whatever Qanon is it has allowed white nationalist fascists to believe they are freedom
fighters on a grand quest to cleanse a swamp of corruption that is the true treason of the
"American Dream."
The United States is two-party political monopoly, the two sides serving the same coin of
'the money power.' There is no more useful idiot than the raging stable genius who believes
belligerence is wisdom, and money is love.
The United States is coming to a three-pronged fork in the road:
1. Collapse
2. Totalitarianism
3. Revolution
The billionaires are preparing for collapse and turning to off-world escape. Bill Gates
just ordered a ½ billion dollar hydrogen powered mega-yacht to ride it out in
Waterworld.
QANON is a fraud. See Sessions, now Barr, Bolton, McCain. Frauds. So Q was needed right from
thr beginning to divert people fom seing the Trump family business as usless.
The Trump WONT go after the greatest breaches of USA national security - Hillary and the
unsecured email at her home cupboard or the Awan family spy/blackmail racket in the Dem
congress members. QANON is cover for Trump family inaction.
QANON is useless for most but is a reference for those bloggers and YouTube commentators
to fool people into thinkingthey are 'in the know', have deep information when all they have
is tripe and hot air. So QANON is useful to fool fools, dupe dopes, and elevate the liar in
chief.
How can it be that after three years as president Trump had Vinman and Ciaramela STILL on
the NSC staff advising the White House? Then Bolton appointed was extreme blunder and then he
betrayed Trump. QANON blows smoke over Trump family lightweights while they pick pocket the
audience.
Bernie is not there to be president. his "community" job is to dog herd the progressive
crowds to vote, as a lesser evil, for the Judeo-Zionist corporate candidate, the donors'
choice, as he did servilely in 2016. ask him any question about foreign policy and you will
note, on the spot, where he stands: he approved, as a Senator, the last 3 out of 4 major wars
of the US empire. 95% of his domestic promises are undeliverable. we did love Obama,
didn´t we? we will adore Bernie! for sure.
Qanon is such garbage. Just look at what nietzshe1510 said about Bernie Sanders... The
same crap is being pulled on people that follow Qanon. Its up to you to be the best person
that you can be and make a difference in your family, one small group of people at a time,
all over the planet. Like a tidal wave of good intentions. Never mind Bernie Sanders, Tulsi
Gabbard or the media that support them. It is just a fu*kin gimmick.
@1 "QUANON"
Sounds like a fantasy from a Robert Heinlein novel; try "The Puppet Masters", or "Revolt in
2100". He also was a military officer, until he got invalided out.
The discussion about Qanon was enlightening. I voted for Trump but gave up on him after
Seymour Hersh's article about the first Syria strikes was published in Germany(because,
apparently, no U.S publisher wanted to touch it) I find myself drifting slowly back to the
leftism of my youth since then. As for Bernie, his former comrade Michael Parenti implied in
2015 that Bernie is afraid of the National Security State crowd, and I think that makes
sense. Bernie won't fight the Empire, which makes his domestic promises basically useless,
regardless of his motives. Honestly, I think he mostly is in this for the campaign
contributions, but who knows? He's a lot less relevant than a lot of people are willing to
admit. The empire seems to be running out of steam on its own as far as I can see, as
de-dollarization continues to gain momentum, particularly in Asia. Events in Iraq and places
like the Philippines should be more interesting watch than this boring election
I looked into several of the more detailed predictions and comments - they were uniformly
wrong, albeit loosely based on 1st level internet search results.
Fiction, not fact.
Psyops? Anything is possible, but I personally don't see it. Trump does just fine handling
Twitter himself.
My bet is that Qanon is simply Steve Bannon. Both have/had the same fake discourse and the
same targets.
The revealing clue was for me when I saw his video clip "The great awakening".
Who has ever peddled the Pizzagate without being himself a nuts? I only know Qanon and
Bannon (by means of Cambridge Analytica)
thanks b...no shortage of hypocrisy in all this...
regarding @ 4 mike r which @8 ian2 linked properly to, i enjoyed the last paragraph which
i think sums it up well.. here it is..
"I continue to believe that the United States cannot effectively restrict the spread of a
technology under Chinese leadership without offering a superior product of its own. The fact
that the United States has attempted to suppress Huawei's market leadership in the absence of
any American competitor in this field is one of the oddest occurrences in the history of US
foreign policy. If the US were to announce something like a Manhattan Project for 5G
broadband and solicit the cooperation of its European and Asian allies, it probably would get
an enthusiastic response. As matters stand, America's efforts to stop Huawei have become an
embarrassment."
The reason European customers trust Huawei is because Huawei uses open-source software or at
least makes their code available for inspection by customers.
Closed-source software cannot provide secrecy or security. This was vividly demonstrated
last month when
NSA revealed a critical vulnerability in Windows 10 that rendered any cryptographic
security worthless.
Rashid's simulated attack exploits CVE-2020-0601, the critical vulnerability that
Microsoft patched on Tuesday after receiving a private tipoff from the NSA. As Ars
reported, the flaw can completely break certificate validation for websites, software
updates, VPNs, and other security-critical computer uses. It affects Windows 10 systems,
including server versions Windows Server 2016 and Windows Server 2019. Other versions of
Windows are unaffected.
The flaw involves the way the new versions of Windows check the validity of certificates
that use elliptic-curve cryptography. While the vulnerable Windows versions check three ECC
parameters, they fail to verify a fourth, crucial one, which is known as a base point
generator and is often represented in algorithms as 'G.' This failure is a result of
Microsoft's implementation of ECC rather than any flaw or weakness in the ECC algorithms
themselves.
The attacker examines the specific ECC algorithm used to generate the root-certificate
public key and proceeds to craft a private key that copies all of the certificate
parameters for that algorithm except for the point generator. Because vulnerable Windows
versions fail to check that parameter, they accept the private key as valid. With that, the
attacker has spoofed a Windows-trusted root certificate that can be used to mint any
individual certificate used for authentication of websites, software, and other sensitive
properties.
I do not believe this vulnerability was a bug. It is more likely a backdoor intentionally
left in the code for NSA to utilize. Whatever the case, NSA must have known about it for
years. Why did they reveal it now? Most likely someone else had discovered the back door and
may have been about to publish it.
(I
commented on these same issues on Sputnik a few weeks ago.)
The other possible US objection is that Huawei will only let their customers spy, not third
countries.
Posted by: Paul Cockshott | Feb 11 2020 21:57 utc | 24
It reminds me a joke about Emperor Napoleon arriving in a town. The population, the
notables and the mayor are greeting him, and the Emperor says "No gun salute, hm?". Mayor
replies "Sire, we have twenty reasons. Fist, we have canons", "Enough", replied Napoleon.
Isn't the "other possible US objection" exactly "Enough"? Of course, USA is not a mere
"third country", USA is the rule maker of rule based international order.
Caroline Dorminey and Sumaya Malas do an excellent job of
making the case for extending New START:
One of the most critical arms control agreements, the New Strategic Reduction Arms Treaty
(New START), will disappear soon if leaders do not step up to save it. New START imposes
limits on the world's two largest nuclear arsenals, Russia and the United States, and remains
one of the last arms control agreements still in effect. Those limits expire in exactly one
year from Wednesday, and without it, both stockpiles will be unconstrained for the first time
in decades.
Democrats in Congress already express consistent support for the extension of New START,
turning the issue into a Democratic Party agenda item. But today's hyper-partisan landscape
need not dictate that arms control must become solely a Democratic priority. Especially when
the treaty in question still works, provides an important limit on Russian nuclear weapons,
and ultimately increases our national security.
Dorminey and Malas are right that there should be broad support for extending the
treaty. The treaty's ratification was frequently described as a "no-brainer" win for U.S.
national security when it was being debated ten years ago, and the treaty's extension is
likewise obviously desirable for both countries. The trouble is that the Trump administration
doesn't judge this treaty or any other international agreement on the merits, and only a few of
the Republicans that voted to ratify the treaty are still in office. Trump and his advisers
have been following the lead of anti-arms control ideologues for years. That is why the
president seized on violations of the INF Treaty as an excuse to get rid of that treaty instead
of working to resolve the dispute with Russia, and that is why he expressed his willingness to
pull out of the Open Skies Treaty. Trump has encountered no resistance from the GOP as he goes
on a treaty-killing spree, because by and large the modern Republican Party couldn't care less
about arms control.
Like these hard-liners, Trump doesn't think there is such a thing as a "win-win" agreement
with another government, and for that he reason he won't support any treaty that imposes the
same restrictions on both parties. We can see that the administration isn't serious about
extending the treaty when we look at the far-fetched demands they insist on adding to the
existing treaty. These additional demands are meant to serve as a smokescreen so that the
administration can let the treaty die, and the administration is just stalling for time until
the expiration occurs. The Russian government has said many times that it is ready and willing
to accept an extension of the treaty without any conditions, and the U.S. response has been to
let them eat static.
It would be ideal if Trump suddenly changed his position on all this and just extended the
treaty, but all signs point in the opposite direction. What we need to start thinking about is
what the next administration is going to have to do to rebuild the arms control architecture
that this administration has demolished. There will be almost no time for the next president to
extend the treaty next year, so it needs to be a top priority. If New START lapses, the U.S.
and Russia would have to negotiate a new treaty to replace it, and in the current political
climate the odds that the Senate would ratify an arms control treaty (or any treaty) are not
good. It would be much easier and wiser to keep the current treaty alive, but we need to start
preparing for the consequences of Trump's unwillingness to do that.
History Politics I hang around some pretty
intelligent people who have smart friends commenting on their facebook pages. The first part of
this post is from a comment on Claude Scales's Facebook page by William R. Everdell. I think it
fits with the NYT article Claude referenced. The second part of this is a shorten version of
the NYT Opinion
article "Why You May Never Learn the Truth About ICE," Matthew Connelly, Professor of
History, Columbia.
George Orwell in "'1984', Winston Smith was dropping documents into the 'memory hole' by his
desk at the Ministry of Truth – Minitrue
'Who controls the past controls the
future: who controls the present controls the past.'
In a key piece of actual extensive, on-the-ground reporting
, the New York Times's Alissa Rubin has raised serious questions about the official US
account of who it was that attacked the K-1 base near Kirkuk, in eastern Iraq, on December 27.
The United States almost immediately accused the Iran-backed Ketaib Hizbullah (KH) militia of
responsibility. But Rubin quotes by name Brig. General Ahmed Adnan, the chief of intelligence
for the Iraqi federal police at the same base, as saying, "All the indications are that it was
Daesh" -- that is, ISIS.
She also presents considerable further detailed reporting on the matter. And she notes that
though U.S. investigators claim to have evidence about KH's responsibility for the attack, they
have presented none of it publicly. Nor have they shared it with the Iraqi government.
KH is a paramilitary organization that operates under the command of the Iraqi military and
has been deeply involved in the anti-ISIS campaigns throughout the country.
The December 27 attack killed one Iraqi-American contractor and was cited by the Trump
administration as reason to launch a large-scale attack on five KH bases some 400 miles to the
west which killed around 50 KH fighters. Outraged KH fighters then mobbed the US embassy in
Baghdad, breaking through an outside perimeter on its large campus, but causing no casualties.
On January 2, Pres. Trump decided to escalate again, ordering the assassination of Iran's Gen.
Qasem Soleimani and bringing the region and the world close to a massive shooting war.
The new evidence presented by Rubin makes it look as if Trump and his advisors had
previously decided on a broad-scale plan to attack Iran's very influential allies in Iraq and
were waiting for a triggering event– any triggering event!– to use as a pretext to
launch it. The attack against the K-1 base presented them with that trigger, even though they
have not been able to present any evidence that it was KH that undertook it.
This playbook looks very similar to the one that Ariel Sharon, who was Israel's Defense
Minister in summer 1982, used to launch his wide attack against the PLO's presence in Lebanon
in June that year. The "trigger" Sharon used to launch his long-prepared attack was the serious
(but not fatal) wounding
of Israel's ambassador in London, Shlomo Argov, which the Israeli government immediately
blamed on the PLO.
Regarding London in 1982, as regarding K-1 last December, the actual identity of the
assailant(s) was misreported by the government that used it as a trigger for escalation. In
London, the police fairly speedily established that it was not the PLO but operatives of an
anti-PLO group headed by a man called Abu Nidal who had attacked Argov. But by the
time they had discovered and publicized that fact, Israeli tanks were already deep inside
Lebanon.
The parallels and connections between the two cases go further. If, as now seems likely, the
authors of the K-1 attack were indeed Da'esh, then they succeeded brilliantly in triggering a
bitter fight between two substantial forces in the coalition that had been fighting against
them in Iraq. Regarding the 1982 London attack, its authors also succeeded brilliantly in
triggering a lethal conflict between two forces (one substantial, one far less so) that were
both engaged in bitter combat against Abu Nidal's networks.
Worth noting: Abu Nidal's main backer, throughout his whole campaign against the PLO, was
Saddam Hussein's brutal government in Iraq. (The London assailants deposited their weapons in
the Iraqi embassy after completing the attack.) Many senior strategists and planners for ISIS
in Iraq were diehard remnants of Saddam's formerly intimidating security forces.
Also worth noting: Three months in to Sharon's massive 1982 invasion of Lebanon, it seemed
to have successfully reached its goals of expelling the PLO's fighting forces from Lebanon and
installing a strongly pro-Israeli government there. But over the longer haul, the invasion
looked much less successful. The lengthy Israeli occupation of south Lebanon that followed 1982
served to incubate the birth and growth of the (pro-Iranian) Hizbullah there. Today, Hizbullah is a strong
political movement inside Lebanon that commands a very capable fighting force that expelled
Israel's last presence from Lebanon in 2000, rebuffed a subsequent Israeli invasion of the
country six years later, and still exerts considerable deterrent power against
Israel today
Very few people in Israel today judge the 1982 invasion of Lebanon to have been a wise move.
How will the historians of the future view Trump's decision to launch his big escalation
against Iran's allies in Iraq, presumably as part of his "maximum pressure" campaign against
Tehran?
This article has been republished with permission from
Just World News .
December 3, 1993 The CIA Drug ConnectionIs as Old as the Agency
LONDON -- The Justice Department is investigating allegations that officers of a special
Venezuelan anti-drug unit funded by the CIA smuggled more than 2,000 pounds of cocaine into
the United States with the knowledge of CIA officials – despite protests by the Drug
Enforcement Administration, the organization responsible for enforcing U.S. drug laws.
Bush older was the first president from CIA. He was already a senior CIA official at the time
of JFK assassination and might participate in the plot to kill JFK. At least he was in Dallas at
the day of assassination. .
That Iraq is to say the least unstable is attributable to the ill-advised U.S. invasion
of 2003.
Nothing to do with 9 years of sanctions on Iraq that killed a million Iraqis, "half of
them children," and US control of Iraqi air space, after having killed Iraqi military in a
turkey-shoot, for no really good reason other than George H W Bush seized the "unipolar
moment" to become king of the world?
Maybe it's just stubbornness: I think Papa Bush is responsible for the "imperial pivot,"
in the Persian Gulf war aka Operation Desert Storm, 29 years and 4 days ago -- January 17,
1991.
According to Jeffrey Engel, Bush's biographer and director of the Bush library at Southern
Methodist University, Gorbachev harassed Bush with phone calls, pleading with him not to go
to war over Kuwait
(It's worth noting that Dennis Ross was relatively new in his role on Jim Baker's staff
when Baker, Brent Skowcroft, Larry Eagleburger & like minded urged Bush to take the
Imperial Pivot.)
According to Vernon Loeb, who completed the writing of King's Counsel after Jack
O'Connell died, Jordan's King Hussein, in consultation with retired CIA station chief
O'Connell, parlayed with Arab leaders to resolve the conflict on their own, i.e. Arab-to-Arab
terms, and also pleaded with Bush to stay out, and to let the Arabs solve their own problems.
Bush refused. https://www.c-span.org/video/?301361-6/kings-counsel
See above: Bush was determined to "seize the unipolar moment."
Once again insist on entering into the record: George H Bush was present at the creation
of the Global War on Terror, July 4, 1979, the Jerusalem Conference hosted by Benzion and
Benjamin Netanyahu and heavily populated with Trotskyites – neocons.
I think Papa Bush is responsible for the "imperial pivot," in the Persian Gulf war aka
Operation Desert Storm, 29 years and 4 days ago -- January 17, 1991.
Yes I remember it well. I came back from a long trip & memorable vacation, alas I was
a young man, to the television drama that was unfolding with Arthur Kent 'The Scud
Stud' and others reporting from the safety of their hotel balconies filming aircaft and
cruise missiles. It was surreal.
You are correct of course.
"... Americans were the victims of an elaborate con job, pelted with a daily barrage of threat inflation, distortions, deceptions and lies, not about tactics or strategy or war plans, but about justifications for war. The lies were aimed not at confusing Saddam's regime, but the American people. By the start of the war, 66 per cent of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 and 79 per cent thought he was close to having a nuclear weapon. ..."
"... This charade wouldn't have worked without a gullible or a complicit press corps. Victoria Clarke, who developed the Pentagon plan for embedded reports, put it succinctly a few weeks before the war began: "Media coverage of any future operation will to a large extent shape public perception." ..."
"... During the Vietnam War, TV images of maimed GIs and napalmed villages suburbanized opposition to the war and helped hasten the U.S. withdrawal. The Bush gang meant to turn the Vietnam phenomenon on its head by using TV as a force to propel the U.S.A. into a war that no one really wanted. ..."
"... When the Pentagon needed a heroic story, the press obliged. Jessica Lynch became the war's first instant celebrity. Here was a neo-gothic tale of a steely young woman wounded in a fierce battle, captured and tortured by ruthless enemies, and dramatically saved from certain death by a team of selfless rescuers, knights in camo and night-vision goggles. ..."
"... Back in 1988, the Post felt much differently about Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction. When reports trickled out about the gassing of Iranian troops, the Washington Post's editorial page shrugged off the massacres, calling the mass poisonings "a quirk of war." ..."
"... The Bush team displayed a similar amnesia. When Iraq used chemical weapons in grisly attacks on Iran, the U.S. government not only didn't object, it encouraged Saddam. ..."
"... Nothing sums up this unctuous approach more brazenly than MSNBC's firing of liberal talk show host Phil Donahue on the eve of the war. The network replaced the Donahue Show with a running segment called Countdown: Iraq, featuring the usual nightly coterie of retired generals, security flacks, and other cheerleaders for invasion. ..."
The war on Iraq won't be remembered for how it was waged so much as for how it was sold. It
was a propaganda war, a war of perception management, where loaded phrases, such as "weapons of
mass destruction" and "rogue state" were hurled like precision weapons at the target audience:
us.
To understand the Iraq war you don't need to consult generals, but the spin doctors and PR
flacks who stage-managed the countdown to war from the murky corridors of Washington where
politics, corporate spin and psy-ops spooks cohabit.
Consider the picaresque journey of Tony Blair's plagiarized dossier on Iraq, from a grad
student's website to a cut-and-paste job in the prime minister's bombastic speech to the House
of Commons. Blair, stubborn and verbose, paid a price for his grandiose puffery. Bush, who
looted whole passages from Blair's speech for his own clumsy presentations, has skated freely
through the tempest. Why?
Unlike Blair, the Bush team never wanted to present a legal case for war. They had no
interest in making any of their allegations about Iraq hold up to a standard of proof. The real
effort was aimed at amping up the mood for war by using the psychology of fear.
Facts were never important to the Bush team. They were disposable nuggets that could be
discarded at will and replaced by whatever new rationale that played favorably with their polls
and focus groups. The war was about weapons of mass destruction one week, al-Qaeda the next.
When neither allegation could be substantiated on the ground, the fall back position became the
mass graves (many from the Iran/Iraq war where the U.S.A. backed Iraq) proving that Saddam was
an evil thug who deserved to be toppled. The motto of the Bush PR machine was: Move on. Don't
explain. Say anything to conceal the perfidy behind the real motives for war. Never look back.
Accuse the questioners of harboring unpatriotic sensibilities. Eventually, even the cagey
Wolfowitz admitted that the official case for war was made mainly to make the invasion
palatable, not to justify it.
The Bush claque of neocon hawks viewed the Iraq war as a product and, just like a new pair
of Nikes, it required a roll-out campaign to soften up the consumers. The same techniques (and
often the same PR gurus) that have been used to hawk cigarettes, SUVs and nuclear waste dumps
were deployed to retail the Iraq war. To peddle the invasion, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell
and company recruited public relations gurus into top-level jobs at the Pentagon and the State
Department. These spinmeisters soon had more say over how the rationale for war on Iraq should
be presented than intelligence agencies and career diplomats. If the intelligence didn't fit
the script, it was shaded, retooled or junked.
Take Charlotte Beers whom Powell picked as undersecretary of state in the post-9/11 world.
Beers wasn't a diplomat. She wasn't even a politician. She was a grand diva of spin, known on
the business and gossip pages as "the queen of Madison Avenue." On the strength of two
advertising campaigns, one for Uncle Ben's Rice and another for Head and Shoulder's dandruff
shampoo, Beers rocketed to the top of the heap in the PR world, heading two giant PR houses:
Ogilvy and Mathers as well as J. Walter Thompson.
At the State Department Beers, who had met Powell in 1995 when they both served on the board
of Gulf Airstream, worked at, in Powell's words, "the branding of U.S. foreign policy." She
extracted more than $500 million from Congress for her Brand America campaign, which largely
focused on beaming U.S. propaganda into the Muslim world, much of it directed at teens.
"Public diplomacy is a vital new arm in what will combat terrorism over time," said Beers.
"All of a sudden we are in this position of redefining who America is, not only for ourselves,
but for the outside world." Note the rapt attention Beers pays to the manipulation of
perception, as opposed, say, to alterations of U.S. policy.
Old-fashioned diplomacy involves direct communication between representatives of nations, a
conversational give and take, often fraught with deception (see April Glaspie), but an exchange
nonetheless. Public diplomacy, as defined by Beers, is something else entirely. It's a one-way
street, a unilateral broadcast of American propaganda directly to the public, domestic and
international, a kind of informational carpet-bombing.
The themes of her campaigns were as simplistic and flimsy as a Bush press conference. The
American incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq were all about bringing the balm of "freedom" to
oppressed peoples. Hence, the title of the U.S. war: Operation Iraqi Freedom, where cruise
missiles were depicted as instruments of liberation. Bush himself distilled the Beers equation
to its bizarre essence: "This war is about peace."
Beers quietly resigned her post a few weeks before the first volley of tomahawk missiles
battered Baghdad. From her point of view, the war itself was already won, the fireworks of
shock and awe were all after play.
Over at the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld drafted Victoria "Torie" Clarke as his director of
public affairs. Clarke knew the ropes inside the Beltway. Before becoming Rumsfeld's
mouthpiece, she had commanded one of the world's great parlors for powerbrokers: Hill and
Knowlton's D.C. office.
Almost immediately upon taking up her new gig, Clarke convened regular meetings with a
select group of Washington's top private PR specialists and lobbyists to develop a marketing
plan for the Pentagon's forthcoming terror wars. The group was filled with heavy-hitters and
was strikingly bipartisan in composition. She called it the Rumsfeld Group and it included PR
executive Sheila Tate, columnist Rich Lowry, and Republican political consultant Rich
Galen.
The brain trust also boasted top Democratic fixer Tommy Boggs, brother of NPR's Cokie
Roberts and son of the late Congressman Hale Boggs of Louisiana. At the very time Boggs was
conferring with top Pentagon brass on how to frame the war on terror, he was also working
feverishly for the royal family of Saudi Arabia. In 2002 alone, the Saudis paid his Qorvis PR
firm $20.2 million to protect its interests in Washington. In the wake of hostile press
coverage following the exposure of Saudi links to the 9/11 hijackers, the royal family needed
all the well-placed help it could buy. They seem to have gotten their money's worth. Boggs'
felicitous influence-peddling may help to explain why the references to Saudi funding of
al-Qaeda were dropped from the recent congressional report on the investigation into
intelligence failures and 9/11.
According to the trade publication PR Week, the Rumsfeld Group sent "messaging advice" to
the Pentagon. The group told Clarke and Rumsfeld that in order to get the American public to
buy into the war on terrorism, they needed to suggest a link to nation states, not just
nebulous groups such as al-Qaeda. In other words, there needed to be a fixed target for the
military campaigns, some distant place to drop cruise missiles and cluster bombs. They
suggested the notion (already embedded in Rumsfeld's mind) of playing up the notion of
so-called rogue states as the real masters of terrorism. Thus was born the Axis of Evil, which,
of course, wasn't an "axis" at all, since two of the states, Iran and Iraq, hated each other,
and neither had anything at all to do with the third, North Korea.
Tens of millions in federal money were poured into private public relations and media firms
working to craft and broadcast the Bush dictat that Saddam had to be taken out before the Iraqi
dictator blew up the world by dropping chemical and nuclear bombs from long-range drones. Many
of these PR executives and image consultants were old friends of the high priests in the Bush
inner sanctum. Indeed, they were veterans, like Cheney and Powell, of the previous war against
Iraq, another engagement that was more spin than combat .
At the top of the list was John Rendon, head of the D.C. firm, the Rendon Group. Rendon is
one of Washington's heaviest hitters, a Beltway fixer who never let political affiliation stand
in the way of an assignment. Rendon served as a media consultant for Michael Dukakis and Jimmy
Carter, as well as Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Whenever the Pentagon wanted to go to war, he
offered his services at a price. During Desert Storm, Rendon pulled in $100,000 a month from
the Kuwaiti royal family. He followed this up with a $23 million contract from the CIA to
produce anti-Saddam propaganda in the region.
As part of this CIA project, Rendon created and named the Iraqi National Congress and tapped
his friend Ahmed Chalabi, the shady financier, to head the organization.
Shortly after 9/11, the Pentagon handed the Rendon Group another big assignment: public
relations for the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan. Rendon was also deeply involved in the planning
and public relations for the pre-emptive war on Iraq, though both Rendon and the Pentagon
refuse to disclose the details of the group's work there.
But it's not hard to detect the manipulative hand of Rendon behind many of the Iraq war's
signature events, including the toppling of the Saddam statue (by U.S. troops and Chalabi
associates) and videotape of jubilant Iraqis waving American flags as the Third Infantry rolled
by them. Rendon had pulled off the same stunt in the first Gulf War, handing out American flags
to Kuwaitis and herding the media to the orchestrated demonstration. "Where do you think they
got those American flags?" clucked Rendon in 1991. "That was my assignment."
The Rendon Group may also have had played a role in pushing the phony intelligence that has
now come back to haunt the Bush administration. In December of 2002, Robert Dreyfuss reported
that the inner circle of the Bush White House preferred the intelligence coming from Chalabi
and his associates to that being proffered by analysts at the CIA.
So Rendon and his circle represented a new kind of off-the-shelf PSYOPs , the privatization
of official propaganda. "I am not a national security strategist or a military tactician," said
Rendon. "I am a politician, and a person who uses communication to meet public policy or
corporate policy objectives. In fact, I am an information warrior and a perception
manager."
What exactly, is perception management? The Pentagon defines it this way: "actions to convey
and/or deny selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their
emotions, motives and objective reasoning." In other words, lying about the intentions of the
U.S. government. In a rare display of public frankness, the Pentagon actually let slip its plan
(developed by Rendon) to establish a high-level den inside the Department Defense for
perception management. They called it the Office of Strategic Influence and among its many
missions was to plant false stories in the press.
Nothing stirs the corporate media into outbursts of pious outrage like an official
government memo bragging about how the media are manipulated for political objectives. So the
New York Times and Washington Post threw indignant fits about the Office of Strategic
Influence; the Pentagon shut down the operation, and the press gloated with satisfaction on its
victory. Yet, Rumsfeld told the Pentagon press corps that while he was killing the office, the
same devious work would continue. "You can have the corpse," said Rumsfeld. "You can have the
name. But I'm going to keep doing every single thing that needs to be done. And I have."
At a diplomatic level, despite the hired guns and the planted stories, this image war was
lost. It failed to convince even America's most fervent allies and dependent client states that
Iraq posed much of a threat. It failed to win the blessing of the U.N. and even NATO, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Washington. At the end of the day, the vaunted coalition of the willing
consisted of Britain, Spain, Italy, Australia, and a cohort of former Soviet bloc nations. Even
so, the citizens of the nations that cast their lot with the U.S.A. overwhelmingly opposed the
war.
Domestically, it was a different story. A population traumatized by terror threats and
shattered economy became easy prey for the saturation bombing of the Bush message that Iraq was
a terrorist state linked to al-Qaeda that was only minutes away from launching attacks on
America with weapons of mass destruction.
Americans were the victims of an elaborate con job, pelted with a daily barrage of
threat inflation, distortions, deceptions and lies, not about tactics or strategy or war plans,
but about justifications for war. The lies were aimed not at confusing Saddam's regime, but the
American people. By the start of the war, 66 per cent of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was
behind 9/11 and 79 per cent thought he was close to having a nuclear weapon.
Of course, the closest Saddam came to possessing a nuke was a rusting gas centrifuge buried
for 13 years in the garden of Mahdi Obeidi, a retired Iraqi scientist. Iraq didn't have any
functional chemical or biological weapons. In fact, it didn't even possess any SCUD missiles,
despite erroneous reports fed by Pentagon PR flacks alleging that it had fired SCUDs into
Kuwait.
This charade wouldn't have worked without a gullible or a complicit press corps.
Victoria Clarke, who developed the Pentagon plan for embedded reports, put it succinctly a few
weeks before the war began: "Media coverage of any future operation will to a large extent
shape public perception."
During the Vietnam War, TV images of maimed GIs and napalmed villages suburbanized
opposition to the war and helped hasten the U.S. withdrawal. The Bush gang meant to turn the
Vietnam phenomenon on its head by using TV as a force to propel the U.S.A. into a war that no
one really wanted.
What the Pentagon sought was a new kind of living room war, where instead of photos of
mangled soldiers and dead Iraqi kids, they could control the images Americans viewed and to a
large extent the content of the stories. By embedding reporters inside selected divisions,
Clarke believed the Pentagon could count on the reporters to build relationships with the
troops and to feel dependent on them for their own safety. It worked, naturally. One reporter
for a national network trembled on camera that the U.S. Army functioned as "our protectors."
The late David Bloom of NBC confessed on the air that he was willing to do "anything and
everything they can ask of us."
When the Pentagon needed a heroic story, the press obliged. Jessica Lynch became the
war's first instant celebrity. Here was a neo-gothic tale of a steely young woman wounded in a
fierce battle, captured and tortured by ruthless enemies, and dramatically saved from certain
death by a team of selfless rescuers, knights in camo and night-vision goggles. Of course,
nearly every detail of her heroic adventure proved to be as fictive and maudlin as any
made-for-TV-movie. But the ordeal of Private Lynch, which dominated the news for more than a
week, served its purpose: to distract attention from a stalled campaign that was beginning to
look at lot riskier than the American public had been hoodwinked into believing.
The Lynch story was fed to the eager press by a Pentagon operation called Combat Camera, the
Army network of photographers, videographers and editors that sends 800 photos and 25 video
clips a day to the media. The editors at Combat Camera carefully culled the footage to present
the Pentagon's montage of the war, eliding such unsettling images as collateral damage, cluster
bombs, dead children and U.S. soldiers, napalm strikes and disgruntled troops.
"A lot of our imagery will have a big impact on world opinion," predicted Lt. Jane Larogue,
director of Combat Camera in Iraq. She was right. But as the hot war turned into an even hotter
occupation, the Pentagon, despite airy rhetoric from occupation supremo Paul Bremer about
installing democratic institutions such as a free press, moved to tighten its monopoly on the
flow images out of Iraq. First, it tried to shut down Al Jazeera, the Arab news channel. Then
the Pentagon intimated that it would like to see all foreign TV news crews banished from
Baghdad.
Few newspapers fanned the hysteria about the threat posed by Saddam's weapons of mass
destruction as sedulously as did the Washington Post. In the months leading up to the war, the
Post's pro-war op-eds outnumbered the anti-war columns by a 3-to-1 margin.
Back in 1988, the Post felt much differently about Saddam and his weapons of mass
destruction. When reports trickled out about the gassing of Iranian troops, the Washington
Post's editorial page shrugged off the massacres, calling the mass poisonings "a quirk of
war."
The Bush team displayed a similar amnesia. When Iraq used chemical weapons in grisly
attacks on Iran, the U.S. government not only didn't object, it encouraged Saddam.
Anything to punish Iran was the message coming from the White House. Donald Rumsfeld himself
was sent as President Ronald Reagan's personal envoy to Baghdad. Rumsfeld conveyed the bold
message than an Iraq defeat would be viewed as a "strategic setback for the United States."
This sleazy alliance was sealed with a handshake caught on videotape. When CNN reporter Jamie
McIntyre replayed the footage for Rumsfeld in the spring of 2003, the secretary of defense
snapped, "Where'd you get that? Iraqi television?"
The current crop of Iraq hawks also saw Saddam much differently then. Take the writer Laura
Mylroie, sometime colleague of the New York Times' Judy Miller, who persists in peddling the
ludicrous conspiracy that Iraq was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.
How times have changed! In 1987, Mylroie felt downright cuddly toward Saddam. She wrote an
article for the New Republic titled "Back Iraq: Time for a U.S. Tilt in the Mideast," arguing
that the U.S. should publicly embrace Saddam's secular regime as a bulwark against the Islamic
fundamentalists in Iran. The co-author of this mesmerizing weave of wonkery was none other than
Daniel Pipes, perhaps the nation's most bellicose Islamophobe. "The American weapons that Iraq
could make good use of include remotely scatterable and anti-personnel mines and
counterartillery radar," wrote Mylroie and Pipes. "The United States might also consider
upgrading intelligence it is supplying Baghdad."
In the rollout for the war, Mylroie seemed to be everywhere hawking the invasion of Iraq.
She would often appear on two or three different networks in the same day. How did the reporter
manage this feat? She had help in the form of Eleana Benador, the media placement guru who runs
Benador Associates. Born in Peru, Benador parlayed her skills as a linguist into a lucrative
career as media relations whiz for the Washington foreign policy elite. She also oversees the
Middle East Forum, a fanatically pro-Zionist white paper mill. Her clients include some of the
nation's most fervid hawks, including Michael Ledeen, Charles Krauthammer, Al Haig, Max Boot,
Daniel Pipes, Richard Perle, and Judy Miller. During the Iraq war, Benador's assignment was to
embed this squadron of pro-war zealots into the national media, on talk shows, and op-ed
pages.
Benador not only got them the gigs, she also crafted the theme and made sure they all stayed
on message. "There are some things, you just have to state them in a different way, in a
slightly different way," said Benador. "If not, people get scared." Scared of intentions of
their own government.
It could have been different. All of the holes in the Bush administration's gossamer case
for war were right there for the mainstream press to expose. Instead, the U.S. press, just like
the oil companies, sought to commercialize the Iraq war and profit from the invasions. They
didn't want to deal with uncomfortable facts or present voices of dissent.
Nothing sums up this unctuous approach more brazenly than MSNBC's firing of liberal talk
show host Phil Donahue on the eve of the war. The network replaced the Donahue Show with a
running segment called Countdown: Iraq, featuring the usual nightly coterie of retired
generals, security flacks, and other cheerleaders for invasion. The network's executives
blamed the cancellation on sagging ratings. In fact, during its run Donahue's show attracted
more viewers than any other program on the network. The real reason for the pre-emptive strike
on Donahue was spelled out in an internal memo from anxious executives at NBC. Donahue, the
memo said, offered "a difficult face for NBC in a time of war. He seems to delight in
presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's
motives."
The memo warned that Donahue's show risked tarring MSNBC as an unpatriotic network, "a home
for liberal anti-war agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every
opportunity." So, with scarcely a second thought, the honchos at MSNBC gave Donahue the boot
and hoisted the battle flag.
It's war that sells.
There's a helluva caveat, of course. Once you buy it, the merchants of war accept no
returns.
"... By Paul Adler, Professor of Management and Organization, Sociology and Environmental Studies, University of Southern California. Originally published at The Conversation ..."
Yves here. I wish Sanders would use even more pointed
messaging, like "socialism for the rich". But for those who complain about Sanders not going
after important targets, this slap back at Dimon, who criticized Sanders and socialism at
Davos, shows that the Vermont Senator is landing punches, but choosing his fights carefully.
And banks are much bigger welfare queens than the public realizes. They get all sorts of
subsidies, from underpriced deposit insurance to Federal guaranteed for most home mortgages to
the Fed operating and backstopping the essential Fedwire system. These subsidies are so great
that banks should not be considered to be private sector entities, yet we let them privatize
their profits and socialize their train wrecks.
As we wrote in 2010 :
More support comes from Andrew Haldane of the Bank of England, who in a March 2010 paper compared the banking
industry to the auto industry, in that they both produced pollutants: for cars, exhaust
fumes; for bank, systemic risk. While economists were claiming that the losses to the US
government on various rescues would be $100 billion (ahem, must have left out Freddie and
Fannie in that tally), it ignores the broader costs (unemployment, business failures, reduced
government services, particularly at the state and municipal level). His calculation of the
world wide costs:
.these losses are multiples of the static costs, lying anywhere between one and five
times annual GDP. Put in money terms, that is an output loss equivalent to between $60
trillion and $200 trillion for the world economy and between £1.8 trillion and
£7.4 trillion for the UK. As Nobel-prize winning physicist Richard Feynman observed,
to call these numbers "astronomical" would be to do astronomy a disservice: there are only
hundreds of billions of stars in the galaxy. "Economical" might be a better
description.
It is clear that banks would not have deep enough pockets to foot this bill. Assuming
that a crisis occurs every 20 years, the systemic levy needed to recoup these crisis costs
would be in excess of $1.5 trillion per year. The total market capitalisation of the
largest global banks is currently only around $1.2 trillion. Fully internalising the output
costs of financial crises would risk putting banks on the same trajectory as the dinosaurs,
with the levy playing the role of the meteorite.
Yves here. So a banking industry that creates global crises is negative value added from a
societal standpoint. It is purely extractive . Even though we have described its
activities as looting (as in paying themselves so much that they bankrupt the business), the
wider consequences are vastly worse than in textbook looting.
Back to the current post. As to JP Morgan's socialism versus the old USSR's planned economy,
one recent study which I cannot readily find due to the sorry state of Google offered an
important correction to conventional wisdom.
Recall that Soviet Russia initially did perform extremely well, freaking out the capitalist
world by industrializing in a generation. There was ample hand-wringing as to whether a less
disciplined free enterprise system could compete with a command and control economy. Economists
got a seat at the policy table out of the concern that capitalist economies needed expert
guidance to assure that they could produce both guns and butter.
The study concluded that central planning had worked well in Soviet Russia initially, until
the lower-level apparatchiks started gaming the system by feeding bad information so as to make
their performance look better (for instance, setting way too forgiving production targets, or
demanding more resources than they needed). The paper contended that the increasingly poor
information about what was actually happening on the ground considerably undermined the central
planning process. That is not to say there weren't also likely problems with motivation and
overly rigid bureaucracies. But the evolution of modern corporations, of devaluing and ignoring
worker input and treating them like machines that are scored against narrow metrics, looks as
demotivating as the stereotypical Soviet factory.
Finally, this post conflates socialism, which includes New Deal-ish European style social
democracy, with capitalist systems alongside strong social safety nets, which the public
ownership and provision of goods and services. It should be noted that public ownership has
regularly provided services like utilities very effectively.
By Paul Adler, Professor of Management and Organization, Sociology and Environmental
Studies, University of Southern California. Originally published at
The Conversation
With his Dimon ad, Sanders is referring specifically to the bailouts JPMorgan
and other banks took from the government during the 2008 financial crisis. But accepting
government bailouts and corporate welfare is not the only way I believe American companies
behave like closet socialists despite their professed love of free markets.
In reality, most big U.S.
companies operate internally in ways Karl Marx would applaud as remarkably close to
socialist-style central planning. Not only that, corporate America has arguably become a
laboratory of innovation in socialist governance, as I show in
my own research .
Closet Socialists
In public, CEOs like
Dimon attack socialist planning while defending free markets.
But inside JPMorgan and most other big corporations, market competition is subordinated to
planning. These big companies often contain dozens of business units and sometimes thousands.
Instead of letting these units compete among themselves, CEOs typically direct a strategic
planning process to ensure they cooperate to achieve the best outcomes for the corporation
as
a whole .
This is just how a socialist economy is intended to operate. The government would conduct
economy-wide planning and set goals for each industry and enterprise, aiming to achieve the
best outcome for society as a whole.
And just as companies rely internally on planned cooperation to meet goals and overcome
challenges, the U.S. economy could use this harmony to overcome the existential crisis of our
age – climate change. It's a challenge so massive and urgent that it will require
every part of the economy to work together with government in order to address it.
Overcoming Socialism's Past Problems
But, of course, socialism doesn't have a good track record.
One of the reasons socialist planning failed in the old Soviet Union, for example, was that
it was so top-down
that it lacked the kind of popular legitimacy that democracy grants a government. As a result,
bureaucrats overseeing the planning process could not get reliable information about the real
opportunities and challenges experienced by enterprises or citizens.
Moreover, enterprises had little incentive to strive to meet their assigned objectives,
especially when they had so little involvement in formulating them.
A second reason the USSR didn't survive was that its authoritarian system
failed to motivate either workers or entrepreneurs. As a result, even though the government
funded basic science generously, Soviet industry was a laggard in
innovation .
Ironically, corporations – those singular products of capitalism – are showing
how these and other problems of socialist planning can be surmounted.
Take the problem of democratic legitimacy. Some companies, such as
General Electric , Kaiser Permanente
and General Motors ,
have developed innovative ways to avoid the dysfunctions of autocratic planning by using
techniques that enable
lower-level personnel to participate actively in the strategy process.
Although profit pressures often force top managers to short-circuit the promised
participation, when successfully integrated it not only provides top management with more
reliable bottom-up
input for strategic planning but also makes all employees more reliable partners in carrying it out.
So here we have centralization – not in the more familiar, autocratic model, but
rather in a form I call "participative centralization." In a socialist system, this approach
could be adopted, adapted and scaled up to support economy-wide planning, ensuring that it was
both democratic and effective.
As for motivating innovation, America's big businesses face a challenge similar to that of
socialism. They need employees to be collectivist, so they willingly comply with policies and
procedures. But they need them to be simultaneously individualistic, to fuel divergent thinking
and creativity.
One common solution in much of corporate America, as in the old Soviet Union, is to
specialize those roles ,
with most people relegated to routine tasks while the privileged few work on innovation tasks.
That approach, however, overlooks the creative capacities of the vast majority and leads
to widespread employee disengagement and sub-par business performance.
Smarter businesses have found ways to overcome this dilemma by creating cultures and reward
systems that support a synthesis of individualism and collectivism that I call "interdependent
individualism." In my research, I have found this kind of motivation in settings as diverse as
Kaiser Permanent
physicians , assembly-line workers at Toyota's NUMMI
plant and software
developers at Computer Sciences Corp . These companies do this, in part, by rewarding both
individual contributions to the organization's goals as well as collaboration in achieving
them.
While socialists have often recoiled
against the idea individual performance-based rewards, these more sophisticated policies could
be scaled up to the entire economy to help meet socialism's innovation and motivation
challenge.
Big Problems Require Big Government
The idea of such a socialist transformation in the U.S. may seem remote today.
But this can change, particularly as more Americans, especially young ones,
embrace socialism . One reason they are doing so is because the current capitalist system
has so manifestly failed to deal with climate change.
Looking inside these companies suggests a better way forward – and hope for society's
ability to avert catastrophe.
Just to add, as a former bank and buy side lobbyist, the industry is not always opposed to
regulation. It's a barrier to entry.
This post is on the money. Banksters and their clients love corporate welfare and
socialism for the rich, especially when so much of, for example, UK QE "leaked" into asset
bubbles in emerging markets, commodities and real estate.
You are right to say that Sanders should use more pointed language. Like Nina Turner, he
should call out oligarchs. That term is used for Russians and Ukrainians, but never for the
likes of Zuckerberg, Musk, Dimon, Blankfein, Schmidt, Branson, Dyson, Arnault et al. The term
regime should also be used. If it's good enough to delegitimise certain governments, it's
good enough to describe the Trump and Johnson administrations. After all, William Hague in
talks with the US government called the British government the Brown regime.
Feynman and Haldane are mentioned above. It emerged this week that Dominic Cummings,
Johnson's main adviser, is an admirer of both, regarding them as free thinkers and
technicians of substance, and championed Haldane's candidacy to be Bank of England governor.
Johnson sided with Chancellor Sajid Javid.
Sanders should use more pointed language or may be not for the moment. May be after the
Super Tuesday. He is being careful and that is good IMO. He doesn't want to give excuses for
easy attacks. I would say, instead of "socialism for the rich", "socialism for the 1%" or the
0,1% even better. Sounds more neutral. A comment yesterday linked an article comparing
Sanders with Gandhi and others and I think it was well pointed. The quiet and careful
revolution!
Sanders understands (as does Trump), that the 2020 battle is *not* for the 35-40% whose
minds are basically made up at each end. Trying to win those over in any numbers (especially
by shrieking invective at them) is a pathetic waste of time and effort.
The winning message must move the 20-30% of voters who either:
(a) voted Obama (hope, for something more than soothing patter) and then Trump (a giant
stubby middle finger to the establishment).
(b) voted Obama in 2008 but have stayed at home since (what's the point? they're all lying
scum)
Sanders simply doesn't bring socialism to America, because he doesn't have a New Deal
(i.e. SocDem) party. That kind of movement will take time (and the upcoming global
climatolo-economic crisis) to build up, under savage attack from the propertied unterests and
continuously subverted by credentialed PMC weasels and Idpol misleadership grifters.
This last is vitally important, but must also be approached prudently lest the entire
movement lose focus, overextend and fall prey to the next Trump .
IMHO, it must focus ruthlessly on delivering:
(a) single payer health care, to starve (if not incinerate) the bloated ticks gorging on
the US health/elder 'care' . cesspool, I can't bring myself to call it a 'system'. This above
all: without it, Americans simply can't compete in any world, walls and tariffs or not.
(b) *real* infrastructure, for the 80%. That's water and sewerage, cross-class public
housing, and busways and light rail to coax Americans out of their cars and suburbs. It's not
5G, vanity EVs and high speed Acelas. And sorry Keynesians, shovel ready is a side benefit,
not the primary purpose. There's a lot to do.
(c) an overhaul of American higher education (still rooted in 17th century divinity
schools). Teaching (and medicine) must again become honored occupations in the country;
administrators must give way to front line practitioners.
. Only then can Bernie move on to the more deeply embedded and multinational targets:
(a) big finance,
(b) extractive industries
(c) the MIC
These behemoths can really only be attacked during a time of crisis. Or they will simply
crush their opponents like insects, or buy them off.
In the case of the MIC, Berniecrats will likely need to be content with strong reassertion
of Federal oversight (more stick, less carrot), and disengagement from doing our 'allies'
dirty work (Trump is already on that road, with one huge Ixception .)
Total dismantlement sounds very nice, but consider: whatever's left of US industrial power
is concentrated in the MIC. America doesn't need to 'buy prosperity down at the armoury', but
like FDR, Bernie and (Tulsi) will also need to have the keels laid down against whatever
whirlwind we have reaped. Baring our breast and saying 'we deserve destruction for our sins'
is a fatuous open invitation to fascism. FDR knew better.
Paul Adler's post here reminds me of John Kenneth Galbraith's New Industrial State, except
Professor Adler was referring to the financial (i.e. parasitical) sector of the economy. Am I
off the mark in thinking this?
You're right on. Galbraith showed that planning comes naturally from very large projects.
Soviets went to planning because they couldn't bet the entire national economy on some gut
feeling -- they needed to know what would happen. Ditto the gigantic industries in what JKG
called the Planning Sector in the west. Projects spending millions or billions of dollars
over many years couldn't be left to chance. Eliminating chance meant imposing control, which
the gigantic industries could try to do, helped by their access to gigantic capital, and
which the Soviets had done with State power.
IMHO the modern FIRE sector arose from the old Planning Sector. They eliminated the
uncertainties that complicated their planning; they cut their ties with physical processes
that brought those uncertainties; they dumped physical industries onto throwaway economies
overseas (that could be abandoned if they failed); they finally became pure businesses that
dealt only with nice, clean contracts. No muss, no fuss, no bother.
So planning is a tool of any organization, yet is required more the larger it becomes?
While planning may make sense for a company with a single product such as automobiles, does
it make sense for a conglomerate? I mean I think the purpose of a conglomerate is to contain
many diverse product sectors to reduce risk of the conglomerate as a whole to any one sector.
In that way each sector does its own planning, but the conglomerate as a whole does not,
apart from choosing which companies to buy and sell, which can be considered a different type
of planning? In that way are the goals of society planning are different from the goals of
conglomerate planning or that of smaller single product sector companies? Yet in spite of
these differences the techniques of planning are the same? Is that the main point of Alder's
article? Can someone explain please.
If you surf around a bit you can find links to Bernie's views and support of worker
co-ops. There is nothing on his website. In light the burgeoning Socialist smear tsunami, it
is probably not something he wants to emphasize right now. Imagine someone getting up at a
CNN Town Hall and asking him about his attitude towards worker cooperatives. (corporate heads
explode on golf-courses all over America)
Modern theses about leadership, expertise and management underline agile learning and self
leadership to everyone himself and within team and then within larger entities. While I'm
somewhat pessimistic about these corporate trends they still look like they would work much
better with worker co-ops than in traditional top down owned corporations. Basically they are
asking higher dedication from workers, but this only works really well if the profits are
shared with workers in somewhat equitable manner in my opinion.
Also it seems common nowadays that many coding/programming companies, especially the
highly productive ones seem to act more akin to co-ops than monolithically led traditional
companies. The programmers are often engaged more to the company by giving or selling them
shares, and if this happens in large scale the company ownership structure can skew more
towards worker owned 'co-op'-like entity than more hierarchical traditional company, where
owners and workers are usually clearly separated.
Be nice if one could have posted the Forbes 400 but, listed next to each entry, is the
amount of money that they receive from the Federal government both directly and
indirectly.
Yves here. So a banking industry that creates global crises is negative value added
from a societal standpoint. It is purely extractive. [bold in the original]
Which leads to this obvious question: Why should banks be privileged, explicitly or
implicitly, in any way then?
E.g. why should we have only a SINGLE payment system (besides grubby physical fiat, paper
bills and coins) that recklessly combines what should be inherently risk-free deposits with
the inherently at-risk deposits the banks themselves create? I.e. why should a government
privileged usury cartel hold the entire economy hostage?
If you mean "why" in the moral sense, which I believe you do, there is no answer.
If you mean why in the technical sense, examine this sentence:
>why should a government privileged usury cartel
It's not "government privileged", it owns the government. Anything the government is
allowed to do outside of making Jamie Dimon et al richer are considered the actual privileges
by this group, and can, will and have been retracted at will.
If the banks cognitively "own" the government, it's because almost everyone believes TINA
to government privileges for them.
This is disgracefully true of the big names of MMT, who should be working on HOW to
abolish those privileges, not ignore or, in the case of Warren Mosler at least, INCREASE*
them.
*e.g. unlimited, unsecured loans from the Central Bank to banks at ZERO percent.
That neither extreme, capitalism or socialism, works, and that what is best for human
society is some middle ground between the two is a very important message. So I'm very glad
for this post. I realize that a black and white way of perceiving the world is an easy one.
Yet as Alder points out, humans are both individuals and social beings. If people in this
world could get back to thinking more like Ancient Greece in its appreciation for the golden
mean, we would have a much better chance of surviving. Dispensing with all these useless
socialism vs capitalism discussions would be a great time saver. I realize most people
believe in some middle ground, yet making it explicit would simplify things quite a bit. As
for the rest of the article, I need to think about it more. The corporate socialism idea does
tie in with the link yesterday about limited liability.
>That neither extreme, capitalism or socialism, works,
Exactly! Because: There. Is. No. Economic. Equilibrium. Never was, never will be, anywhere
and everywhere. Heck for billions of years, before humans existed let alone learned to talk,
the world changed. Things developed, other things went extinct (although not in the
heart-wrenching way of the Anthropocene, I personally am happy never to have met a T. Rex in
truth), the way the world works even without us is continual change.
So adjust as necessary. Our healthcare system sucks, bring full bore socialism on it. Our
corporate overlords suck, bring full bore free markets (kill patents to start) on them.
You might want to re-think the "kill patents" idea. Our Founders liked them. I just had a
patent "killed" by an examiner who "killed" 42 of 43 patents he examined. It was for a device
which could be saving Corona/Flu victims Right Now. I am going to try to Donate the idea to
Society, but preventing people from profiting from valid Novel ideas is not the solution. I
realize Corporations abuse the Patent System, like every other thing they touch. But I am a
low level individual who is trying to "innovate" and reduce illness. My main motivation was
not monetary but it is always a factor.
I believe you have the wrong target on this issue.
My first rejection on a related patent was just received 2.5 years after initial filing. It
took this long because the Govt. takes money from USPTO (which runs a surplus) and sends it
to the General Fund. USA innovation friendly? Not the way I see it.
"But for those who complain about Sanders not going after important targets "
Consider the wisdom of Susan Webber:
"Wisdom of the CEO is comprimised work. These CEOs "know" that too much candor,
either individually or institutionally, is not a pro-survival strategy."
I think the comparison of banks to welfare queens is quite unfair.
To welfare queens, that is.
Assuming they exist outside of the sweaty PR fantasies of those of a certain political
stripe, presumably even a welfare queen is not living 100% off of the munificence of the
state, whereas the implied value of the "Too Big To Fail" guaranty subsidy was determined to
be very nearly in the same amount as the annual profits of the recipient banks. In other
words, they're complete wards of the state. Doesn't get much more socialistic than that.
Thank you, Yves for this post. Alder has very logical and accessible ideas.
"Interdependent Individualism" is a good way to begin. When he says "socialists recoil
against individual performance-based rewards" I can't help but think the rewards should be
gifted from the workers to the bosses. Because that would be very change-promoting. Top down
has a tendency to stagnate motivation – even offensively – like tossing them a
few crumbs to keep them quiet. imo. This also really does sound Japanese. I'm not sure I can
relate to the way they cooperate; from them there is not so much as a polite argument;
certainly no sarcastic barbs. Americans are the exact opposite – we cooperate
competitively in a sense. But Climate Change will dictate our direction regardless of
decorum. My own sense of our dilemma is that "free market" corporations make their profits by
extracting from labor and the exploitation of the environment, and by externalizing costs to
society. Big disconnect. Huge, in fact. This is why "capitalism" has failed to address
climate change. Anybody else notice that China has forbidden short selling as we speak? Just
like the Fed did in 2009 with QE, etc. That's probably because if the economy crashes
(regardless of how illogical it has become) it will take way too long to put back together.
And there's work to be done. I remember Randy Wray dryly responding to Jacobin's criticism
(of MMT) that the ideological socialists would rather see a bloody Marxist uprising than a
peaceful evolution. I do think Wray is right on ideological blinders on both sides. One
quibble I have with this very wise post is that it assumes (I think) that we cannot change
our ways fast enough to mobilize adequately to address climate change. I think we've been
doing it pretty aggressively since 2009. Literally a world war to control oil and maintain
financial supremacy; serious consideration of our options by the political class (turning to
MMT, etc.); slamming the breaks on trade and manufacturing; subsidizing essential industries.
I'm sure there are other things going on under the radar. So I wouldn't discount our ability
to mobilize – just our inability to admit it. Clearly we want to do things
selectively.
>the Vermont Senator is landing punches, but choosing his fights carefully.
Yes, as Objective Function laid out nicely (funny word for this mess, but whatever) above
– this isn't gonna be easy. If you hope to beat Mike Tyson in his prime, you don't
start by trading heavy blows. Defeat him with small but continuous cuts from multiple
directions.
" senior leaders of three of the largest and most elite U.S. banks were serial criminals
whose frauds are (we pray) without equal." -- William K. Black
Wallstreet on parade website does great job laying out JPM's crime spree. They (JPM) just
came off parole(?) in January on some Felony charges. Someone (Eliz. Warren?) might start a
movement to prohibit public pensions / State and local Govts. from conducting business with
any banks convicted of felonies or entering plea agreements more than, let's say, ten per
year.
A convicted felon can not get a job at a bank run by a 22 times loser- Jamie Dimon, a fellow
felon who should have some empathy.
Wallstreet on parade is one of few sites who discuss Citi's crimes, and the fact that the
Federal Reserve tried to cover up (and succeeded until about 2012) the secret 2.5 TRILLIION
in revolving loans provided to a bankrupt Citibank around 2009. This in addition to the
hundreds of billions we did know about.
I do tend to harp on this because the felon Robert Rubin cost me about 500K in expired Put
options on shittybank because of his blatant, felonious (per FCIC) lies right before the
implosion. His referral for prosecution by the Financial Crises Inquiry Commission
mysteriously withered away
Bezos held a party in DC recently at his place attended by top officials from the Trump
Administration. Jared Kushner was there before. They hang out together.
How odd that Bezos is somehow portrayed as some anti-Trump owner of WaPo. Bezos serves his
role in Beltway...
"... How can they change? The owners are the warmongering monopoly capitalist ruling class. Are you imagining that any decision can ever be made by the lowly peons, the rank and file? ..."
Unless They Change The Democrats Deserve To LoseTrisha , Feb 6 2020 16:12 utc
|
6
The Democratic Party seems to intend to lose the 2020 elections.
The idiotic impeachment attempt against Trump ended just
as we predicted at its beginning:
After two years of falsely accusing Trump of having colluded with Russia [the Democrats]
now allege that he colludes with Ukraine. That will make it much more difficult for the
Democrats to hide the dirty hands they had in creating Russiagate. Their currently
preferred candidate Joe Biden will get damaged.
...
Trump should be impeached for his crimes against Syria, Venezuela and Yemen.
But the Democrats will surely not touch on those issues. They are committing themselves
to political theater that will end without any result. Instead of attacking Trump's
policies and proposing better legislation they will pollute the airwaves with noise about
'crimes' that do not exist.
There is no case for impeachment. Even if the House would vote for one the Senate would
never act on it. No one wants to see a President Pence.
The Democrats are giving Trump the best campaign aid he could have wished for. Trump
will again present himself as the victim of a witch hunt. He will again argue that he is
the only one on the side of the people. That he alone stands with them against the bad
politicians in Washington DC. Millions will believe him and support him on this. It will
motivate them to vote for him.
The Senate acquitted Trump of all the nonsense the Democrats have thrown against him.
The state party is now being forced to walk back their error of giving @BernieSanders
delegates to @DevalPatrick who received zero votes in Black Hawk County. Press can dm
me.
We have known for over 24 hours as verified by our county party that @BernieSanders won
the #iacaucuses in Black Hawk County with 2,149 votes, 155 County Delegates. #NotMeUs
#IowaCaucuses
The whole manipulation was intended to enable Buttigieg to claim that he led in Iowa even
though it is clear that Bernie Sanders won the race. It worked:
If a progressive is about to win #IowaCaucuses:
- remove final polls
- use mysterious app created by former Clinton staffers
- Funnel results thru untested app
- Claim app fails
- Hold results
- Reveal only 62% to give false impression of who won
- Refuse to reveal final results
But the cost of such open manipulations is the
loss of trust in the Democratic Party and in elections in general:
In sum: We are 24 hours into the 2020 campaign, and Democrats have already humiliated their
party on national television, alienated their least reliable progressive supporters,
demoralized their most earnest activists, and handed Trump's campaign a variety of potent
lines of attack.
The other leading candidates are not much better. Sanders might have a progressive agenda
in domestic policies, but his foreign policies are fully in line with his party. Matt Duss,
Sanders' foreign policy advisor, is the son of a lifelong key front man for CIA
proxy organizations. He spills out mainstream imperial blabber:
The only thing that Trump's Venezuela regime change policy achieved is giving Russia an
opportunity to screw with the US in our own hemisphere. That's what they were
applauding.
Giving a standing ovation to Trump's SOTU remarks on Venezuela were of course the
Democratic "resistance" and Nancy Pelosi . That was before she theatrically ripped up her
copy of Trump's speech, the show act of a 5 year old and one which
she had trained for . She should be fired.
Impeachment, the Iowa disaster and petty show acts will not win an election against Donald
Trump. While they do not drive away core Democratic voters, they do make it difficult to get
the additional votes that are needed to win. Many on the left and the right who dislike Trump
will rather abstain or vote for a third party than for a party which is indistinguishable
from the currently ruling one.
Either the Democrats change their whole course of action or they will lose in November to
an extend that will be breathtaking. It would be well deserved.
Posted by b on February 6, 2020 at 15:57 UTC |
Permalink The donor class owners of the "Democratic" party have every incentive to
support Trump, who has cut their taxes, hugely inflated the value of their assets, and
mis-directed attention away from substantial issues that might degrade either their assets or
their power, by focusing on identity politics.
It's obvious to me that the two war parties function as one. The Democrats have been winning
since Trump took office--they get their money and they get their wars. If Trump wins, the
Democrats win as billionaires flood more money into the DNC. If Trump loses, the Republicans
win for the same reasons.
The behavior of a five year old is an appropriate reference point for most of the people
working in DC, albeit engaged parents expect more of their children. This vaudeville routine
is giving satisfaction to Republicans, Trump supporters, and those who have been looking for
a clearer opportunity to say "I told you so" to diehard Democratic believers (who will
continue to refuse to listen).
For an American, even one who has always been somewhat cynical regarding cultural notions of
democracy and the "American Way," the show has become patently and abusively vulgar and
revulsive. It does not appear to be anywhere near "hitting bottom." There can be no recovery
without emotional maturity, and the leaders in Washington exhibit nothing of the kind. The
level of maturity and wisdom of the individuals involved is determinative of the political
result, not the alleged quality of the politics they purport to sell. Right now we don't have
that.
"Unless They Change The Democrats Deserve To Lose"
Aren't there 2 levels of "change"?
1. How can they change? The owners are the warmongering monopoly capitalist ruling
class. Are you imagining that any decision can ever be made by the lowly peons, the rank and
file? If you thought anything like that, you should try to find one single instance, in
all history, of this "party" ever having done anything at all out of line with the express
policy of the owners of the country (the high level of people-friendly noise, intended for
the voting peons, never translates into any action of that sort.)
2. If you mean change the electoral policy to win this election, how could they
conceivably manage to change this late? Like a supertanker launched at full speed trying to
make a sharp turn a few seconds before hitting the shore, you mean?
Anyway, in both cases forget what it "deserves", it should be destroyed and buried under,
not only lose.
It would take extreme mental contortions to take U.S. "democracy" seriously at this
point.
I would like to believe that it makes some difference who is elected, but increasingly
doubtful.
How different would it really have been had Hillary been elected (much as it pains me to
consider such a scenario)?
Trump was elected (aside from interference from AIPAC) partly because he was republican
candidate and for some that's all it takes but aside from that because;
- end pointless wars
- improve healthcare
- control immigration
- jobs for coal miners
- somehow address corruption and non-performance of government
- improve US competitiveness, bring back jobs, promote business, improve economy
He claims having improved the economy but more likely is done juice from the FED.
So really, what grade does he deserve?
And yet people are rallying to his side.
Personally I think that the entrenched interests have moulded Trump to meet their
requirements and now it is inconvenient to have to start work on a new president, unless it
would be one of their approved choices.
I voted for Trump because of Hillary.
Now I would not vote for Trump given a decent choice. Fortunately there is an excellent
alternative.
All who count have known for a long time that Trump will have a second term. Baked in. (1)
The Dems agitate and raucously screech and try to impeach to distract or whatever to show
da base that they hate Trump and hope to slaughter! him! a rapist! mysoginist! racist!
liar ! He is horrors! in touch with the malignant criminal authoritarian ex-KGB Putin! Russia
Russia Russia - and remember Stormy Daniels! ( :) ! )
The top corp. Dems prefer to lose to Trump, I have said this for years, as have many
others. In rivalry of the Mafia type, it is often better to submit to have a share of the
pie. Keep the plebs on board with BS etc. Victim status, underdog pretense, becomes ever more
popular.
1. Trump might fall ill / dead / take Melania's advice and wishes into account, or just
quit.
People still talk like democracy really exists in USA.
They channel their anger toward Party and personality.
If only the democrats would ... If only Sanders would ... If only people would see that
...
A few understand the way things really are, but most are still hoping that
somehow that the bed-time stories and entertaining kayfabe are a sort of
democracy that they can live with.
But the is just normalcy bias. A Kool-Aid hang-over. This is not democracy. It is a soft
tyranny encouraged by Empire stooges, lackeys, and enabled by ignorance.
The lies are as pervasive as they are subtle: half-truths; misdirection; omitting facts
like candidate/party affiliations with the Zionist/Empire Death Cult.
The REAL divide among people in the West is who benefits from an EMPIRE/ZIONIST FIRST
orientation that has polluted our politics and our culture and the rest of us.
Wake up. War is on the horizon. And Central Banks can't print money forever.
After watching Pelosi it reminded me that during the Geo. W. Bush era the Democrats were
always claiming to be the adults in the room. It's odd that Mayo Pete's 'husband' is never
seen or heard from. I wonder why? Biden's toast and Epstein didn't kill himself. AND Seth
Rich leaked Hillary's emails to Wikileaks.
-- --
The Clinton-Obama administration had scores of corrupt officials and associates (the
Podestas, for instance). It was necessary to create a firewall once Trump won the nomination.
As so, they attacked his campaign manager, his national security adviser, his family,
himself, using all the means of FISA, wire tapping done by NSA and CIA and Mi6 and probably
Mossad.
Red Ryder | Feb 6 2020 16:56 utc | 14
-- --
Trump is an installment of The Mossad via blackmail and media manipulation, check "Black
Cube Intelligence", a Mossad front operating from City of London. It would make sense the
establishment in the US would eavesdrop on him. Mossad on the other hand would wiretap the
wiretapers and give feedback on Trump. The Podesta you mentioned once threatened the factions
with "disclosure" possibly to keep the runaway black projects crazies in check not that I
wish to play advocate of these people.
-- --
After they lose again in November, they will unleash their street thugs, Antifa, to terrorize
the winners. Meanwhile for the purists of the Liberal Cult there will be many real suicides.
So, bloodshed and death will become reality.
Red Ryder | Feb 6 2020 16:56 utc | 14
-- --
Yes, what we need is just a nazi party in the US to keep communism in check, right? We are
half way there with Trump already aren't we? "Black Sun" technologies (which a part off I
described above) already there, leaking to anyone interested enough that would aid in the
great outsourcing for the Yinon project, so why not? "Go Trump 2020"! (sarcasm)
For whatever reason the only thing the Dems seem to find more terrible than a loss to Trump
is a win with Bernie. I'm no fan of Bernie but it's clear they're out to sabotage the one guy
that would actually beat Trump in an election
While I have no illusions that a Sanders administration will have good foreign policy
objectives, is there not something to be said for shifting money away from the
military-industrial complex in the US? In general Sanders gives me the impression that he
wants to reduce US intervention in foreign affairs in favor of spending more money on
domestic issues. Even a slight reduction in pressure is helpful for giving other countries
the ability to expand their spheres of influence and becoming more legitimate powers in
opposition to the US and EU. Based on this I still see voting for Sanders as helpful even if
he won't bring about any meaningful change in the US's foreign policy.
it's not an actual Stalin quote, but often used as such
he did say something in the same vein, though.
it IS absolutely spot on here:
"It's not who vote that counts, it's who counts the votes"
congratulations, DNC, you're on a par with Joseph Stalin; the most ruthless chairman the
Sovyets have ever had.
so here is your real Russia Gate.
oh, come and smell the Irony. In fake wrestling the producers determine the winner in advance
and the wrestlers ate given their script to follow. The Dems have no intention to win this,
look at the clowns they have running the show not to mention the flawed candidates . The
script calls for the king of fake wrestling, Trump himself, to win yet again. Only a
concerted effort by the Dems and Deep State media, along with some tech help from Bibis crew
can engineer this result, but they are all on board. Dems willing to wait for 2024 when the
producers will write them in for a big Win over somebody not named Trump. The world will be
ready for a Green change by then, and Soros/Gates boys will have their chance to step up to
the plate again.
Enjoy the show if you wish, I'm changing the channel.
As for being to the left of Clinton, so was Benito Mussolini. I don't see that as a
meaningful description.
Posted by: William Gruff | Feb 6 2020 21:38 utc | 76
Spinner for the new / coming fascist order Mr. Gruff?
Clinton and trump may be competing for the Title of who is the greatest example of
Mussolini's fascist doctrine, but Clinton isn't in the White House. Trump's posture at his
rallies, the essence of said rallies, the message delivered at said rallies, his subservience
to far right dictator ideology, all scream Mussolini wannabe working the disgruntled crowd
who need a Messiah to lead them to the next level of the American dream, that ain't gonna
happen.
America's rich love them the labor of po folk in foreign lands and trump is nothing more
than a Judas Goat.
The Impeachment of President Donald J. Trump was both a farce and a tragedy. Mr. Trump, a
Fascistic minded President was not targeted for his real crimes (inhumane treatments of
immigrant children in the ICE concentration camps, inciting violence during his rallies,
supporting the ultra-right militias, assassination and violation of international laws); but
for the flimsy accusation of "Abuse of Power" and "Obstruction of Congress" according to the
Democratic Party establishment!
For the American working people, who run America's wheels of life by their deeds every day,
a pathetic attempt to impeach a Fascistic minded President is a disappointment. The Democratic
Party leadership by conducting a hollow impeachment actually legitimized the transformation of
the office of the presidency to the dictatorship circle.
The outcome of an impeachment which was based on shortsightedness rivalry of a section of
the 1% contradicts the ideal of the American Revolution. It betrays those revolutionary
pioneers who fought against the British monarchy.
Through this impeachment, the Congress of the United States has become the living incubator
to "lawfully" hatch the first American dictator and end the idea of "government of the people,
by the people, for the people".
Working people do not benefit from an unformed impeachment by Democrats and disgraceful
acquittal by Republicans. The clear partisanship position toward the President Trump
impeachment, endless infighting and self-serving arguments once again confirmed the fact that
working people have no friends or representatives in Washington to address their urgent
problems such as the high price of medicines, job insecurity, low wages, poor educational and
healthcare systems, a hazardous environment and so on.
The 1% family feud over the impeachment saga creates heroes out of war criminals like John
Bolton, the notorious advocate of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and tireless advocate of war
against Iran, who one day is Mr. Trump favorite advisor and the next day becomes the best ally
of the Democratic Party establishment. The stench of hypocrisy among the well-fed corrupt
politicians of both parties in Washington is nauseating.
Now, we have entered a new era in the history as the "Oldest Democracy" gives rise to a
dictatorial presidency under the protection of Congress. The liberals, so-called "Leftists" and
naïve supporters of the Democratic Party advise the American working people to VOTE for
the Democratic candidate in the next presidential election to gain back the power!
What a foolish proposition as if another Democrat in the White House would give the working
people a chance to be free from the influence of Wall Street and military-industrial
complex!
In 2019 the same Democrats who initiated the impeachment process against President Trump
supported him and approved the largest military budget of $738 billion!
A system that puts profit over people is not reformable. The interest of the 1% with their
Democrat and Republican agents lies in the endless wars, wealth inequality and absolute power
over the democratic rights of voiceless individuals.
No force is able to reform a deadly virus to a benign virus.
In the epoch of the breakdown of democracy, the wealthy elites in all capitalist countries
act as a deadly virus against their own nation. They have equipped their police forces with the
latest military gear to shoot and eliminate their own dissident citizens.
The peaceful protests in France, Chile, Colombia, Iraq, and countless other countries are
dispersed by the bullets of the riot police of these countries. The facts of inhumane living
conditions and miserable situations of Palestinians, Yemenis, Rohingya people and millions of
immigrants around the world are either kept in the dark or distorted. Independent journalists
(like Julian Assange) or honorable whistleblowers (like Chelsea Manning) are locked up and
tortured for telling the truth.
The impeachment process directed against Donald J. Trump which concealed his real crimes was
a step backward in history . A counter revolution that is helping the reign of a ruthless
monarchy slowly revive under the deceptive nationalist ideology.
Adolf Hitler came to power by the vote of people in a legal election in Germany. The history
of the rise of Fascism resembles the current political situation in the U.S. In Germany, in May
1928, the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazis) got less than a tenth of total votes
in the Reichstag (Parliament) elections. More than two years later, in September 1930 election,
the same Nazi Party votes increased by up to 700 percent! Two years later in July 1932, the
Nazi party becomes the largest Party in Germany. Finally, on January 30th, 1933, Hitler is
appointed as Chancellor and became the head of the German government which led to WWII. Today,
the Senators of both parties are crowning a fascistic-minded President under the false banner
of "national security" or "preserving the American democracy".
The working families in the U.S. need to unite against despotism independent of the
Democratic and Republican parties. Endless wars, the rise of Fascism and ecological disasters
are the main problems that only can be confronted by an independent, united, conscious and
internationalist leadership.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Massoud Nayeri is a graphic designer and an independent peace activist based in the
United States. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Articles by: Massoud NayeriDisclaimer: The
contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research
on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this
article. The Centre of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post Global
Research articles on community internet sites as long the source and copyright are acknowledged
together with a hyperlink to the original Global Research article. For publication of Global
Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact:
[email protected]
www.globalresearch.ca contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the
copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of
"fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social
issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use
copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the
copyright owner.
OK, baby steps. The FBI is the secret police force of the authoritarian (aching to be
totalitarian) govt hidden behind "Truth, Justice & the American Way". The "democratic"
facade of the US politics is, in fact, close to the Greek original: A cabal of oligarchs who
decide distribution of power without daggers, and naturally exclude slaves (workers),
landless peons (minorities), women (grudgingly later included, once indoctrinated) to
maintain the status quo.
The "vote" the oligarchs advertise as proof of their democratic credentials in allowing
the hoi polloi to have a say is insultingly quaint and blatantly futile. All elections are
rigged. Of course! The outcome is preordained. Would you let some naive do-gooder wreck your
decades of building an empire? Never!
If a "ringer" sneaks through the gauntlet of oligarchic vetting and slips the leash, he
(always HE) is put down and the Electoral College is invoked to re-establish the status quo
with an acceptable front man.
Foreign policy? Long ago decided and continued regardless of who inhabits the White House
this season. He follows the script, is handsomely paid and retires famous and breathing. Go
off-script and doom is certain, the funeral subdued.
In closing the class, we can conclude that the FBI is not rogue; it is functioning as
intended and professionally considering the gangly amateurs it has to herd along path.
"Many of the players involved in this act worked in CI which is closely connected to the
CIA's own counter intelligence. "
Fusion Centers. Created and run by the very same Andrew McCabe at the centre of Crossfire
Hurricane and subsequently fired for malfeasance and abuse of public office.
The same Fusion centers were behind America's biggest "terror" attacks, in the same way
MI5 tend to be behind (or at least have very good knowledge of prior to) our own
"attacks"
(just to let the admins know, I had Seamus Padraig's details pre-filled in my text
box)
"... One key element to this reorganisation under Truman was the dismantling of the previously existing foreign intelligence bureau that was formed by FDR, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) on Sept 20, 1945 only two weeks after WWII was officially declared over. The OSS would be replaced by the CIA officially on Sept 18, 1947, with two years of an American intelligence purge and the internal shifting of chess pieces in the shadows. ..."
"... In addition, de-facto President Truman would also found the United States National Security Council on Sept 18, 1947, the same day he founded the CIA. The NSC was a council whose intended function was to serve as the President's principal arm for coordinating national security, foreign policies and policies among various government agencies. ..."
"... What this meant, was that there was to be an intermarriage of the foreign intelligence bureau with the military, and that the foreign intelligence bureau would act as top dog in the relationship, only taking orders from the NSC. Though the NSC includes the President, as we will see, the President is very far from being in the position of determining the NSC's policies. ..."
"... Kennedy would inherit the CIA secret operation against Cuba, which Prouty confirms in his book, was quietly upgraded by the CIA from the Eisenhower administration's March 1960 approval of a modest Cuban-exile support program (which included small air drop and over-the-beach operations) to a 3,000 man invasion brigade just before Kennedy entered office. ..."
"... Humiliatingly, CIA Director Allen Dulles was part of formulating the conclusion that the Bay of Pigs op was a failure because of the CIA's intervention into the President's orders. This allowed for Kennedy to issue the National Security Action Memorandum #55 on June 28th, 1961, which began the process of changing the responsibility from the CIA to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. ..."
"... As Prouty states, "When fully implemented, as Kennedy had planned, after his reelection in 1964, it would have taken the CIA out of the covert operation business. This proved to be one of the first nails in John F. Kennedy's coffin." ..."
"... Rumours started to abound that JFK had cut a secret deal with Russian Premier Khrushchev, which was that the U.S. would not invade Cuba if the Soviets withdrew their missiles. Criticisms of JFK being soft on communism began to stir. ..."
"... This was to be the final nail in Kennedy's coffin. ..."
"... Kennedy was brutally shot down only one month later, on Nov, 22nd 1963. His death should not just be seen as a tragic loss but, more importantly, it should be recognised for the successful military coup d'état that it was and is. The CIA showed what lengths it was ready to go to if a President stood in its way. (For more information on this coup refer to District Attorney of New Orleans at the time, Jim Garrison's book . And the excellently researched Oliver Stone movie "JFK") ..."
"... Scattered black ops wars continued, but the next large scale-never ending war that would involve the world would begin full force on Sept 11, 2001 under the laughable title War on Terror, which is basically another Iron Curtain, a continuation of a 74 year Cold War. A war that is not meant to end until the ultimate regime changes are accomplished and the world sees the toppling of Russia and China. ..."
"... Iraq was destined for invasion long before the vague Gulf War of 1990 and even before Saddam Hussein was being backed by the Americans in the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s. Iran already suffered a CIA backed regime change in 1979. ..."
"... Former CIA Deputy Director (2010-2013) Michael Morell, who was supporting Hillary Clinton during the presidential election campaign and vehemently against the election of Trump, whom he claimed was being manipulated by Putin, said in a 2016 interview with Charlie Rose that Russians and Iranians in Syria should be killed covertly to 'pay the price' . ..."
"... I would also not be quick to dismiss the timely release, or better described as leaked, draft letter from the US Command in Baghdad to the Iraqi government that suggests a removal of American forces from the country. Its timing certainly puts the President in a compromised situation. Though the decision to keep the American forces within Iraq or not is hardly a simple matter that the President alone can determine. In fact there is no reason why, after reviewing the case of JFK, we should think such a thing. ..."
"... Former CIA Director Mike Pompeo was recorded at an unknown conference recently , but judging from the gross laughter of the audience it consists of wannabe CIA agents, where he admits that though West Points' cadet motto is "You will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do.", his training under the CIA was the very opposite, stating: ..."
"... "Iran already suffered a CIA backed regime change in 1979." Ahem. Somehow I doubt the CIA had to do with THAT regime change 🙂 Try 1953? ..."
"... Reminiscent of Karl Rove's :"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and thats how things will sort out." ..."
"... It should be noted, that in 1963 shortly following JFK's assassination Truman stated in the Washington Post regret about establishing the CIA: "I think it has become necessary to take another look at the purpose and operations of our Central Intelligence Agency . For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas." ..."
"... The entire bureaucratic leadership of the Nazis. And it proved to be a smashing success – transforming the U.S. into the fourth Reich. ..."
"... You see the same price gouging in the drug and insurance monopolies. A gigantic slush fund to buy foreign and domestic politicians and journalists like so many street corner whores. ..."
"... There is also a $100 billion "Intelligence" empire. ..."
"... That is why Oceania will always be at war with Eastasia, and why that war will never be won. Wars are not intended to be won, just to carry on for ever, making more and more money and providing more and more opportunities for graft for the people who matter. Weapons are not intended to work, just to make money. ..."
"... That's why flying turkeys like the F22 and F35 are produced. Like the cargo planes full of pallets of shrink wrapped $100 bills that were flown into Iraq that promptly disappeared. ..."
"... But JFK was not shot down like a dog in broad daylight with millions of people watching because he challenged these interests. It was because he was trying to stop the nuclear weapons programme of the Zionist Regime. That was what cost him his life. ..."
"... JFK also wanted to end the control of the US economy of the Federal Reserve, a coalition of private banks, nearly all controlled by Jewish interests. He really wanted to be hit, that fella. ..."
There is a kind of character in thy life, That to the observer doth thy history, fully
unfold."
William Shakespeare
Once again we find ourselves in a situation of crisis, where the entire world holds its
breath all at once and can only wait to see whether this volatile black cloud floating amongst
us will breakout into a thunderstorm of nuclear war or harmlessly pass us by.
The majority in the world seem to have the impression that this destructive fate totters
back and forth at the whim of one man. It is only normal then, that during such times of
crisis, we find ourselves trying to analyze and predict the thoughts and motives of just this
one person.
The assassination of Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, a true hero for his fellow countrymen and
undeniably an essential key figure in combating terrorism in Southwest Asia, was a terrible
crime, an abhorrently repugnant provocation. It was meant to cause an apoplectic fervour, it
was meant to make us who desire peace, lose our minds in indignation. And therefore, that is
exactly what we should not do.
In order to assess such situations, we cannot lose sight of the whole picture, and righteous
indignation, unfortunately, causes the opposite to occur. Our focus becomes narrower and
narrower to the point where we can only see or react moment to moment with what is right in
front of our face. We are reduced to an obsession of twitter feeds, news blips and the
doublespeak of 'official government statements'.
Thus, before we may find firm ground to stand on regarding the situation of today, we must
first have an understanding as to what caused the United States to enter into an endless
campaign of regime-change warfare after WWII, or as former Chief of Special Operations for the
Joint Chiefs of Staff Col. Prouty stated, three decades of the Indochina war.
An Internal
Shifting of Chess Pieces in the Shadows
It is interesting timing that on Sept 2, 1945, the very day that WWII ended, Ho Chi Minh
would announce the independence of Indochina. That on the very day that one of the most
destructive wars to ever occur in history ended, another long war was declared at its
doorstep.
Churchill would announce his "Iron Curtain" against communism on March 5th, 1946, and there
was no turning back at that point. The world had a mere 6 months to recover before it would be
embroiled in another terrible war, except for the French, who would go to war against the Viet
Minh opponents in French Indochina only days after WWII was over.
In a previous paper I wrote titled "On
Churchill's Sinews of Peace" , I went over a major re-organisation of the American
government and its foreign intelligence bureau on the onset of Truman's de facto
presidency.
Recall that there was an attempted military coup d'état, which was exposed by
General Butler in a
public address in 1933 , against the Presidency of FDR who was only inaugurated that year.
One could say that there was a very marked disapproval from shadowy corners for how Roosevelt
would organise the government.
One key element to this reorganisation under Truman was the dismantling of the previously
existing foreign intelligence bureau that was formed by FDR, the Office of Strategic Services
(OSS) on Sept 20, 1945 only two weeks after WWII was officially declared over. The OSS would be
replaced by the CIA officially on Sept 18, 1947, with two years of an American intelligence
purge and the internal shifting of chess pieces in the shadows.
In addition, de-facto President Truman would also found the United States National Security
Council on Sept 18, 1947, the same day he founded the CIA. The NSC was a council whose intended
function was to serve as the President's principal arm for coordinating national security,
foreign policies and policies among various government agencies.
In 1955, I was designated to establish an office of special operations
in compliance with National Security Council (NSC) Directive #5412 of March 15, 1954. This NSC
Directive for the first time in the history of the United States defined covert operations and
assigned that role to the Central Intelligence Agency to perform such missions, provided they
had been directed to do so by the NSC , and further ordered active-duty Armed Forces personnel
to avoid such operations. At the same time, the Armed Forces were directed to "provide the
military support of the clandestine operations of the CIA" as an official function .
What this meant, was that there was to be an intermarriage of the foreign intelligence
bureau with the military, and that the foreign intelligence bureau would act as top dog in the
relationship, only taking orders from the NSC. Though the NSC includes the President, as we
will see, the President is very far from being in the position of determining the NSC's
policies.
An Inheritance of Secret Wars
There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare."
Sun Tzu
On January 20th, 1961, John F. Kennedy was inaugurated as President of the United States.
Along with inheriting the responsibility of the welfare of the country and its people, he was
to also inherit a secret war with communist Cuba run by the CIA.
JFK was disliked from the onset by the CIA and certain corridors of the Pentagon, they knew
where he stood on foreign matters and that it would be in direct conflict for what they had
been working towards for nearly 15 years.
Kennedy would inherit the CIA secret operation against Cuba, which Prouty confirms in his
book, was quietly upgraded by the CIA from the Eisenhower administration's March 1960 approval
of a modest Cuban-exile support program (which included small air drop and over-the-beach
operations) to a 3,000 man invasion brigade just before Kennedy entered office.
This was a massive change in plans that was determined by neither President Eisenhower, who
warned at the end of his term of the military industrial complex as a loose cannon, nor
President Kennedy, but rather the foreign intelligence bureau who has never been subject to
election or judgement by the people.
It shows the level of hostility that Kennedy encountered as soon as he entered office, and
the limitations of a President's power when he does not hold support from these intelligence
and military quarters.
Within three months into JFK's term, Operation Bay of Pigs (April 17th to 20th 1961) was
scheduled. As the popular revisionist history goes; JFK refused to provide air cover for the
exiled Cuban brigade and the land invasion was a calamitous failure and a decisive victory for
Castro's Cuba.
It was indeed an embarrassment for President Kennedy who had to take public responsibility
for the failure, however, it was not an embarrassment because of his questionable competence as
a leader. It was an embarrassment because, had he not taken public responsibility, he would
have had to explain the real reason why it failed.
That the CIA and military were against him and that he did not have control over them.
If Kennedy were to admit such a thing, he would have lost all credibility as a President in
his own country and internationally, and would have put the people of the United States in
immediate danger amidst a Cold War.
What really occurred was that there was a cancellation of the essential pre-dawn airstrike,
by the Cuban Exile Brigade bombers from Nicaragua, to destroy Castro's last three combat jets.
This airstrike was ordered by Kennedy himself.
Kennedy was always against an American invasion of Cuba, and striking Castro's last jets by
the Cuban Exile Brigade would have limited Castro's threat, without the U.S. directly
supporting a regime change operation within Cuba. This went fully against the CIA's plan for
Cuba.
Kennedy's order for the airstrike on Castro's jets would be cancelled by Special Assistant
for National Security Affairs McGeorge Bundy, four hours before the Exile Brigade's B-26s were
to take off from Nicaragua, Kennedy was not brought into this decision.
In addition, the Director of Central Intelligence Allen Dulles, the man in charge of the Bay
of Pigs operation was unbelievably out of the country on the day of the landings.
Col. Prouty, who was Chief of Special Operations during this time, elaborates on this
situation:
Everyone connected with the planning of the Bay of Pigs invasion knew that the policy
dictated by NSC 5412, positively prohibited the utilization of active-duty military personnel
in covert operations. At no time was an "air cover" position written into the official
invasion plan The "air cover" story that has been created is incorrect."
As a result, JFK who well understood the source of this fiasco, set up a Cuban Study Group
the day after and charged it with the responsibility of determining the cause for the failure
of the operation. The study group, consisting of Allen Dulles, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, Adm.
Arleigh Burke and Attorney General Robert Kennedy (the only member JFK could trust), concluded
that the failure was due to Bundy's telephone call to General Cabell (who was also CIA Deputy
Director) that cancelled the President's air strike order.
Kennedy had them.
Humiliatingly, CIA Director Allen Dulles was part of formulating the conclusion that the Bay
of Pigs op was a failure because of the CIA's intervention into the President's orders. This
allowed for Kennedy to issue the National Security Action Memorandum #55 on June 28th, 1961,
which began the process of changing the responsibility from the CIA to the Joint Chiefs of
Staff.
As Prouty states, "When fully implemented, as Kennedy had planned, after his reelection
in 1964, it would have taken the CIA out of the covert operation business. This proved to be
one of the first nails in John F. Kennedy's coffin."
If this was not enough of a slap in the face to the CIA, Kennedy forced the resignation of
CIA Director Allen Dulles, CIA Deputy Director for Plans Richard M. Bissell Jr. and CIA Deputy
Director Charles Cabell.
In Oct 1962, Kennedy was informed that Cuba had offensive Soviet missiles 90 miles from
American shores. Soviet ships with more missiles were on their way towards Cuba but ended up
turning around last minute.
Rumours started to abound that JFK had cut a secret deal with Russian Premier Khrushchev,
which was that the U.S. would not invade Cuba if the Soviets withdrew their missiles.
Criticisms of JFK being soft on communism began to stir.
NSAM #263, closely overseen by Kennedy, was released on Oct 11th, 1963, and outlined a
policy decision "to withdraw 1,000 military personnel [from Vietnam] by the end of 1963" and
further stated that "It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel [including
the CIA and military] by 1965." The Armed Forces newspaper Stars and Stripes had the
headline U.S. TROOPS SEEN OUT OF VIET BY '65. Kennedy was winning the game and the American
people.
This was to be the final nail in Kennedy's coffin.
Kennedy was brutally shot down only one month later, on Nov, 22nd 1963. His death should not
just be seen as a tragic loss but, more importantly, it should be recognised for the successful
military coup d'état that it was and is. The CIA showed what lengths it was ready to go
to if a President stood in its way. (For more information on this coup refer to District
Attorney of New Orleans at the time, Jim Garrison's
book . And the excellently researched Oliver Stone movie "JFK")
Through the Looking
Glass
On Nov. 26th 1963, a full four days after Kennedy's murder, de facto President Johnson
signed NSAM #273 to begin the change of Kennedy's policy under #263. And on March 4th, 1964,
Johnson signed NSAM #288 that marked the full escalation of the Vietnam War and involved
2,709,918 Americans directly serving in Vietnam, with 9,087,000 serving with the U.S. Armed
Forces during this period.
The Vietnam War, or more accurately the Indochina War, would continue for another 12 years
after Kennedy's death, lasting a total of 20 years for Americans.
Scattered black ops wars continued, but the next large scale-never ending war that would
involve the world would begin full force on Sept 11, 2001 under the laughable title War on
Terror, which is basically another Iron Curtain, a continuation of a 74 year Cold War. A war
that is not meant to end until the ultimate regime changes are accomplished and the world sees
the toppling of Russia and China.
Iraq was destined for invasion long before the vague Gulf War of 1990 and even before Saddam
Hussein was being backed by the Americans in the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s. Iran already
suffered a CIA backed regime change in 1979.
It had been understood far in advance by the CIA and US military that the toppling of
sovereignty in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran needed to occur before Russia and China could be
taken over. Such war tactics were formulaic after 3 decades of counterinsurgency against the
CIA fueled "communist-insurgency" of Indochina.
This is how today's terrorist-inspired insurgency functions, as a perfect CIA formula for an
endless bloodbath.
Former CIA Deputy Director (2010-2013) Michael Morell, who was supporting Hillary Clinton
during the presidential election campaign and vehemently against the election of Trump, whom he
claimed was being manipulated by Putin, said in a 2016 interview with Charlie Rose that
Russians and Iranians in Syria should be killed covertly to 'pay the price' .
Therefore, when a drone stroke occurs assassinating an Iranian Maj. Gen., even if the U.S.
President takes onus on it, I would not be so quick as to believe that that is necessarily the
case, or the full story.
Just as I would not take the statements of President Rouhani accepting responsibility for
the Iranian military shooting down 'by accident' the Boeing 737-800 plane which contained 176
civilians, who were mostly Iranian, as something that can be relegated to criminal negligence,
but rather that there is very likely something else going on here.
I would also not be quick to dismiss the timely release, or better described as leaked,
draft letter from the US Command in Baghdad to the Iraqi government that suggests a removal of
American forces from the country. Its timing certainly puts the President in a compromised
situation. Though the decision to keep the American forces within Iraq or not is hardly a
simple matter that the President alone can determine. In fact there is no reason why, after
reviewing the case of JFK, we should think such a thing.
One could speculate that the President was set up, with the official designation of the IRGC
as "terrorist" occurring in April 2019 by the US State Department, a decision that was strongly
supported by both Bolton and Pompeo, who were both members of the NSC at the time.
This made it legal for a US military drone strike to occur against Soleimani under the 2001
AUMF, where the US military can attack any armed group deemed to be a terrorist threat. Both
Bolton and Pompeo made no secret that they were overjoyed by Soleimani's assassination and
Bolton went so far as to tweet "Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran." Bolton
has also made it no secret that he is eager to testify against Trump in his possible
impeachment trial.
Former CIA Director Mike Pompeo was recorded at an unknown conference recently ,
but judging from the gross laughter of the audience it consists of wannabe CIA agents, where he
admits that though West Points' cadet motto is "You will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate
those who do.", his training under the CIA was the very opposite, stating:
I was the CIA Director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. It was like we had entire training
courses. (long pause) It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment."
Thus, it should be no surprise to anyone in the world at this point in history, that the CIA
holds no allegiance to any country. And it can be hardly expected that a President, who is
actively under attack from all sides within his own country, is in a position to hold the CIA
accountable for its past and future crimes.
Originally published at Strategic Culture
Cynthia Chung is a lecturer, writer and co-founder and editor of the Rising Tide Foundation
(Montreal, Canada).
Gerda Halvorsen ,
"Iran already suffered a CIA backed regime change in 1979." Ahem. Somehow I doubt the CIA had
to do with THAT regime change 🙂 Try 1953?
Doctortrinate ,
Is just another work of Theatre ..for all the world, a Staged play – along with legion
of dramatic action to arouse spectator participation – its a merge inducing show
– and each time the curtain falls, the crowd screams "more" so, extending its run.
Hugh O'Neill ,
Reminiscent of Karl Rove's :"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.
And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act
again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and thats how things will sort
out."
George Cornell ,
Ah yes, the Roveing Lunatic.
Doctortrinate ,
" We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do "
Suskind/Rove.
and so it continues .. 🙂
Vierotchka ,
The actual quote:
The aide said that guys like me [Suskind] were "in what we call the reality-based
community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your
judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about
enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world
really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our
own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll
act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things
will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what
we do."
Charlotte Russe ,
It should be noted, that in 1963 shortly following JFK's assassination Truman stated in the
Washington Post regret about establishing the CIA: "I think it has become necessary to take
another look at the purpose and operations of our Central Intelligence Agency .
For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original
assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government.
This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas."
Well, NO president after Kennedy tried to put that Genie back in the bottle. In fact, the
Genie has taken total control and has mushroomed into thousands of bottles planted throughout
the planet hatching multiple schemes designed to undermine and overthrow numerous
nation-states.
What many don't know is that "decades after World War II, the C.I.A. and other United
States agencies employed at least a thousand Nazis as Cold War spies and informants (this was
known as Operation Paperclip) ..At the height of the Cold War in the 1950s, law enforcement
and intelligence leaders like J. Edgar Hoover at the F.B.I. and Allen Dulles at the C.I.A.
aggressively recruited onetime Nazis of all ranks as secret, anti-Soviet "assets,"
declassified records show. They believed the ex-Nazis' intelligence value against the
Russians outweighed what one official called "moral lapses" in their service to the Third
Reich. The CIA hired one former SS officer as a spy in the 1950s, for instance, even after
concluding he was probably guilty of minor war crimes.
And in 1994, a lawyer with the C.I.A. pressured prosecutors to drop an investigation into an
ex-spy outside Boston implicated in the Nazis' massacre of tens of thousands of Jews in
Lithuania, according to a government official."
Is there no wonder, the CIA is so proficient at torture techniques, they learned from the
very best–the Nazis.
They 'hired' Klaus Barbie, a in no ways 'minor' war criminal. The US took over the surviving
Nazi terror apparatus, lock, stock and barrel.
nottheonly1 ,
The entire bureaucratic leadership of the Nazis. And it proved to be a smashing success
– transforming the U.S. into the fourth Reich.
paul ,
You just have to look at existing realities. There is a military budget of $1,134 billion, greater than the rest of the world combined.
This is the true figure, not the bogus official one.
There is a secret black budget of over $50 billion, with zero accountability to anyone.
$21 trillion, $21,000,000,000,000, has officially "gone missing" from the military budget.
This sum is nearly as large as the official National Debt.
This represents a cornucopia of waste, graft, theft, corruption, and wholesale looting on an
unimaginable scale.
A single screw can cost $500.
You see the same price gouging in the drug and insurance monopolies.
A gigantic slush fund to buy foreign and domestic politicians and journalists like so many
street corner whores.
There is also a $100 billion "Intelligence" empire.
That is why Oceania will always be at war with Eastasia, and why that war will never be
won.
Wars are not intended to be won, just to carry on for ever, making more and more money and
providing more and more opportunities for graft for the people who matter.
Weapons are not intended to work, just to make money.
That's why flying turkeys like the F22 and F35 are produced.
Like the cargo planes full of pallets of shrink wrapped $100 bills that were flown into Iraq
that promptly disappeared.
Even with the best will in the world, even if all the people involved were persons of
outstanding integrity, it would probably simply be impossible to control this vast sprawling
octopus of mega arms corporations and competing military and spook and administrative
fiefdoms. So you get different players and actors who are a law unto themselves, beyond any
real control, pursuing their own agendas with little regard for their own government and its
policies, and often blatantly opposing it.
Obama and Trump tried to make limited agreements with Russia over what was happening on
the ground in Syria. These agreements were deliberately sabotaged by people like Ashton
Carter in less than 24 hours. With complete impunity. Sensitive negotiations with North Korea
were deliberately sabotaged by Bolton.
A great deal of the economic and military power of America is dissipated in this way. The
same destructive turf wars between competing agencies were a characteristic feature of the
Third Reich. A model of waste, corruption, muddle and inefficiency.
But JFK was not shot down like a dog in broad daylight with millions of people watching
because he challenged these interests. It was because he was trying to stop the nuclear
weapons programme of the Zionist Regime. That was what cost him his life.
Richard Le Sarc ,
JFK also wanted to end the control of the US economy of the Federal Reserve, a coalition of
private banks, nearly all controlled by Jewish interests. He really wanted to be hit, that
fella.
paul ,
Yes, any goys who threaten Chosen interests would do well to steer clear of grassy
knolls.
JFK, Bernadotte, Arafat, Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Chavez, Soleimani, it's all the same
story.
Corbyn could well have gone the same way if rigging the election against him had failed.
Antonym ,
Nice example of Richard Le Sarc's non-sensical anti Israelism: Here he writes that Lower
Manhattan is run by Jews, while scrolling one page up he is telling that the US (=Fairfax
county) took over the Nazi terror apparatus. Some combination!
Both places are run mainly by ex-Christian/ secular Americans, with only money/power as
their God.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Leading Zionassties like Jabotinsky ('We'll kill anyone who gets in our way')were outright
fascists, an, in his case, admirers of Mussolini. Yitzhak Shamir (I have an image of Shamir
in my mind when I read your contributions)offered Jewish 'fighters' to work with the Nazis.
German Zionists actively worked with the Nazis to transfer Jews and German investment to
Palestine. And the similarities hardly end there. The Zionassties and the German Nazis both
see themselves as Herrenvolk. They both desire lebensraum for their people, at the expense of
Slavic or Palestinian and other Arab untermenschen. Both hold International Law in open
contempt. However, the Zionassties have far more political power than the German Nazis ever
dreamed of. And the German Nazis never had nukes, or only very primitive ones.
Harry Stotle ,
"The secret to understanding US foreign policy is that THERE IS NO SECRET. Principally, one
must come to the realization that the United States strives to dominate the world, for which
end it is prepared to use any means necessary. Once one understands that, much of the
apparent confusion, contradiction, and ambiguity surrounding Washington's policies fades
away. To express this striving for dominance numerically, one can consider that since the end
of World War II the United States has:
1) Endeavored to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments, most of which were
democratically elected;
2) Grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries;
3) Attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders;
4) Dropped bombs on the people of more than 30 countries;
5) Attempted to suppress a populist or nationalist movement in 20 countries."
― William Blum, America's Deadliest Export: Democracy – The Truth About US
Foreign Policy and Everything Else
Brian Harry ,
The older I get, the more I believe that it was the USA/CIA?MIC who made Australia's Prime
Minister, Harold Holt, "disappear" in heavy surf off a Victorian beach on 17th, December
1967. His body was never found. I think he was getting "cold feet" about the "American War"
in Vietnam as it was getting going, and possibly wanted 'out'.
It was said that a Chinese submarine took him, but, I don't think submarines are designed to
operate in relatively shallow water and heavy surf.
Another Australian PM(Gough Whitlam) was "removed" in a Coup in 1975 which was heavily
influenced by the British and American secret services
Richard Le Sarc ,
And Kevin Rudd was offed by a gang of hard Right Labor rats, led by US 'protected source' (as
outlined in the Wikileaks from Manning)Bill Shorten. Principal among Rudd's crimes was a lack
of enthusiasm for the anti-China campaign (his successor, the Clinton-loving Julia Gillard,
was very happy to join the Crusade)and changes to Australia's votes re. Occupied Palestine in
the UN. And he expelled a MOSSAD agent from the Israeli 'Embassy', after the MOSSAD stole
Australian passport identities for operations like the ritual killing of a Hamas operative in
Dubai. They had done it before, and 'promised' not to do it again. Rudd was advised by our
'intelligence', stooges of the USA one and all, to do this, which I suspect was a set-up to
mobilise the local Sabbat Goyim.
Who is in control is the idea of Notional Security within a world of 'Threat' that is
pre-emptively struck before it can speak – and analysed and engineered in all it is,
does or says, for assets, allies, ammunition and narrative reinforcement. (Possession and
control as marketising and weaponising – as the drive rising from fear of pain of
loss).
Insanity is given 'control' by the fear-threat of an unowned projected mind of intention.
The devil is cast out in illusion that is then underpinned by shadow forces that operate
'negatively' as the illusion of victory in subjugation or eradication of evils – that
simply change form within a limiting and limited narrative account. This short term override
has become set as our long term default consciousness and given allegiance and identity as
our source of self-protection.
Imagination is Creative – and fear-framed imagination is the attempt to control an
'evil' imagination CAST OUTSIDE a notional self exceptionalism.
There is a pattern here that CAN be recognised but that the invested identity under fear
of pain of loss does NOT WANT to allow and so refuses and includes the revealing of
heart-felt truth as THREAT to established or surviving order – hence its association
and demonisation with fear, treachery, heresy and evil power that must be denied Voice at ANY
cost – because 'survival' depends on NOT hearing the Voice for truth – when
survival is equated with separated or split minds – set apart from the living and over
them – while struggling within a hateful world that fails the judging imagination of a
private self-gratification.
Fascination with evil and the 'dynamic' of conflict is the willing investment of identity
in its frame – as if THIS TIME – a meaningful result will follow from insane
premises. And THIS TIME is repeated over and over – through millennia.
The 'dynamic' of conflict is the device by which Peace or Wholeness of being is denied
awareness. A polarised play of shifting mutually exclusive and contradictory 'meanings' as a
'doublethink' by which to COVER over lack of substance and SEEM to be in control. Reactive
resistance and opposition provides 'proof' or reinforcement to the narrative frame of the
control. Such is the manipulative power struggle for dominance over the other' subjection or
loss.
A world of sock puppets enacts the script given them.
The living dead willingly give themselves to the specialness that excepts them from feared
lack and loss of validity as the claim to moral outrage or alignment in compliance with its
dictate.
The realm of a phishing ruse is that of a mis-taken identity. At this level a simple error
can set in motion the most complex deceit. Its signature is in the pride or self-inflation
that sets up the 'fall' – and the fool.
Problems are set in forms that persist through apparent resolving. To truly resolve, heal
or undo a problem, we have to go upstream to the level in which it was set up as a
conflict-block – perhaps as an unseen consequence of a false sense of possession or
attempt to control. At some point there will be no other option BUT to yield to truth –
because there is a limit to our tolerance for pain of conflict, protected and worshipped as
power over Life, and sustained as a bubble reality of exclusive and inverted 'meanings' while
Infinity is all about you.
If a mistaken identity is the 'stealing of the mind of the king, and the realm and all it
oversees, then the 'Naked Emperor' story is speaking to your ongoing and persistent loss of
Sovereign will to a fear of being exposed invalid, revealed as without substance, and utterly
undone of not only your self-presentations – but your right to be. IN the story it was
visiting courtiers who insinuated a sense of lack in the Emperor's thought to then offer the
means to cover over it with special and impressive presentation – as a masking that
demanded sacrifice of truth in order to seem to be real.
This inversion operates from lack-based thinking that splits or disconnects from currently
felt and shared presence to seek OUTSIDE itself for what it's thought frames it in being
denied or deprived of.
How does one deal with a dissociated madman massively armed and beset with fears,
grievance, betrayal, and a deep sense of being cornered with no where else to go?
This is our human predicament at this time.
For every instance of its manifestation will be a fear-framed narrative of struggle in
ancient hate.
Willingness to open to that we may be wrong, is the release of the assertion of belief as
'knowing' and the opportunity to re-evaluate the belief in the light of a current relational
honesty. 'Acceptance of 'not knowing' is the condition in which an innocence of being
spontaneously moves us to recognise and release error from its presenting as true.
A false idea of power is being played out as a world of the corruption of the true.
I met this on a random find for a search yesterday:
FIRST RAY:
Pure qualities:
Traditionally as the ray of power and will, yet from a deeper understanding the first ray
represents the creative drive. This is the desire for self-expression, a willingness to
experiment, even when the outcome of the experiment cannot be known ahead of time. Also a
willingness to flow with life and learn from every experience. The first ray gives rise to
the sense that everything matters, that life is exciting and that the individual truly can
make a positive difference. The first ray is also the key to your willingness to work for
raising the whole, instead of raising only yourself.
Perversions:
The perversion of the creative will is a fear of the unknown, which is expressed as an
ability to abuse power in order to control one's circumstances, including other people.
There is a fear of engaging in activities where the outcome cannot be predicted or
guaranteed, which obviously stifles creativity. People with perverted first ray qualities
are often engaged in a variety of power games with other people, all based on the desire to
control the outcome. This is an attempt to quell the very life force itself, which always
points towards self-transcendence, and instead protect the separate self and what it thinks
it can own in this world. This can lead to a sense of ownership over other people, which is
one of the major sources of conflict on this planet. In milder cases, people have a fear of
being creative and a sense of powerlessness, feeling that nothing really matters and that
an individual cannot make a difference -- thus, why even bother trying.
Everything you do is done with the energy of one or several of the spiritual rays. The
entire material world is made from the seven rays.
• Every limitation you face is created out of a perversion of one or more of the seven
spiritual rays.
• The ONLY way to transcend a given limitation is to free yourself from a): the belief
that created the limitation and b): the low-frequency energy that has been generated.
• The ONLY way to transform the low-frequency energy that is created by perverting a
given ray is to invoke the pure energy of that ray. Any ray is the anti-dote to the
perverted energy from that ray.
George Cornell ,
Pompeo's epic statement "we lied we cheated we stole" will be be an American catchphrase or
hashtag for the ages.
In most of the world it would be a confession. In the US it is a boast.
wardropper ,
And after a short while it will no longer be considered to be worth a second thought.
Came, saw, conquered . . . might as well add lied, cheated, stole
Morality is stone dead in Washington. Might as well face it, then perhaps a serious search
for ways of bringing it back to life can begin.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Lying is now the lingua franca of all Western kakistocracies. Here in Australia, not long
ago, to be caught lying ended a political career. Now it is ubiquitous, inescapable and
attended by a smug arrogance that says, 'You can do NOTHING about my personal and group moral
insanity. WE have the power, and we will use it ANY way we, and our Masters in Washington and
Tel Aviv wish to!' It is best and most suicidally seen in this denialist regime's utter
contempt for science and facts, as the country alternatively burns down, or is pummeled by
giant hail-stones and violent tempests, or inundated by record, unprecedented, deluges.
George Cornell ,
Sad but true
Antonym ,
Hear, hear!
An expert on lying opens his mouth again, and again, and again, and again, ..
lundiel ,
Very interesting article.
Hugh O'Neill ,
"Former CIA Director Mike Pompeo was recorded at an unknown conference recently, but judging
from the gross laughter of the audience it consists of wannabe CIA agents, where he admits
that though West Points' cadet motto is "You will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those
who do.", his training under the CIA was the very opposite, stating: I was the CIA Director.
We lied, we cheated, we stole".
Cynthia. The "unknown conference" you refer to was an address to Texas A&M University,
which had former CIA director Robert Gates as President. Another former CIA spook teaches
espionage for wannabe spooks. These are scoundrel patriots, devoid of any moral compass, self
awareness or intelligence. Academics need not apply but liars, thieves, cheats, torturers and
assassins are welcome.
The CIA has a stranglehold upon the American psyche. The oft quoted Bill Casey "Our work
will be complete when everything Americans believe is false" cannot bode well for the glory
of the American Experiment. If fat mafiosi thugs like Pompeo and ghouls devoid of any
humanity like Bolton, Clinton, Allbright run the show, then the question must be asked: how
can such amoral stupidity hold the world to ransom? That the CIA were able to assassinate
JFK, MLK, RFK in broad daylight, aided and abetted by the MSM, means their masks have long
fallen and demons boldly walk among us.
"Who is in charge of the US Military?" Well it certainly isn't the president. There is no
doubt that both the military and the CIA are controlled by unelected faceless money men,
which presumably is the MIC that Eisenhower warned about (as did Teddy Roosevelt). Perhaps
"skull and bones" is indeed a satanic cult?
Yes the National Security Act sent the nation to hell from purgatory. The most insidious and
Orwellian bill ever passed until the oxymoronic "Patriot Act" that is.
George Cornell ,
The West Point oath should be modified to " we will not lie, cheat or steal . as long as we
have the CIA, the FBI, the Secretary of State, Congress, the MSM, and the DNC to do it for
us. We're not stoopid."
George Mc ,
The majority in the world seem to have the impression that this destructive fate totters
back and forth at the whim of one man.
Yes this magical thinking is still pretty widespread – although it's difficult to
figure out how many think this way. The MSM project this magical view themselves and thereby
project the notion that everyone believes it. Nevertheless, going by the talk I have with
others, a lot do swallow this. It's a bit like the world fundamentalist Bible believers live
in.
Richard Le Sarc ,
The really salient feature of the murder of Soliemani was the sheer treachery of inviting him
to Iraq on a peace mission, only to set him up for butchery. It has the Zionasties
blood-soaked paw-prints all over it.
Mike Ellwood ,
Ironically, it's the sort of stunt the Nazi's might have pulled, back in their day.
Brian Harry ,
I have asked the same question on other platforms and no one seems to know the Answer. "Who
are the CIA, and the Pentagon answerable to?" They seem to operate outside of the control of
the American Government. The CIA seemingly involved in "False Flags" at any point around the
globe, like the attack on the American Warship, in the gulf of Tonkin which was the excuse
for "The American War, in Vietnam(as it is known to the Vietnamese).
And, of course, the attack on Iraq, because Sadam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction,
which, to this day have never been found(whilst Hussein was hung) after being found guilty of
'something' by an American "military Court'.
The Pentagon has "lost TRILLIONS of dollars which it cannot account for, and nobody is even
investigating the matter, seemingly the American President cannot demand it.
And, of course, the Israeli Airforce attack on the USS Liberty in the Mediterranean Sea in
1967, killing and wounding over 200 sailors, brought NO response whatsoever from the American
Military.
President Eisenhower warned the USA(and the World) about the Military Industrial Complex when
he left office, and it has been completely ignored.
It seems that Mossad("By deception, we will make War") are heavily involved in the CIA(and
the MIC of course), so, WHO is in control of the USA?
Antonym ,
Follow the money. The CIA – military have unlimited funds -> the FED can print
unlimited paper dollars -> oil and gas are traded in US dollars only via the New York FED
-> Sunni Arab royals own a lot of oil and gas reserves but need body guards ->
Anglo- Arab oil dollar protection pact made long ago.
A similar deal was not possible with the USSR before or with Iran now. Canada is the US back
garden as is Venezuela.
The Israelis hitched on after 1974 and their job is to be punch ball to distract from the
above in exchange for US & hidden Arab royals support.
So who are in charge of the US? A few dozen characters in Fairfax county, lower Manhattan
and Riyadh with inputs from Caribbean tax heavens.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Silly stuff. The Zionasties and Judeofascists have taken charge in the USA since they
bank-rolled Truman, got away with the USS Liberty atrocity and took over US politics through
straight bribery. US Congress critters don't throw themselves to the floor in ecstasies of
subservience, as they do for Bibi, when any Saudi potentate addresses the Congress. Come to
think of it-has any Saudi ever had that 'honour'? Come to think of it, we'd better go back to
1913 when a coalition of private banks, nearly all Jewish-controlled took over the US economy
as the so-called Federal Reserve.
Antonym ,
Israeli sand vs Saudi/ Kuwaiti/ UAE oil & gas: easy choice for American predators.
Richard Le Sarc ,
You keep forgetting the 'Binyamins', Antsie. What would you rather control-an inevitably
diminishing pool of hydrocarbons, or the Federal Reserve that creates US dollars, ex nihilo,
by the trillions?
Richard Le Sarc ,
The CIA is the US ruling class, armed and in love with murder and destruction. The nature and
extent of US global power is the pre-eminent cause of the global Holocaust that is about to
consume humanity.
What Fletcher Prouty mentioned in the above article called "Capitalism's Invisible Army".
Norn ,
Here is a list of what the CIA include: The FIVE-EYES branches operate as CIA branches (I
think this is undisputable). The FIVE-EYES is a White Christian Fundementalist organisation,
and they share their intelligence (surveillance data) with the Israelis. Their Israelis set
many actions on the FIVE-EYES agenda.
Murdoch's press operate as a CIA shopfront, and so many of (maybe all of them?) the NGOs
scattered around third world countries. Evangelists fully support the CIA agenda. What is the
hell South Korean Evangelists doing in Syria as the war rages on?
Many Jihadist groups as well as unhinged Muslim preachers/Imams serve the CIA agenda very
very well and receive considerable support from both Saudi Arabia and the US. Remember, the
first Jihadist posters were printed by the CIA?. Of course, now the posters would have their
brainwashing digital equivalent. And of course, there are full-timers and part-timers.
That's what we know from just reading the news. There are definitely large amounts of unkowns
to humble folks. Who else would you think, make part of the list? 50% of politicians in
Western so-called Democracies?
Outside the government? Are you that naive? This is a fantasy that was promoted as long ago
as the time of Iran-Contra; the idea that the CIA is composed of a bunch of 'loose cannons',
operating beyond the control of the capitalist state. Whilst it is true that the US security
state has different tactics from different elements within it, the objectives are unvarying,
achieving hegemony. What differs is the route chosen to achieve that end. Of course,
competence (or otherwise) is involved, they're not omnipotent and quite obviously have no
long term vision. I think the correct word is HUBRIS that leads them astray. We saw this in
Vietnam; we see it Afghanistan; we see it in Syria.
The US empire is no British Empire of yore. When the leaders of the two dominant
Imperialist powers of the 19th century, the UK and the US met in the 1890s, they drew up a
plan for the next 100 years, that between them they could conquer the world for capitalism
using the UK's control of the oceans and the industrial might of the US economy.
Surely the fact that the US is now 'led' by an ignoramus reveals the bankrupt nature of
late capitalism?
milosevic ,
WHO is in control of the USA?
here's an informative article about that question:
The 'Deep State' IS the State. The surface pantomime is a puppet play, perhaps a shadow play,
where the real rulers manipulate the political marionettes to do their bidding, NOT that of
the 'useless eaters'. Under capitalism politics is the shadow cast on society by Big
Business, as John Dewey observed.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
Every single solitary individual Central Intelligence Agency Civil Servant of the United
States of America does indeed hold allegiance to the flag & country I assure you. Not
only do they hold allegiance for their country but they most assuredly hold allegiance to
their government paycheques too. Without their paycheques they would likely constitute
further troubles systemically.
Governments hire skilled personnel in Intel. They are by & large likely normal people
that work for bad governance. The CIA is headed by Bloody Gina Haspel. Read Jane Mayer's _The
Dark Side_ to get Haspel's role.
Haspel epitomizes allegiance to CIA secrecy.
She is a bot.
MOU
Brian Harry ,
"Every single solitary individual Central Intelligence Agency Civil Servant of the United
States of America does indeed hold allegiance to the flag & country I assure you".
You sound very naïve. How can you be so sure. There's no real evidence to back up
your assurance. How can the Pentagon be allowed to get away with "losing" TRILLIONS of
dollars, and no one's head has rolled? It is a ludicrous situation, and there's no
investigation .WTF!
milosevic ,
How can you be so sure.
personal experience?
Authoritative pronouncements of this sort are typical of the disinfo troll personae.
Apparently, they're supposed to impress the audience, as evidence of direct knowledge and
expertise, to preclude any further doubts or questions about the Official Story.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
I'm an unemployed Social Assistance recipient and have not had a full time job since 1985. If
I had two nickels to scrape together I would not even be on Internet, frankly.
If I worked Intel I would not be on Off-G at all.
I guess life is more interesting for you when you fantasize about losers like moi being
Intel operatives but I can assure you that I have never worked government Intel for even one
hour in my lifetime.
When I applied to work Intel upon graduation I was flatly denied & turned down back in
the late 90s. Today, I would have to get false teeth to be presentable for employment and as
a welfare recipient I cannot afford dental work at all.
Stop being an accusatory jerk off, Milosevic.
MOU
George Cornell ,
Well I for one am saddened to hear of your circumstances. Your mind certainly seems sharp.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
I am a Marxist by circumstance. In CANADA Marxist proponents are marginalized by the state
& corporatocracy to the extent of abject poverty.
My professors at university made sure I was blacklisted so that I would never get any money
or employment because of my political ethos & cosmology. Instead of promoting my career
advancement they chose to excommunicate my membership in the cartel.
Being excluded from the work world & employment by the establishment is the reason why
the establishment was taken down in 08. Excluding myself from employment & career
opportunity only sufficed to annihilate the USA, EU, & Neoliberalism.
The end game is Zero Sum.
MOU
John Thatcher ,
Or in MoUs case ,a common or garden nutter.
George Cornell ,
He sounds like he is down on his luck and you find it in your heart to call him crazy? Is
this what they call subhuman empathy?
milosevic ,
yes, down on his luck, and controlling the world:
Being excluded from the work world & employment by the establishment is the reason
why the establishment was taken down in 08. Excluding myself from employment & career
opportunity only sufficed to annihilate the USA, EU, & Neoliberalism. -- MASTER OF
UNIVE
common nutter, or disinfo persona?
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
I was raised by a Chartered Accountant Civil Servant. The Pentagon accountants were
assassinated by their bosses in the Pentagon as a warning to any & all that want to
forensically investigate their double sets of books. The GAO-General Accountability Office
gets to do the forensic accounting from a distance now.
No investigation is forthcoming because Congress has not initiated discovery yet.
MOU
Fair dinkum ,
'Who's in charge of the US military?'
C'mon Cynthia, you know the answer to that.
It's the owners, shareholders, directors and CEOs of the MIC.
Nothing or no one, will stand in their way.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
The 08 Great Financial Crisis not only stood in the way of the USA MIC & NATO but it
forced BREXIT, TARP, & end to the Fractional Reserve Banking empire of the Western world.
Empiricism destroyed the USA & Capitalism hands down to leave it insolvent, destitute,
& poised for global bankruptcy as the third world banana republic it really is helmed by
a tin pot dictator like Trump stumping for Deutsche Bank so that his loans don't get
called.
Britain has finally made the Orwellian Pivot. Brazil is Bolsonaro-fied, Mexico and Canada are
USMCA-ed, Venezuela will be MAGA-cized. The Monroe Doctrine is growing carnivorous incisors.
Oceania is born!
Antonym Cruelty is a sign of a degrading society. Cultures promoting cruelty and torture
have lost any arguments. The Roman empire went down the public games till death phase just
before it collapsed, but that was two millennia ago. The US doesn't have the time excuse but
still promoted its Hollywood violence.
From the biggest kid on the block to bully gone bad
Richard Le Sarc ,
You have to remember that under Talmudic Judaic Law, killing civilians is not just
permissible, but is considered a mitzvah or good deed. And killing children, even babies, is
permissible if it can be said that they would grow up to 'oppose the Jews'. Quite
understandable in a hate-cult where, as the 'revered' Rabbi Kook the Elder declared, it is
believed that, 'There is a greater difference between the soul of a Jew and that of a non-Jew
than there is between the soul of a non-Jew and that of an animal'. What a Divine Burden you
bear, Ant-and with such dignity.
paul ,
Charming, these Levantine folk.
Luckily, Tony Blair is now on the job, working to suppress "the global pandemic of anti
Semitism."
That certainly puts my mind at rest.
Antonym ,
The CIA might have "inspired" Al Qaida or ISIS hangmen but not Assad's. They definitely
trained most Central and South America sadists in official uniform.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Come on Ant-don't be so shy. Israeli trained many Latin American killers and aided them in
drawing up death-lists. You should be proud of Zionist achievements.
Charlotte Russe ,
Guantanamo Bay provided a striking "stage setting" proving there's indeed a "War on Terror."
A "War on Terror is a nebulous concept–how do you battle terror. Terror is an "emotion"
which quickly evolved into rage felt by millions devastated in imperialist wars. How does an
Empire win a War on Terror with 1,000 military bases scattered throughout every continent.
The War on Terror was never conceived to be won, it was meant to be endless.
Now getting back to Guantanamo Bay, most of the victims were gathered by bounty hunters in
Afghanistan or were targeted because of past grievances. The unlucky captives, had nothing to
do with terrorist activities or 9/11. Guantanamo Bay, diabolically tests the limitless way an
Empire can abscond with an individual's freedom. Extrajudicial concepts like "enemy
combatant" are auditioned proving all legal rights can be immediately abrogated with just a
stroke of a pen. The War on Terror produced a new type of captive–someone who was
neither a prisoner of war or a US criminal. An abducted victim held indefinitely in a black
site. In other words, the War on Terror justified extrajudicial transfers from one country to
another circumventing the former country's laws on interrogation, detention and
torture. The War on Terror proved that a mind-boggling event such as a "false flag like 9/11"
generates enough shock to gain public acceptance for legislation like the "Patriot Act" where
frightened citizens are willing to capitulate freedom for safety.
paul ,
Many of the unfortunates murdered or tortured or held indefinitely without trial in US
concentration camps were basically just Afghan or Pakistani yokels handed over to CIA spooks
for a $5,000 bounty. They reckon half the villages in Pakistan were suddenly missing the
village idiot, who had been sold to the CIA.
The Taliban fighters rounded up were engaged in a civil war in Afghanistan at the time
against assorted warlords and drug lords from non Pashtun communities who rejected the
authority of the Taliban government. They had never fought against America, and had no plans
to. Some of them probably didn't know that America existed. They were probably somewhat
bewildered that the US was muscling in on their civil war.
Bin Laden was there as a hang over from the war against Russia. He had been on the CIA
payroll for years, a "heroic freedom fighter" invited round the White House for tea and
buns.
Incidentally, the "enemy combatant" routine is nothing new for the US. In 1945, German
POWs were suddenly designated "surrendered enemy personnel" to deprive them of the protection
of POW status. Eisenhower hated Germans, and wanted to treat prisoners as harshly as
possible. German prisoners held by US forces in the Rhineland area were deliberately deprived
of food, water and shelter, and certainly very large numbers died, though figures are
disputed. There were many murders and summary executions. Wherever they have operated, US
forces have always committed atrocities and war crimes on both a casual and more organised
basis.
Richard Le Sarc ,
It is actually a War OF Terror. And torture is as American as apple-pie.
paul ,
As bad as they are, the US concentration camps at Guantanamo, Bagram and Abu Ghraib and the
issue of waterboarding, are just the tip of a very large iceberg.
There is a global US Gulag of concentration camps, torture chambers and secret prisons
(including UK territory) where thousands of people have been horrifically tortured and
murdered on an industrial scale.
The torture employed exceeds by far anything Guy Fawkes or the Knights Templar would have
experienced in the 17th and 14th centuries.
paul ,
This torture is the product of very sick and diseased minds from a very sick and diseased
society.
Extreme sexual torture and humiliation. Murder, blindings and maimings. Agonising confinement
in tiny boxes for protracted periods. One unfortunate chained up naked in a freezing cell in
a standing position, medieval style, and just left there until somebody noticed, 17 days
later, that he was dead.
Another kidnapped from Canada and spirited away to US torture chambers in Morocco and
Yugoslavia, where his private parts were mutilated. It transpired that this unfortunate was
not the man they wanted. He just had a similar name to somebody else.
paul ,
And of course the UK and all the US satellites were fully complicit in these crimes and
atrocities.
Not that this will in any way inhibit them from climbing up on their high horse and giving
lofty sermons and pious lectures to all the benighted natives on the rest of the planet about
their human rights failings, and their need to comply with our exalted "Rules Based Order."
paul ,
"We tortured some folks."
paul ,
Of course these are just 2 isolated cases out of thousands and thousands.
One of the worst torturers known as NZ7 was a religious nut job who liked to bring people to
the point of death so he could feel the soul leaving the body.
People were tortured three times a day for weeks and months on end.
Scenes of torture replicated and far exceeded anything in medieval dungeons.
Torture doctors were on hand to advise on how to intensify the torment.
The motivation seems mainly to have been sadism and sexual sadism for its own sake rather
than any genuine interest in obtaining information.
Anal rape was a routine part of the CIA torture manual.
So was freezing people to death and shoving nuts and hummus up people's arses.
People with specialist knowledge of the subject have said that the Gestapo record of
torture was actually far better than that of the US. The Gestapo did torture people, but it
was a very bureaucratic process, and they preferred to intimidate people into cooperating by
playing on their bad reputation.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Many of the worst torture practises used by the USA were borrowed from the Israelis, drawing
on decades of experience torturing tens of thousands of Palestinians. But they are the ' most
moral torturers on Earth'-and don' t you dare forget it.
Harry Stotle George Galloway accused Chritopher Hitchens of 'proselytising for the devil'
after Hitchens gave neocons the intellectual thumbs up for unleashing hell after 9/11, while it
is common knowledge the pro-war, liberal media had to acquire a paint factory because so many
coatings were required to white-wash the lies and fabrications employed to rationalise Bush's
'war on terror' and many events leading up to it (not least the fact the US buddied up with
Saddam a decade earlier in order to foment war with Iran).
By contrast counterveiling forces (such as Galloway) have almost no voice within political
spheres, the academic world and certainly the MSM, and when necessary certain propaganda
operations unfold to subvert meaningful investigations, such as the alleged chemical attack in
Douma (where, ironically, Peter Hitchens amongst others has called bullshit)
Of course its important to deconstruct flagrent untruths (as Kevin Ryan does in this fine
article) not least because they have been used as a platform for the current reign of terror in
the Middle East – but the question is, in totalitarian states like America (where
authorities effectively act as judge, jury and executioner) how can this knowledge be used to
shake up a system that has closed its eyes and ears to truth or reality?
Put another way who expects the likes of Rachel Maddow or Bill Maher to ever hold authority to
account?
Now depending on your ideologial outlook the actions of the US are either a facet of the
'international rules based order' (which IMO is no more than a self-aggrandising term neocons,
like Tony Blair, love to apply to themselves), or abject betrayal of the holocaust: a critical
moment in history when the world vowed to learn from the terrible conseqeunces that arise when
powerful, lawless states are unconstrained by public opinion or cultural watchdogs.
One clue to answering this rhetorical question is the way whistleblowers or publishers are
treated by those they accuse of wrong doing – the evidence tells us that just like
Guantanamo they are likely to be tortured and subject to sham legal proceedings.
As an aside it begs questions about the kind or people, such as prosecutors who are willing
participate in this cruel process – they are the same sort of people that would have
cropped up in Soviet Russia, or Nazi Germany I imagine?
Maggie ,
your link buffers and I can't access.
Harry Stotle ,
Search: 'Christopher Hitchens prosthelytized for the Devil – George Galloway' –
in YouTube. that should find it.
Patrick C ,
Harry, I was reading along nodding in agreement and then, as the song says, you spoil it all
by saying, I hate you. The Soviet Union, by equating it with Nazi Germany. As you say it's
important to, "deconstruct flagrant untruths." And this is possibly the granddaddy of all
untruths. But as this isn't even a comment, rather it's an answer to a comment, there simply
isn't the space to fully contest that characterization. I would hope given your obvious
intelligence you might make it a priority to research and understand the Cold War
demonization of the USSR and before that the attempts to crush them. I am not excusing their
crimes I'm saying there weren't any. Certainly not in the sense that we've been brainwashed
to believe. You can dismiss me as an idealogue if you wish or you can start the hard slog
towards understanding. Otherwise loved what you wrote.
Harry Stotle ,
Thanks, Patrick – I am not suggesting equivalence except to the extent the legal
systems in Russia and Germany were co-opted to fulfil certain ideological goals (as they are
in the west today given high ranking political figures are more or less exempt from any sort
of meaningful judicial scrutiny).
Talking about Russia in particular it is claimed, "According to the International
Memorial, the law on rehabilitation covers 11-11.5 million people in the territory of the
former USSR. The latest (2016) statistical calculations are given in the article by A.
Roginsky and E. Zhemkova "Between sympathy and indifference – rehabilitation of victims
of Soviet repressions".
About 5.8 million people became victims of "administrative repressions" directed against
certain groups of the population (kulaks, representatives of repressed peoples and religious
denominations). From 4.7 to 5 million people were arrested on individual political charges,
of which about a million were shot. These are preliminary estimates obtained as a result of
many years of work by researchers with internal statistics of punitive bodies at the central
and regional levels, investigative cases.
As the "Memorial" movement, it is fundamentally important to establish the names of all
the repressed. At the moment, in the consolidated database "Victims of Political Terror in
the USSR", there are more than 3 million people. This base was compiled mainly on the basis
of regional Books of Remembrance, in the preparation of which members of local Memorial
organizations often took part. The database is currently being updated." (site contents can
be translated into English) https://www.memo.ru/ru-ru/history-of-repressions-and-protest/chronology-stat/
Just to add I know a reasonable amount about 9/11, know a little about the US empire (and
Britain's role in it) and have also looked at historians who have questioned specifics about
the holocaust (and here I mean David Irving, a brilliant but deeply flawed, and unempathic
man).
Russia however I am less sure about.
I would just add that revolutions are always violent because no one ever relinquishes
power without a fight, while reverberations from such convulsions can carry consequences long
after they first occured.
For example, Trotsky was tried and found guilty of treason and sentenced to death in
absentia – as you must know he was murdered in Mexico following severe head wounds
inflicted by an icepick.
Richard Le Sarc ,
I hope that Hitchens' water-boarding didn't cause his oesophageal cancer. That would be
ironic.
The dubious legal proceedings at the Guantanomo Bay (Gitmo) prison camp continue to promote the idea
of justice for victims of 9/11. Unfortunately, these proceedings do not represent an administration of law but an
unstated claim that the Global War on Terror is above the law. More importantly, the Gitmo antics have one obvious
objective -- to perpetuate willful ignorance of the 9/11 crimes.
There is a dangerous elephant in the Gitmo courtroom, however, and if it ever gets reported it could bring down the
terror-torture house of cards.
Reporters covering Gitmo continue to call it a trial but it is not a trial, it is a "military tribunal." They
continue to call the site "Camp Justice" when justice is as far from the prison camp as it has ever been from any human
endeavor. What they don't do is think critically about the information they are parroting from court sources.
The history is profoundly absurd. The suspects were brutally tortured and held without charges for up to 18 years.
The alleged evidence obtained from the torture was made secret. Then the records of the secret torture evidence were
illegally destroyed. Then the secret evidence simply turned out to be completely false. FBI and CIA officers then began
to
make a mockery
of the whole thing, secretly bugging defense
team discussion rooms and covertly inserting themselves as translators and defense team members.
This is not just a matter of an extreme violation of human rights and an utter disrespect for the law. Within this
sequence of stupidity looms the mother of all oversights. That is, the secret evidence that turned out to be false was
used as the basis for
The 9/11 Commission Report
.
At the center of the media's willful ignorance is "
forever
prisoner
" Abu Zubaydah, the first alleged al Qaeda leader captured and tortured. In 2009, the U.S. government began
correcting the record by admitting, in
habeus corpus
proceedings, that Zubaydah was never associated with al
Qaeda and that he had no role in, or knowledge of, the 9/11 attacks. That Zubaydah was never associated with al Qaeda is
no longer challenged by anyone and is regularly repeated in the mainstream press. What is not mentioned is the
astounding implication of that admission.
Abu Zubaydah's "torture testimony" was used to construct the official narrative of 9/11 that is still accepted as
fact today.
Check for yourself. Do a quick search for the word "Zubaydah" in
The 9/11 Commission Report
. You'll find it 52
times. As you read these references and claims, ask yourself -- how could a man who the government now says had nothing to
do with al Qaeda have known any of these things? How could he be a key travel facilitator for al Qaeda operatives when
he wasn't associated in any way with al Qaeda? How could Zubaydah give detailed accounts of Osama bin Laden and Khalid
Sheikh Mohammed (KSM)'s plans for 9/11 when he had no knowledge of those plans?
Disassociating Zubaydah from al Qaeda causes
so many problems
for the official narrative of al Qaeda and 9/11 that people like Lee Hamilton, the co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission,
simply develop amnesia
when asked about him.
As seen in the 9/11 Commission Report, the official account begins with linking "Mukhtar" (KSM) to "al Qaeda
lieutenant Abu Zubaydah," who we now know was never associated with al Qaeda. Both
FBI interrogator Ali Soufan
, in a 2009
New
York Times
opinion piece, and Vice President Dick Cheney, in his 2011 book, claimed that Zubaydah (who never had
any knowledge or connection to 9/11) identified KSM as the "mastermind of the 9/11 attacks." The official account of
9/11, and the ongoing fake trial at Gitmo, all proceeded from there.
But none of it was true.
The latest crime of 9/11 is that this fact is not being reported. The media admits that Zubaydah was never associated
with al Qaeda but entirely ignores the devastating consequences of that admission. The false official account for 9/11
is the root cause and ongoing justification for greater crimes -- 1) wars of aggression in multiple countries that have
destroyed millions of lives, 2) the public's acceptance of torture and indefinite detention, and 3) mass surveillance
and an overall attack on freedom.
Instead of reporting that the basis for those greater crimes has been obliterated, the media reduces the subject to a
discussion of how torture is bad but perhaps still justified by the gain. Of course, torture is bad but mass murder is
much worse and the justification for both the wars and the torture is now indefensible! Until the media reports this
fact there will be no justice for victims of 9/11 or for the victims of the resulting wars and torture.
We know that there are many
striking anomalies
and
inexplicable facts
about 9/11 that have yet to be
resolved. But the fake Gitmo trial stands as a final absurd crime in the history of 9/11 as it is represented as an
attempt at justice yet includes more farcical elements every day.
For example, the CIA-driven architect of the torture program recently claimed that he was acting on behalf of the
9/11 families and that he
would do it again
.
The final proceedings have been set to officially begin in January 2021, aligning with the 20th anniversary news
cycle and re-emphasizing that propaganda is the primary goal. The propaganda narrative focuses on setting the false
official account in stone and further normalizing torture.
Sadly, reporters and editors covering these events don't seem to have an interest in challenging any substantial part
of the story. Let's hope that one or more of them comes to their senses and proves that suspicion wrong.
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not
funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest amount of
support is hugely appreciated.
Connect with
Connect with
Subscribe
newest
oldest
most voted
Notify of
Kevin Ryan's blog is a must read for anyone interested in the truth of 9/11:
https://digwithin.net/
As is David Chandler et al's. :
http://911speakout.org/
And Jim Hoffman's:
http://911research.wtc7.net/
**Stay away from anyone making no planes claims. They are intended to undermine 911 truth by trying to
associate it with loony conspiracism and spurious claims.
TFS
,
I have a few Elephants off my own.
1. The Victims Compensation Fund. If there was a contract that needed
to be signed, prior to receiving a payout, what the conditions were there in the document?
2. How did the Pilots flying the 757/767's get hold of a Pilots Operating Manual, and could they read
English?
3. What publicly available flightsim software did they use and what particular addon replicating the
757/767 did they use to practice flying and more importantly get used to the autopilot?
Cruelty is a sign of a degrading society. Cultures promoting cruelty and torture have lost any arguments.
The Roman empire went down the public games till death phase just before it collapsed, but that was two
millennia ago. The US doesn't have the time excuse but still promoted its Hollywood violence.
From the biggest kid on the block to bully gone bad
Richard Le Sarc
,
Dear me-is their a crueler and more inhumane regime anywhere than Israel? Perhaps the USA and Saudi
Arabia, but that' s a three-headed monster.
paul
,
The 10,000 child prisoners in Israeli dungeons are routinely tortured. Torture is an integral part of
the "justice" system and has been legitimised as normal practice. Though perhaps that's not all that
surprising when "Justice" Minister Shaked called for the murder of Palestinian mothers so that no
Palestinian children would be born. Maybe that's where their American friends got the inspiration for
their more grisly torture practices. Many of the torturers and concentration camp guards received
training in Israel, after all.
Antonym
,
P.R. child abuse in adult conflicts was pioneered around 1987 in Gaza/ West bank with "unarmed"
stone pelting boys. People died at the receiving end. This tactic was later copied in Irak and
Kashmir .
Western prestitutes were invited before hand to take pictures of thus created victims and perps –
Israeli forces replying to the deadly rock hail. This was leaped up in the West by droves of
gullible naives. Mission accomplishised!
Greta Thunberg is a different form of child abuse – non
physical – but violent speech, now by a girl. She was preceded by Pakistani religious stooge
Malala.
paul
,
Blame the victim.
Look at what those terrible Palestinians have made us do to them.
We are the most moral kiddie killers and kiddie torturers in the world.
Richard Le Sarc
,
You have to remember that under Talmudic Judaic Law, killing civilians is not just permissible,
but is considered a mitzvah or good deed. And killing children, even babies, is permissible if
it can be said that they would grow up to 'oppose the Jews'. Quite understandable in a hate-cult
where, as the 'revered' Rabbi Kook the Elder declared, it is believed that, 'There is a greater
difference between the soul of a Jew and that of a non-Jew than there is between the soul of a
non-Jew and that of an animal'. What a Divine Burden you bear, Ant-and with such dignity.
paul
,
Charming, these Levantine folk.
Luckily, Tony Blair is now on the job, working to suppress "the global pandemic of anti
Semitism."
That certainly puts my mind at rest.
Richard Le Sarc
,
So, criticising Israeli torture of children, or any one of their other myriad crimes, will
bring you twenty years in the nick, for the New Supreme Crime of 'antisemitism'. When they
go too far, finally, as they inevitably must, being driven by truly insatiable hatred, the
reaction will be nassty. Any real 'philosemite' would make avoiding that a paramount
ambition, but I suspect many are simply opportunistic Judeophobes.
Antonym
,
The CIA might have "inspired" Al Qaida or ISIS hangmen but not Assad's. They definitely trained
most Central and South America sadists in official uniform.
Richard Le Sarc
,
Come on Ant-don't be so shy. Israeli trained many Latin American killers and aided them in
drawing up death-lists. You should be proud of Zionist achievements.
Uncle Sam is the one who belongs in the exercise yard.
Charlotte Russe
,
Guantanamo Bay provided a striking "stage setting" proving there's indeed a "War on Terror." A "War on
Terror is a nebulous concept–how do you battle terror. Terror is an "emotion" which quickly evolved into
rage felt by millions devastated in imperialist wars. How does an Empire win a War on Terror with 1,000
military bases scattered throughout every continent. The War on Terror was never conceived to be won, it was
meant to be endless.
Now getting back to Guantanamo Bay, most of the victims were gathered by bounty
hunters in Afghanistan or were targeted because of past grievances. The unlucky captives, had nothing to do
with terrorist activities or 9/11. Guantanamo Bay, diabolically tests the limitless way an Empire can
abscond with an individual's freedom. Extrajudicial concepts like "enemy combatant" are auditioned proving
all legal rights can be immediately abrogated with just a stroke of a pen. The War on Terror produced a new
type of captive–someone who was neither a prisoner of war or a US criminal. An abducted victim held
indefinitely in a black site. In other words, the War on Terror justified extrajudicial transfers from one
country to another circumventing the former country's laws on interrogation, detention and
torture. The War on Terror proved that a mind-boggling event such as a "false flag like 9/11" generates
enough shock to gain public acceptance for legislation like the "Patriot Act" where frightened citizens are
willing to capitulate freedom for safety.
paul
,
Many of the unfortunates murdered or tortured or held indefinitely without trial in US concentration
camps were basically just Afghan or Pakistani yokels handed over to CIA spooks for a $5,000 bounty. They
reckon half the villages in Pakistan were suddenly missing the village idiot, who had been sold to the
CIA.
The Taliban fighters rounded up were engaged in a civil war in Afghanistan at the time against
assorted warlords and drug lords from non Pashtun communities who rejected the authority of the Taliban
government. They had never fought against America, and had no plans to. Some of them probably didn't know
that America existed. They were probably somewhat bewildered that the US was muscling in on their civil
war.
Bin Laden was there as a hang over from the war against Russia. He had been on the CIA payroll for
years, a "heroic freedom fighter" invited round the White House for tea and buns.
Incidentally, the "enemy combatant" routine is nothing new for the US. In 1945, German POWs were
suddenly designated "surrendered enemy personnel" to deprive them of the protection of POW status.
Eisenhower hated Germans, and wanted to treat prisoners as harshly as possible. German prisoners held by
US forces in the Rhineland area were deliberately deprived of food, water and shelter, and certainly very
large numbers died, though figures are disputed. There were many murders and summary executions. Wherever
they have operated, US forces have always committed atrocities and war crimes on both a casual and more
organised basis.
Richard Le Sarc
,
It is actually a War OF Terror. And torture is as American as apple-pie.
I miss Mark too. He writes really well, but he did give fair warning, that he wasn't going
to write here any more. I have no idea why not. He is very talented. Maybe he got a new job, or venture,
that takes up all his energies. Some people are like that. He's probably volunteered for something, very
dangerous, like clearing British land mines in some God forsaken land, because he is fed up, with young
innocent children, having their arms and legs blown off, when all they are trying to do is grow some
food. Some people care, and try and do something to help, rather than just writing about it. Craig
Murray's brother has done that.
Tony
Tallis Marsh
,
Unfortunately the judicial system is corrupt to the bone. Many of us are not holding our breath that real
justice will be done about places like Guantanomo Bay The lies will abound as they always have and will
always will unless there is a real "draining of the swamp" which will not happen under Trump The real
elephant in the room is that we continue to live in corrupt systems globally as well as nationally.
A
national example is this:
5G and the use of Huwawei in the UK: using Huawei was always the plan it seems; and the dithering is just
for theatre (again)!
Boris Johnson is just continuing David Cameron's policies and going along with those plans. Take the
following as an example:
– Lord Browne (ex-Cameron's Cabinet Office Non-Exec. Director) currently Chairman of "Huawei UK"
– Sir Andrew Cahn (ex-Cameron's Head of UK Trade & Investments) currently Board Member of "Huawei UK"
– John Suffolk (ex-Cameron's Chief Information Officer) currently Senior Vice President & Global Cyber
Security & Privacy Officer of Huawei
Careerists and lobbyists love the gravy-train & revolving-doors in our corrupt political system; and it
is the general public's life -- our health, security, privacy and freedom – that will be utterly compromised
for the establishment's venal money & asset grabs, power–hungry gains, and control-freakery
eugenicist/depopulation goals.
If you care about your (and future generations') health and freedom, please research (beyond the MSM) the
privacy & security risks of the 5G system and the catastrophic health/system effects of these EMF/RF
frequencies on all biological life including humans: their health & fertility (especially the young and
infirm). This is the most important subject in our current era.
Mucho
,
Well said.
CIA released document with the only source of valid info available about the health effects of
millimeter waves on biology. They want to irradiate you with millimeter waves 24/7 with 5G.
These are the waveforms they use in those horrendous airport body scanners. 5G – being in an airport body
scanner 24/7.
WHERE ARE THE ACADEMICS GOING APESHIT ABOUT THIS????
Thanks, Mucho. There are a lot of independent studies on the effect of EMF/RF on health, and here is a
very good starter-hub of information with numerous links to many independent studies (not the usual,
solely, cherry-picked studies linked to the gov/telecom industry usually referred to by MSM hacks) to
get people started:
We need to ask the vital question: what happened to the precautionary principle? Traditionally this
was the backbone of the health & safety industry/research – so why does it not apply now?
Another thing to really ponder is: why do large insurer's like Lloyd's of London excludes any
liability coverage for claims "directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to
be electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise." This
would include not just telcom masts/arrays etc but also smart-meters, Wi-Fi, wireless devices,
smart-devices in homes, businesses, schools, etc.
When people realise the implications of the EMF/RF polluting of our environment and health (and
privacy and freedom), almost all of us do not want this system around us. The general public were not
consulted about this technology and it's nationwide/global roll-out – and we do not consent; we should
try to use the Nuremberg Code to stop the roll-out of all these devices/structures; are there any
non-estab/non-corrupt lawyers & politicians out there that could help with this?
Tallis Marsh
,
* its (not it's)
Tallis Marsh
,
Looks like Robert Kennedy Jr is trying to set up a legal team:
"
Robert Kennedy Jr. Assembles Legal Team to Sue FCC – The team includes RFK, Jr., IRREGULATORs'
Attorney Scott W. McCollough & Dafna Tachover
Robert Kennedy, Jr., Chairman of Children's Health Defense (CHD) has committed to be proactive on
the concerns regarding excessive exposure of our children to 5G and wireless radiation. To fulfill
this promise, CHD will be submitting a lawsuit on February 3rd against the FCC for its December 4,
2019 decision to decline to review its 1996 guidelines, and for its determination that the guidelines
are protective of human health.
The Dec. 4 determination provides a rare opportunity to sue the FCC and expose its disregard for
public health that has been causing so many injuries and deaths, including among children. We will be
representing the many children who have been injured. This is the opportunity we have been waiting
for; a successful lawsuit on this will be a game changer.
"
Mucho
,
The whole "debate" about 5G in the UK is cynically framed around the fake concern about Huawei and
using their hardware. Watch the film I posted to in the previous post with Trump, Bibi and the
Iranians on the thumbnail to see where all this truly originates from, and how this relates to
China being in bed. They do not touch the health implications at all, it is totally off limits to
discuss this. This is evidence of a cover-up of 9/11 proportions.
I am very, very worried about the rollout of 5G. I recently went to Norwich and saw the micro-cells
on the lampposts, turned the car around and will never, ever go to Norwich again. If you live in
Norwich, leave as quick as you can. Ditto London, ditto Bristol, ditto anywhere with this crap
installed. It won't be long before you cannot make that decision, to turn around and escape this
evil. Why are people so spineless in facing up to this? How can every moron working at the BBC
carry on taking money from their employers when they are so blatantly involed in a cover-up that
ultimately will make their families and them very ill? How can people be so pig-headed? Where are
the academics screaming from the rooftops about the harm associated with milllimeter waves? What
has happened to our supposed "survivial instincts", the most basic and primitive instinct of
mankind? Nowhere to be seen, just a bunch of dribbling idiots salivating about dowloading a film in
3 seconds flat. Brainwashed idiots, each and every one of them.
That is good news about Robert Kennedy, a high profile name like that being resistant is great
news. The Kevin Mottus – 5G film on YT has lots of info about the deep corruption within the FCC,
how the foxes are guarding the henhouse in terms of the wireless industry. This world is well and
truly fucked, and it's about to get a whole lot worse with the rollout of this evil. It's so
criminal but the moron majority sleeps like a baby with a wireless baby monitor irradiating it.
Those things are so harmful. You see so many Brits stupidly arming their kids with smart phones to
keep them "safe". That's the trick, sell the problem and the solution. Pure evil
Then there's the new, ultra-Satanic LED streetlights. Frightening
Here is Jonathon Watt from Hertfordshire Cunty Council confirming that these disgusting, hideous
new LED lights are radio linked, therefore they emit harmful radiation. This guy has already
booked his place in hell. It states they save money on maintenance costs as justification so
why have I seen so many non-functioning lights already then. Bunch of lying pieces of filth
selling harmful cheap shit
WAKE THE F**K UP PEOPLE! YOU ARE BEING TARGETED BY THESE WEAPONS
"The "blue light" in LED lighting can damage the eye's
retina and disturb natural sleep rhythms, France's government-run health watchdog said this
week.
New findings confirm earlier concerns that "exposure to an intense and powerful [LED]
light is 'photo-toxic' and can lead to irreversible loss of retinal cells and diminished
sharpness of vision," the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health &
Safety (ANSES) warned in a statement."
"Blue light" of LED streetlights linked to breast and
prostate cancer
The "blue light" emitted by street lights including LEDs, and commercial outdoor
lighting such as advertising, is linked to a significant increase in the risk of breast
and prostate cancer, innovative new research has concluded.
Look at what happened to Boots when they tried to highlight the issues with blue light
LED in order to sell blue light blocking glasses .SPEECHLESS! The General Optical
COuncil is fining opticians for helping customers to save their eyesight. This is
fucking ridiculous.
"The General Optical Council (GOC) has reprimanded Boots Opticians with a Ł40,000
fine for a "misleading" advertisement about Boots Protect Plus Blue (BPPB) lenses.
In a decision published today (26 May), the optical regulator found that there was
potential for patients to be misled by the multiple overstating claims about blue light
and the benefits of its BPPB lenses in an advertisement that was published in The Times
in January 2015.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) received complaints about the content of
the advertisement, including claims that blue light from LED TVs, smartphones and
energy saving light bulbs caused damage to retinal cells over time, and that BPPB
lenses protected against blue light from these sources. The authority found that these
claims were misleading and unsubstantiated. " ..
Brilliant info and links there, Mucho – thank you – appreciate it.
It pains me
that it is normal people that have to get information out to the public as the hacks
do not; there must almost certainly be a media 'D-notice' on the subject of the
health effects of 5G (and wireless, wi-fi, smart devices, etc)? How can we stop this
anti-democratic censorship and corruption?
I have never felt so livid; and never more disappointed not just with the
establishment corruption (not least the almost transparent postal-ballot-rigging in
the tories' favour & ultra-smearing of Corbyn 2019 UK General Election) but also
disappointed that no-one, not one person with power or weighting in the UK wants to
stop the EMF/RF pollution-surveillance system roll-out in the country. Where are
they? Normal people like us are shouting from the roofs and trying to get heard in
censorious 'social-media' platforms and online news forums (sadly without much
leeway: too much deleting of posts, shadow-banning, manipulation of 'likes', blogs
set-up as honey-traps/gate-keepers e.g. facebook, reddit, twitter, etc; I personally
have never had SM accounts for uber-censorship reasons and surveillance reasons
among others – but admire the people who do use it for info sharing purposes).
Also importantly, have people seen the telecom maps of the 5G roll-outs? The
initial couple of roll-outs -- if you look at their own maps/lists (EE, Vodaphone,
BT, Three, etc) -- are ALL in the poorest parts of the cities and towns in the UK;
not one of the 1st phase and 2nd phase are in wealthy places not even wealthy whole
establishment places like Oxford, etc. Doesn't that tell us something vital? That
they want to depopulate the poorest of society? I remember that quote – which
so-called elitist despicably labelled the general public as 'useless eaters'?
My only wish now is that the people (hopefully with help from non-corrupt
people/person with power & weighting on their side) stand-up to the supremacist,
power-hungry, eugenicist, technocratic, globalist control-freaks and soon! For
observations coupled with intuition tells us the people do not have very long before
we are completely enslaved? God, I hope I am wrong about all this, but I have a
feeling I am not. We must carry on getting information out to people and then
extended, persistent non-violent civil disobedience in strategic areas.
Obviously, individual people cannot do it on our own and we must look to the
Gilets Jaunes for brilliant inspiration & vision. What I truly love & admire about
the Gilets Jaunes is that their philosophy (which does not get airing by the global
MSM – D notice again?) gets to the root of the problem as their demands are:
-- the resignation of Macron and his regime
-- restoration of national sovereignty:Frexit
-- monetary reform (elimination of inflation/debt-based,fiat fractional reserve
based private banking cartel – the central banking system
–the RIC (local citizens based referendum) and towards a genuine participatory,
direct democracy
Maybe 'Mark' whoever he may be, has just been disappeared like Mark Sloboda who was at one time an
ever-present presenter on RT – whatever happened to him?
Perhaps Mark's realpolitik views didn't quite fit in with Lavelle's and his – 'I always hog the
conversation' – predilections. Maybe they are even the same person. Who knows?
paul
,
As bad as they are, the US concentration camps at Guantanamo, Bagram and Abu Ghraib and the issue of
waterboarding, are just the tip of a very large iceberg.
There is a global US Gulag of concentration camps, torture chambers and secret prisons (including UK
territory) where thousands of people have been horrifically tortured and murdered on an industrial scale.
The torture employed exceeds by far anything Guy Fawkes or the Knights Templar would have experienced in the
17th and 14th centuries.
paul
,
This torture is the product of very sick and diseased minds from a very sick and diseased society.
Extreme sexual torture and humiliation. Murder, blindings and maimings. Agonising confinement in tiny
boxes for protracted periods. One unfortunate chained up naked in a freezing cell in a standing position,
medieval style, and just left there until somebody noticed, 17 days later, that he was dead.
Another kidnapped from Canada and spirited away to US torture chambers in Morocco and Yugoslavia, where
his private parts were mutilated. It transpired that this unfortunate was not the man they wanted. He
just had a similar name to somebody else.
paul
,
And of course the UK and all the US satellites were fully complicit in these crimes and atrocities.
Not that this will in any way inhibit them from climbing up on their high horse and giving lofty
sermons and pious lectures to all the benighted natives on the rest of the planet about their human
rights failings, and their need to comply with our exalted "Rules Based Order."
paul
,
"We tortured some folks."
paul
,
Of course these are just 2 isolated cases out of thousands and thousands.
One of the worst torturers known as NZ7 was a religious nut job who liked to bring people to the point
of death so he could feel the soul leaving the body.
People were tortured three times a day for weeks and months on end.
Scenes of torture replicated and far exceeded anything in medieval dungeons.
Torture doctors were on hand to advise on how to intensify the torment.
The motivation seems mainly to have been sadism and sexual sadism for its own sake rather than any
genuine interest in obtaining information.
Anal rape was a routine part of the CIA torture manual.
So was freezing people to death and shoving nuts and hummus up people's arses.
People with
specialist knowledge of the subject have said that the Gestapo record of torture was actually far
better than that of the US. The Gestapo did torture people, but it was a very bureaucratic process,
and they preferred to intimidate people into cooperating by playing on their bad reputation.
Richard Le Sarc
,
Many of the worst torture practises used by the USA were borrowed from the Israelis, drawing on
decades of experience torturing tens of thousands of Palestinians. But they are the ' most moral
torturers on Earth'-and don' t you dare forget it.
Willem
,
I remember, at one stage (4-5 years ago) the US asked the world to take over Gitmo prisoners, to which the
world's response was: it is not our problem, it is a US problem.
Well, not so quick. There is one prisoner
there, named Hambali, who allegedly is the mastermind of the Balibombings of 2002 and a money handler of Al
qaida. And still prisoner at Gitmo, because he is too 'dangerous' to be released. In the Balibombings of
2002, 4 Dutch People were killed.
So I asked at the time when NL parliamentarians were 'seriously' debating the question about Gitmo
prisoners, if Hambali could be sent over to NL to be judged according to Dutch law.
To the credit of some of the parliamentarians who posed the question, they did reply to me. But they did
not disclose if they talked about Hambali, and they weren't succesful as we now all know
Anyway, Hambali is still held prisoner at Gitmo, and I would have been a happy man if he, in fact was
released to NL, as Hambali is a problem for NL citizens who lost their friends and loved ones due to the
balibombings. But I don't think that will ever happen, but am happy that I at least gave it a try at the
time.
Anyway
tonyopmoc
,
Willem, I don't know about the Bali bombings, but I do remember reading this by Jo Vialls, who had many
interesting theories about lots of stuff, some of which maybe true. He died, probably of natural causes
in Australia, shortly after writing this. I personally found what Jo Vialls wrote, very interesting,
because at the time, I was almost 100% certain, that the Official US Government Story re 9/11 was
impossible, because it did not comply with the most basic laws of physics and maths, which I had studied
to a fairly high level at university in England. I told everyone I knew, that the story was impossible,
but no one believed me, except for one man I knew who designed buildings. Everyone else thought I had
gone mad, and it caused me a lot of grief, and I had to leave my job. Many more people believe me now.
I don't know, if any of this is true, but it makes interesting reading. I did not study nuclear physics,
to any depth and I do not know if even the concept of micro nukes is viable.
Incidentally, I think Petra (ex flaxgirl) is honest, and believes what she writes, and I agree with
her that some terrorist attacks are faked. A good indication of whether they were faked of not, is the
size of the hole in the ground. If it is supermassive, then the energy in the bomb to do that is
enormous, unless the bomb was buried underground, before it exploded.
Tony
Richard Le Sarc
,
One thing is for certain-whatever it was that ripped concrete off rebar at 100 metres in Bali was not
cooked up in a bath-tub.
Tony, There is quite a lot of evidence supporting the lack of the existence of nuclear weapons and
that the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were conventional. I'm in correspondence with someone
writing a book about it and there is a book on Amazon, Death Object: Exploding the Nuclear Weapons
Hoax.
https://www.amazon.com/Death-Object-Exploding-Nuclear-Weapons/dp/1545516839
I'm writing a post
on it myself and what I've noticed is that the Hiroshima survivor stories are not convincing (they
always give us the clues). Also, what we're told about Iranian nuclear physicists being "assassinated"
are not convincing nor is what we're told about Mordechai Vanunu, alleged leaker of Israeli nuclear
secrets.
I know someone whose father worked next door to the Sari bar in Bali where the major bombing was
and his father said that when he was asked to go and help with the injured there were no injured to
help. When you look at the images of the injured they are not convincing and I've seen an interview
displaying a typical characteristic of staged events – the ever-so-smiling loved ones. I know people
who know people who allegedly died or were injured but that's a given with staged events.
So no nuclear weapons and no coronavirus (at least not of significance in impacting our health)
we can all breathe a sigh of relief.
However, manmade climate change is no hoax and that's what worries me.
Antonym
,
The present Dutch PM Rutte is more of a CIA poodle than Tony Blair was. MH17 a case in point. The Dutch
judicial set up is populated with similar drones: the assassin of prominent Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn
is walking free after less jail time than other criminals. Holland is gone to the dogs.
Yes and thanks for bringing this into recognition as coercive deceit given (sacrifice of) power by
allegiance of compliance – as effectively a version of 'say and do what you are told to say and do or your
will suffer greater pain of loss". This can be insinuated and framed as taking the seemingly lesser of evils
as the means to survive an impossible situation – as "an offer you cant refuse" or perceived self interest
in terms of the 'way everything is moving'.
The ego of a self imaged isolation always leads to an
impossible situation because it is an impossible premise given reality, identity and allegiance as the
private and separate sense of self and life. But having 'taken it on' and 'cast it out', we are 'taken in'
or cast under our own mis-spelled word.
Survival at any price – pays the price.
But 'survival' of WHAT exactly? and for what END?
A madness possesses the mind of (Hu) Man.
The attempt of a mind to judge and attack itself – as if to excommunicate, cast out, banish, eradicate,
deny, destroy – will always set in motion an equal and opposite reaction – regardless it NOT being allowed
into a conscious awareness
The 'program' emerges from the Deep as a 666 without a 7 of true rest in recognition as shared
fulfilment. More robot than Beast. Who or where is the 'programming?' and how is it to be re-integrated to
wholeness of being? We cannot choose in the place of another – (but that we entangle as denial with them),
but we can grow a culture of Choice – and actually we have no choice in this as our every thought and
decision – but only in what we give value, allegiance and identity to.
The invitation or 'incentivation' to identify with insanity as our consciously accepted will is to arrive
at our starting place and know it for the first time.
But while insanity seems to hold some appeal or use or meaning for us – it will frame our thinking to
persist under the illusion we are 'dealing with it', opposing, or eradicating, and casting our self in role
that depends on it for the sustainability of the split-minded attempt to possess and control Life.
What we get back is thus a split mind of division subjected to controls.
Garbage in; garbage out.
Can we 'think' in any other way than 'possession and control'? (Regardless its masking in plaintive or
outraged mimicry of 'love and concern').
The framing of our mind – as our mind – is a construct within our thought.
Narrative or story is a continuity of identified and valued focus, endeavour and exploration that unfolds
and grows the Meaning of its original Inspiration.
But Meaning Itself is the archetype – and not the forms that by derivative association become idol to a
robotic re-enactment of 'meaninglessness in search of power'.
In order to grow a shared reality, we need to bring forth from ourselves rather than seek power over a
sense of lack. It cannot come from or through a sense of self-lack – excepting 'backwards!' and we already
have the learning of a world in which "everything is backwards" – and are recognising that we do not WANT
it.
True desire is where we associate pain of separation and loss – and so a world of substitutes runs blind
as the protection from the reliving of an intolerable that the mind is set to forever deny, evade and
dissociate. But there is true-fulfilment when the movement of our very being is given welcome rather than
denial under terms and conditions of coercive enslavement and 'NDA' (non disclosure agreement).
Reading our 'world' as a means of reintegration rather than re-enacting its script is the willingness to
embody and give witness to a different 'script' or story. One that is given in exchange for the old habit –
rather than as reward for a 'successful denial' masking under a new set of clothes.
"And who told you , you were naked?"
Harry Stotle
,
George Galloway accused Chritopher Hitchens of 'proselytising for the devil' after Hitchens gave neocons the
intellectual thumbs up for unleashing hell after 9/11, while it is common knowledge the pro-war, liberal
media had to acquire a paint factory because so many coatings were required to white-wash the lies and
fabrications employed to rationalise Bush's 'war on terror' and many events leading up to it (not least the
fact the US buddied up with Saddam a decade earlier in order to foment war with Iran).
By contrast counterveiling forces (such as Galloway) have almost no voice within political spheres, the
academic world and certainly the MSM, and when necessary certain propaganda operations unfold to subvert
meaningful investigations, such as the alleged chemical attack in Douma (where, ironically, Peter Hitchens
amongst others has called bullshit)
Of course its important to deconstruct flagrent untruths (as Kevin Ryan does in this fine article) not
least because they have been used as a platform for the current reign of terror in the Middle East – but the
question is, in totalitarian states like America (where authorities effectively act as judge, jury and
executioner) how can this knowledge be used to shake up a system that has closed its eyes and ears to truth
or reality?
Put another way who expects the likes of Rachel Maddow or Bill Maher to ever hold authority to account?
Now depending on your ideologial outlook the actions of the US are either a facet of the 'international
rules based order' (which IMO is no more than a self-aggrandising term neocons, like Tony Blair, love to
apply to themselves), or abject betrayal of the holocaust: a critical moment in history when the world vowed
to learn from the terrible conseqeunces that arise when powerful, lawless states are unconstrained by public
opinion or cultural watchdogs.
One clue to answering this rhetorical question is the way whistleblowers or publishers are treated by
those they accuse of wrong doing – the evidence tells us that just like Guantanamo they are likely to be
tortured and subject to sham legal proceedings.
As an aside it begs questions about the kind or people, such as prosecutors who are willing participate
in this cruel process – they are the same sort of people that would have cropped up in Soviet Russia, or
Nazi Germany I imagine?
Maggie
,
your link buffers and I can't access.
Harry Stotle
,
Search: 'Christopher Hitchens prosthelytized for the Devil – George Galloway' – in YouTube. that
should find it.
Patrick C
,
Harry, I was reading along nodding in agreement and then, as the song says, you spoil it all by saying, I
hate you. The Soviet Union, by equating it with Nazi Germany. As you say it's important to, "deconstruct
flagrant untruths." And this is possibly the granddaddy of all untruths. But as this isn't even a
comment, rather it's an answer to a comment, there simply isn't the space to fully contest that
characterization. I would hope given your obvious intelligence you might make it a priority to research
and understand the Cold War demonization of the USSR and before that the attempts to crush them. I am not
excusing their crimes I'm saying there weren't any. Certainly not in the sense that we've been
brainwashed to believe. You can dismiss me as an idealogue if you wish or you can start the hard slog
towards understanding. Otherwise loved what you wrote.
Harry Stotle
,
Thanks, Patrick – I am not suggesting equivalence except to the extent the legal systems in Russia and
Germany were co-opted to fulfil certain ideological goals (as they are in the west today given high
ranking political figures are more or less exempt from any sort of meaningful judicial scrutiny).
Talking about Russia in particular it is claimed, "According to the International Memorial, the law on
rehabilitation covers 11-11.5 million people in the territory of the former USSR. The latest (2016)
statistical calculations are given in the article by A. Roginsky and E. Zhemkova "Between sympathy and
indifference – rehabilitation of victims of Soviet repressions".
About 5.8 million people became victims of "administrative repressions" directed against certain
groups of the population (kulaks, representatives of repressed peoples and religious denominations).
From 4.7 to 5 million people were arrested on individual political charges, of which about a million
were shot. These are preliminary estimates obtained as a result of many years of work by researchers
with internal statistics of punitive bodies at the central and regional levels, investigative cases.
As the "Memorial" movement, it is fundamentally important to establish the names of all the
repressed. At the moment, in the consolidated database "Victims of Political Terror in the USSR",
there are more than 3 million people. This base was compiled mainly on the basis of regional Books of
Remembrance, in the preparation of which members of local Memorial organizations often took part. The
database is currently being updated." (site contents can be translated into English)
https://www.memo.ru/ru-ru/history-of-repressions-and-protest/chronology-stat/
Just to add I know a reasonable amount about 9/11, know a little about the US empire (and Britains
role in it) and have also looked at historians who have questioned specifics about the holocaust (and
here I mean David Irving, a brilliant but deeply flawed, and unempathic man).
Russia however I am less sure about.
I would just add that revolutions are always violent because no one ever relinquishes power without a
fight, while reverberations from such convulsions can carry consequences long after they first
occured.
For example, Trotsky was tried and found guilty of treason and sentenced to death in absentia – as you
must know he was murdered in Mexico following severe head wounds inflicted by an icepick.
Richard Le Sarc
,
I hope that Hitchens' water-boarding didn't cause his oesophageal cancer. That would be ironic.
Norn
,
The distance from this country to the border with China is 0 (Zero) Km.
The distance from this country to the border with Iran is 0 (Zero) Km.
The distance from Washington, US to this country is 11,136 Km direct by air.
What is the name of this
country? Answer: Afghanistan.
Dungroanin
,
Certainly there were aircraft flying into the WTC – it was broadcast in full colour directly without
interruption all day long. That struck me instantly as I watched on Sky News and BBC from lunchtime onwards
as my insurance agent bought me a sandwich and a pint after assessing our new offices and confirming our
cover – we grim humouredly agreed that the policy would have cost a lot more the following day and his
commission bigger!
The choreography was immense -immediate a passport was found; the reporters looked so
sanguine as did the Anchors. I had major work to do because of the unfolding event my business would require
immediate extra resources by that evening, so I had to stop watching and get working – so i missed the WTC7
collapse announced live on the BBC 15 minutes before it happened, until many years later.
At the time I wondered about why we HAD to invade Afghanistan as my sainted Blair, the Peoples Prince of
a PM, of NuLabour, flew over the terrain clutching a copy of the Koran looking at the ancient landscape
below -which it turns out had its opium poppy crops annihalated just months previously by the Taliban!
I knew of the planned phases of invasions of the ME back in 2001.
But that is another story.
At the time it didn't seem such a big deal and after Kuwait and the burning oil fields, and the huge
propaganda about the evil Sadaam, Assad and Ayatollah (the last mostly to do with Rushdies fatwa) – I
genuinely believed it would be a good idea to get western democratic beneficient liberation in the region
and let their peoples have a democracy. I even believed that it would include the princess head chopping,
Saudi Arabia to start with for sure!
And that the harmless, young state, Israel with its simple desire to live peacefully in their biblical small
patch of Judea after the horrors would thus be free of threat of extermination and they would make a peace
with the Palestinians they had displaced
Such naivety- from a grown and educated and experienced successful fellow like myself in his 40's the
fall from such false verities has been long and hard, i did object at the blatant WMD lie and turned up at
the march of protest.
The decades of being immersed in the propaganda and entertainment from : Isaacs World at War, Charlton
Hestons biblical epics, Munich Olympics, Entebbe ..yes even my beloved TLOB (of the recently departed
Python).
The scales fell away, it has taken nearly two decades, Bambi's mask fell and revealed a poxed, horned
orange skinned bastard godfather to the devil Murdochs latest . NuLabour was actually a Incorporated vehicle
fully controlled by the Labour Friends of the Invaders. We were party to secret extraditions (another new
word of horror), our legal case for invasions were non existent, Straw was and is still a complete bastard
as Craig Murray has documented. We had been led like donkeys by the nose to be willing crusaders for bankers
and barons – fooled by support for our Heroes who were maimed in body and mind for life, if not dead in the
field.
The mutations took us to the great financial crash where the bankers escaped with their QE, pensions and
careers and reputations intact, while the rest of us got rinsed and repeated into their next phase, through
austerity, to hate a new enemy just as potent as the imaginary Ossama BL – the EU, and its efforts to escape
the yoke of ancient imperialist bankers. Then last month the equally insanely maligned JC – to achieve by
hook and crook through evidently fixed ballots the brexit they have long planned – which will be a HARD
brexit that allows the making of their safe Singapore on Thames.
Yup Gitmo is a place, where something has been going on, outta sight outta mind – will we ever get the
full story? I wonder how many of the isis headchoppers got their recruitment, training and marching orders
from there – there was never such barbarism in the world until Gitmo and Bush, Blair, Obama & co sold it to
us.
3 days to our very own private hell – that is the elephant right here, right now.
The biggest elephant in the 9/11 room is, of course:
STAGED DEATH AND INJURY
That's the biggest elephant, the most taboooooooooo cos death is such a big taboooooooooo and when you
say that people said to have died didn't die you expose yourself to derision, hostility and people taking
massive offence. And the perps only understand this taboooooooooo oh so well and exploit it to the max. They
knew they couldn't suppress the outrageous contradiction of Newtonian laws evidenced in the building
collapses and plane crashes so they pushed controlled demolition as a means to distract from and also
smother the big fat lie of staged death and injury. So clever! The essentially two-streamed 9/11 propaganda
campaign: one for the masses and one for the anticipated recognisers of "inside job" is most worthy of
study.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/blog/911-controlled-demolition-as-propaganda
So far, no one has come up with a single point let alone 10 favouring the hypothesis that death and
injury were real and no one will because that's not the way the perps stage their events. No sireee! They
give us the clues (above and beyond the Emperor's New Clothes lie that 9/11 was) and they are utterly
meticulous and scrupulous in never presenting a single piece of their story in such a way that it can be
used to defend its reality. You have to give them that, you really do.
If my comment arouses your hostility, incredulity or whatever other reaction in opposition to it, please
explain what makes you believe that 3,000 people died and 6,000 were injured on 9/11 (or whatever
approximate number you believe died and were injured) and please supply at least one point that favours the
hypothesis that death and injury were real over the hypothesis that they were staged.
Ah ex-flaxgirl – the tares bind their roots to the crop.
It isn't that there are no staged or exaggerated and weaponised narrative deceits – but that
opinionated assertions of moral self righteousness reinforce the deceit under guise of 'truth' made
exclusive to your own framing.
You speak into an arena of outrage to which you have no sense of connection or compassion.
That 911 is a deceit ONGOING is evidenced in your knowing or unknowing complicity.
Arguing anything within your frame is feeding your either/or agenda of division.
I lean to your post being staged – unless and until signs of life indicate otherwise.
The 'elephant' is the truth that is collectively ignored as a result of baited or incentivised
diversion.
Your abstruse comment would have a degree of credibility, binra, if it contained anything at all that
supported real death and injury on 9/11 but what a surprise! it contains nothing of the sort.
3A No obvious motive
3B Immeasurable disincentive (loved ones of 3,000 descending on the Capitol)
3C Eminently fakable
The combined force of these three elements is extremely compelling
4. Vastly incommensurate number of loved ones and colleagues of the dead and the injured themselves
marching on Washington
5. Anomalies with key figures whom we might consider to be disinformation agents used in the
propaganda campaign aimed at the truthers, that is, they push the double "suspicions of
government/controlled demolition" ||| "my loved one died/people were rescued" line.
6. No convincing signs of injury
7. The fakery of the jumpers
8. Ridiculous survivor stories of the 12-second collapses of the 500,000 ton twin towers
9. Missing – expected evidence for the 343 firefighters who died on 9/11
10. Lawyer looking after victim funds not convincing
What 9/11 wasn't:
-- The work of 19 terrorists armed with boxcutters
-- A false flag where 3,000 were killed and 6,000 were injured
What 9/11 was (in effect):
A massive Full-Scale Anti-Terrorist Exercise pushed out as real where the only physical realities were
damage of and destruction to buildings and where the plane crashes were faked and death and injury were
staged.
Do you think that the two people in the conversation below indicate they knew what was really going
down and do you think that they would have been AOK with 3,000 of their fellow citizens being killed?
https://youtu.be/i5b719rVpds?t=224
Conversation between Brian Williams, MSNBC News Anchor and David Restuccio, FDNY EMS Lieutenant about
WTC-7, the third building to collapse at the WTC on 9/11, after its collapse:
"Can you confirm that it was No 7 that just went in?" ["Went in" is a term used in controlled
demolition that comes from the fact that the buildings fall in on themselves.]
"Yes, sir."
"And you guys knew this was comin' all day."
"We had heard reports that the building was unstable and that eventually it would either come down on
its own or it would be taken down."
paul
,
I don't think there's any need to get too immersed in details.
There is a danger of not seeing the wood for the trees, and this being used for the purpose of
diversion and deflection by those who still peddle the official government conspiracy theory.
milosevic
,
question for admins and moderators: is there no limit to the number of times that the same absurd disinfo
can be recyled here, without the slightest alteration?
at first, it served some purpose as an example
of deep-state psyops, but it's now become quite tiresome, far beyond any educational value it might once
have had.
Similarly, milo, like binra's comment it would contain a degree of credibility if it contained
anything to support real death and injury on 9/11 but it doesn't. I wonder how you reason that there
is something so wrong with my claim that you need to invoke action by admins when you have zero to
support the opposing claim. Zero. I really do wonder how you reason that. I wonder how, when you
recognise so very many lies in the 9/11 story (I'm assuming), that you choose to believe one claim of
that story without having a single piece of evidence to back it up.
milosevic
,
-- your arguments for "no planes" were all BS, but when this was (repeatedly) pointed out to you,
you took no notice whatsoever, and just went right on repeating the same ludicrous disinfo.
having been through that experience, I'm disinclined to waste my time examining in detail your
undoubtedly nonsensical "no deaths" claims, since you'll just go right on repeating those, no
matter what evidence is advanced. The "thirteen-foot-tall dummies" episode demonstrates what
quality of argument you find compelling; why should I assume that any of the rest is any better?
My claims can be considered irrelevant to your beliefs in death and injury on 9/11. To justify a
belief one needs evidence, no? You don't think of yourself as a mindless believer, do you, milo?
Thus if you believe the death and injury part of the 9/11 story you must surely have evidence to
support that belief. What is it?
As anticipated you have not responded to my question on your evidence for death and injury on
9/11 nor the other question on the signs they give us.
Please do not invoke admin action when
what you spout is simply hot air. You have nothing to support your beliefs and thus no
justification or entitlement to disparage mine when I have provided solid evidence for them on
my website and also issued a challenge to you and like-minded people who hold opposing beliefs
but to which no one, including you, has responded, despite the rules including the challenger's
choice of judge in a relevant profession to validate their 10 points.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/5000-challenge.html
How many times will you bring up the dummies that I have already admitted to? Are you insane?
I will be referring back to this comment and your inability to justify your beliefs in death
and injury (or the reality of the plane crashes) any time you make ludicrous accusations against
me in future.
norman wisdom
,
moderators: is there no limit
you sound like barbera lerner spector or his wife rita katz
read or do not read
move along fella
who or what should we believe in this satanick system
some folks called milosevic a new hitler like saddam and gadaffi later.
i hated him at the time did not understand it was all chatham house projects.
who are you milosevic is that your real name?
for your ideas on censorship and memory holing seem very ashkanazi 2 me.
let all speak scum
for who are you to be arbiter of truth or lie
if you are a milosevic your country was carpeted in depleted uranium waste sold out to lowest zio
alien bidder
discernment scum
banning words is cheap
toilet paper gets ever more expensive
already
milosevic
,
-- because you can never have too much disinfo. it gets ever more aromatic, with every retelling.
that's the wonderful thing about disinfo BS, you can recycle it endlessly, without the slightest
diminution in quality or flavour.
norman wisdom
,
how do you know
what the stuff is?
what agency are you with holy or demonick?
if you want memory hole if you want subtle word erasure
why not try the anti semite gambit
why not change your name to benjamin or elliot
then you can stamp your feet so everyone will here.
no disrespect but few sites would employ a
milosevic as head of word vaporising black holing
it just not kosher enough
George Mc
,
when you say that people said to have died didn't die you expose yourself to derision
Unnecessary derision. The main matter is that 9/11 was, to use that tired but accurate term, an
"inside job". Occam's razor says you should not involve unnecessary complications. The question "Did
people die or not?" is such a complication.
What Occam's Razor says George is not that "you" shouldn't involve unnecessary complications but that
we should choose the hypothesis that involves the fewest complications. Thus, if a house is burgled
and we see that a window is broken and footprints lead from the broken window to a stolen object and
there are no other methods indicating evidence of being used then that is the one we plump for unless
we have reason to doubt it.
However, I couldn't agree with you more on focusing on the main points.
Could not agree more. It's just that what you and I consider main points is different with regard to
9/11.
The perps, master propagandists I think you will agree, have put enormous effort and spent millions
of dollars on their truther-targeted propaganda campaign to smother the truth of staged death and
injury and because they have spent millions on that campaign that surely must make it important. They
haven't bothered with truther-targeted campaigns for many other events including Sandy Hook, the
Boston bombing, the Manchester bombing and Brussels airport, for example, although they have with a
few others including the 9/11 anthrax attacks – much less money was spent on that, however.
Evidence of their campaign:
1. The timing of release of the PNAC and Northwoods documents (I do not claim that these documents
are not "real" necessarily but it is obvious they have been targeted at truthers.)
2. The loved ones and colleagues of those who allegedly died making indignant noises about the
government including: Bob McIlvaine, the Jersey Widows, April Gallop, Richard Grove and William
Rodriguez.
3. The large number of scientists and engineers focusing the truthers on controlled demolition and
the production of high-quality songs, Free Fallin' and I Believe in 9/11 Miracles. While some of these
people are perfectly genuine, some of them have been employed to control the 9/11 story by:
-- keeping focus on CD
-- creating confusion around the plane crashes (they don't want people recognising that no one died in
those crashes because that's the start of the slippery slope to recognising completely staged death
and injury)
-- joining forces with the "loved ones"
4. The alleged whistleblowers who've lost their jobs, etc and commentators such as James Corbett.
5. The Conspiracy Solved! film by Jeremy Rys indicating that the US government had reason to target
people in the building.
6. The Bush family connections to companies located in the twin towers.
7. Everything Israeli: the Dancing Israeli Mossad agents caught on camera who later got caught in
their white van with explosives powder (good at their job no?) and the Israeli art students students
(these people could well have been responsible for making the dummies to function as jumpers).
8. Loads of distraction propaganda creating confusion in general, however, distraction propaganda
is designed to stymie the truth generally in getting out whether it simply be "inside job" or "death
and injury staged".
So we have the evidence for staged death and injury both in the obvious truther-targeted propaganda
campaign as well as in other evidence. It's pretty overwhelming, George.
The reason for the huge effort into smothering staged death and
injury
The reason is to stagnate the truth of inside job that the truthers are trying to push out. That the
US government would kill all those poor people in the buildings is so utterly taboo that people won't
countenance it. So the fact that it hampers the ability for those who recognise "inside job" to get
the word out that it was an inside job makes it extremely important. The irony is that now that
truthers are fully indoctrinated with the "false flag where 3,000 people died and 6,000 were injured"
belief they stubbornly refuse to be coaxed out of it and, of course, the perps knew this. They knew
that when people such as Simon Shack (although I have to say I have my doubts about him) eventually
came along to work out the staging of death and injury that the truthers indoctrinated with "false
flag" would be mightily resistant to it.
False flag where 3,000 died and 6,000 were injured is a very, very different kettle of fish from
massive Full-Scale Anti-Terrorist Exercise comprising a number of exercises and drills where the only
physical realities of the day were damage to and destruction of buildings and where the plane crashes
were faked and death and injury were staged.
They are two very different kettles of fish.
Beyond that I think it's extremely important, in general to recognise how we are propagandised,
George, don't you?
George Mc
,
Petra I have no doubt that you have researched all of this very thoroughly and I am prepared to
listen to many points and to even agree with them. I watched a video that suggested there were no
planes at all in NY and it sounded plausible. If you say there were no deaths at all – then perhaps
you're right. It's just that – at the risk of sounding callous – I don't think any of this is the
main point, which is that 9/11, whatever it was, was an inside job. The big trouble with going down
this constantly expanding path of speculation is that you have fallen for the biggest trick behind
9/11 i.e. reversal of the burden of proof. The official account (henceforth OC) is actually
skeletal and has nothing to stand on. What I would say we know is that three buildings fell in NY
and something happened at the Pentagon which left a hole in it. That's all. If the OC was true, the
entire view would be different in massive ways e.g. spectacular footage of the Pentagon being hit
by a passenger plane, the rubble from the collapsed buildings in NY being thoroughly examined and
an explanation presented of why they fell that would be consistent with the OC, and plenty of
footage of the crashed Flight 93. There is none of that hence the official account is bollocks. And
all you have to do is say this. To start by saying there were no deaths is just going to scare
people away.
I agree with you in principle, George, but the thing is if the lie of 3,000 deaths and 6,000
injured is hampering the ability for truthers to get out the "inside job" message – and it seems
the perps knew this would be the case and why they have invested millions in smothering that lie
– then I think it's extremely important. Just to point out that I don't say there were no
deaths, just that death and injury were staged – whether all death and injury was staged or not
I cannot be sure of but it doesn't matter if it was all or most – essentially, it was staged.
I'd imagine no one died because that is simply the MO unless by accident. I don't think they mix
up covert and clandestine operations (covert is an operation done publicly but not what it seems
(psyop) while clandestine is a hidden operation where killing might occur. I'd guess that the
only kind of killing that occurs in a covert operation is an assassination.
To me, 9/11 is a massively Emperor's New Clothes affair. Collapses by fire and real plane
crashes are simply laughable and it's so easy to prove simply by asking people to come up with
10 points favouring the official story hypothesis. It cannot be done. We know it was controlled
demolition, George, we know that for a fact and we know that the 4 plane crashes were faked.
Newtonian physics says so.
I'm a lazy researcher, George, I don't research things as thoroughly as I should but that's
the beauty of 9/11 and other similar events – you don't have to. The perps make it easy: they
give you the clues – above and beyond the unhideable lies – and they never fake anything so well
that it can be used to support their story. A prime example are the photos of Bob McIlvaine with
son Bobby. The photos are obviously doctored. They could give us undoctored photos but they
don't do that – they are scrupulous in putting under our noses evidence of their hoaxing of us.
I categorically deny speculation. There is no speculation in claiming that death and injury
were staged. The evidence is very clear and there is not a skerrick of evidence to support a
single death of the alleged 3,000 or a single injury to any of the allegedly 6,000 injured and
that surely is impossible for real death and injury. I have absolute respect for the evidence
and equal respect for lack of evidence and I simply don't understand why other people don't come
to the same conclusions as I do.
What is helpful is to understand the category of event that 9/11 is. It is one on a long and
broad continuum starting at least as far back as the Great Fire of London. It is a psyop and in
psyops you don't kill people unless you want them killed. This is the great error that people
make when they speak of 9/11 as a psyop but believe in the death and injury – that is no psyop!
Surely, understanding that 9/11 is not really a completely one-off event but an event on
continuum of similar events with the same MO is another approach to take – not that I've been
successful with it. The one thing different about 9/11 is the massive truther-targeted
propaganda campaign to maintain the lie of death and injury. Other events such as the anthrax
attacks also employ that type of propaganda but 9/11's truther-targeted campaign is surely the
mother of all truther-targeted propaganda campaigns.
Additionally, when you recognise that 9/11 was completely staged as opposed to a "false flag" then you
can see how it fits into a long and broad continuum of events. Recognising that 9/11 was a staged
event prompted me to look at Pearl Harbour and the 1980 Bologna station bombing to realise that they,
too, were completely staged. Your understanding of what the power elite foist on us is so greatly
increased. I have to say I do wonder at your notion that the distinction of the two types of events
has low significance. It hit me like a ton of bricks when I first awoke to it, despite the fact that I
knew of other completely staged events such as Sandy Hook. What I first awoke to was not so much the
fact that death and injury were staged but to the propaganda campaign directed at truthers to maintain
our belief it was real. That's what I awoke to and that's what hit me. And when I first awoke, I had
an extremely visceral feeling of being a dumb bull being yanked viciously by the nose-ring this way
and that. It was such a powerful feeling.
Petra – When you say 'completely staged' it sounds as if you're claiming the WTC buildings didn't
implode and disintegrate, and are therefore still there, which makes you seem like a troll or a
lunatic.
I shall be careful of my wording as you suggest, Admin, however, I hope it is clear that I
understand the buildings came down through my constant reference to the fact. BTW, it seems the
method of destruction of the twin towers was a "banana peel" controlled demolition while that of
WTC-7 was a typical bottom-up implosion. On the page below is a link to a "banana peel"
demolition of a building in China which more resembles the destructions of the twin towers than
that of WTC-7.
https://911explained.blogspot.com/2013/09/911-how-it-was-done-science-of.html
The beauty of OffG is that we are all allowed to say what what we think as they don't censor comments
but thanks for your vote of confidence, Rob. I do feel rather alone with some of my hypotheses despite
their basis in evidence.
paul
,
The important thing is simply to demonstrate that the official narrative, or official conspiracy theory,
is absurd.
paul
,
There is no obligation whatever to explain in comprehensive detail, how the attacks were actually
carried out.
paul
,
That should be the subject of a genuine, independent criminal investigation.
paul
,
The involvement and relative guilt of different officials and dual nationals, the type of
explosives used, whether planes were empty and directed by remote control, etc.
paul
,
They are legitimate subjects of discussion, but they are matters of detail, and there is a
risk of not being able to see the wood for the trees, or proponents of the official
conspiracy theory using this for diversion and distraction, to muddy the waters.
I completely agree with you re detail, especially detail that
can be argued over. A major part of the propaganda campaign is putting forward loads of different
theories, eg, Judy Wood's Directed Energy Weapons theory, and details for people to argue over.
However, I think we disagree on what constitutes detail. To me, the greater understanding we can have
of the kind of event 9/11 was is very valuable and all the information that contributes to that I
consider significant.
We can know for absolute sure that 9/11 was not:
-- A terrorist attack conducted by 19 fanatical Muslims armed with boxcutters
-- A false flag where 3,000 were killed and 6,000 were injured
We can infer with virtual certainty that 9/11 was:
A Trauma-based Mind Control Psychological Operation (psyop) in the form, effectively, of a massive
Full-Scale Anti-Terrorist Exercise comprising numerous smaller exercises and drills where the only
physical realities of the day were damage to and destruction of buildings and where the plane crashes
were faked and death and injury were staged. A two-streamed propaganda campaign has been implemented,
one aimed at the masses and one aimed at the anticipated recognisers of controlled demolition and,
less often, faked plane crashes. The purpose of the second stream is to hamstring the recognisers of
"inside job" by maintaining their belief in real death and injury thus compromising their ability to
get the truth of "inside job" out – that the US government would cold-bloodedly kill all those poor
people in the buildings is simply too taboo and horrific to countenance.
We can also know that while bombarding us with their propaganda the perps give us the clues in such
things as:
-- having the nose cone of the second plane pop out the other side of the South tower
-- the newscaster Brian Williams say to David Restuccio, FDNY EMS Lieutenant, "Can you confirm that it
was No 7 that just went in?", "went in" being a term used in controlled demolition that comes from the
fact that the buildings fall in on themselves
-- unbelievable miracle survivor stories
-- doctored photos of Bob McIlvaine, with his alleged son Bobby, who allegedly died in an explosion in
the lobby of the North tower before it came down
This understanding can prompt us to look at other events that we may suspect to be "false flags"
and see that the evidence shows that they too have similar MOs where physical destruction may have
occurred but death and injury didn't, eg, Pearl Harbour and the 1980 Bologna station bombing. The
evidence for the 9/11 anthrax attacks also shows staged death and illness. And in these events we are
also given the clues such as major discrepancy between show and tell.
This understanding can help us see that 9/11 is an event on a long continuum starting at least as
far back as the Great Fire of London in 1666. While the second stream of propaganda is only evident
for a number of events, 9/11 shares many hallmarks with much smaller events such as Sandy Hook, the
Manchester bombing, the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, a recent Sydney CBD stabbing and so very, very many
other events.
Knowledge is power, Paul. When we understand what kind of event 9/11 is and how it fits on the
historical continuum we have much greater power to deal with it.
paul
,
That is all quite interesting in itself and worth thinking about, P.
But my argument is that the best strategy is to simply point out all the obvious inadequacies and
nonsense in the official conspiracy theory and let people draw their own conclusions.
This has
been done in the past on numerous occasions by knowledgeable, articulate, professional people.
When confronted with inconvenient facts, the journalist interlocutor hack present will then
typically demand a full alternative account, asking, "So what did happen? Are you saying that the
government murdered 3,000 of its own people?", or something similar.
The shrewd response is, "I'm just saying that the official narrative is obviously untrue, for
the reasons I've given you. What really needs to happen is a thorough, professional, independent
criminal enquiry, to establish exactly what did happen. You're supposed to be a journalist – why
aren't you calling for this?"
That is a challenge they find difficult to answer.
I've got a pretty clear idea what happened myself, but there are a number of different
permutations. They aren't important in themselves. What matters is debunking the ludicrous official
account.
I see your point, Paul, and your suggested approach may well be the best.
Good to know though
what kind of event 9/11 really is though – just for your own edification, no? because knowing
what kind of event and how it relates to others on the historical continuum provides a much
greater understanding of how we are ruled by a global power elite and have been for centuries
at least.
paul
,
I was interested myself in the attack on the Pentagon. To me it seems "highly likely" to coin
a phrase, that a cruise missile was used. But some people may think otherwise, and still
reject the official narrative. I wouldn't argue with them because it's only a relatively
minor point and doesn't change very much.
"cruise missile hitting the Pentagon" is exactly the kind of detail I'd avoid, Paul. We
know that the perps have pushed out multiple theories (eg, Judy Wood's DEW nonsense) and
details to distract and factionalise truthers – although truthers themselves have, no
doubt, come up with their own to argue over. The "controlled opposition" actors also stage
division among themselves to undermine the truth movement.
This is the critical information:
-- the four plane crashes were faked
-- WTC-1, 2 and 7 came down by controlled demolition
-- death and injury were staged
-- multiple exercises and drills on the day, one, at least, named as an anti-hijacker drill
Thus, 9/11 was, in effect, a Full-Scale Anti-Terrorist Exercise pushed out as a real
event (a psyop) where the only physical realities of the day were damage to and
destruction of buildings.
That's it in a nutshell and that's all we need to know to proceed with action.
And we know that controlled demolition was used as a focus in various ways to keep
people away from the truth of staged death and injury. Of course, we only need to
ascertain that the plane crashes were faked to know automatically that the collapses of
the buildings had to be engineered – but that would be too simple, they want 9/11 to seem
so very complicated. We have a significant number of professionals in the fields of
science, architecture, metallurgy, demolition and civil, mechanical & fire engineering,
speaking for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth but where's a single aircraft accident
investigator on the job?
Francis Lee
,
"Sadly, reporters and editors covering these events don't seem to have an interest in challenging any
substantial part of the story. Let's hope that one or more of them comes to their senses and proves that
suspicion wrong." With all due respect – fat chance.
One example is a current article by Robert Fisk.
I couldn't help noticing his most recent piece in 'Counterpunch' . Fisky is the go-to guy for anything
happening in the middle-east but this was something of a clumsy attempt to equate oppressed with oppressors
in the never ending imbroglio. For example.
''But this is water in the desert if we continue to betray the Palestinians, the Kurds and the millions
of people who suffer under our well-armed local dictators, whether they be Trump's "favourite dictator",
president el-Sisi of Egypt – whom I noticed at Davos, did I not? – or the ever more sinister Mohammed bin
Salman,
or Assad (armed by the Russians, of course)
or the militias of
Libya, Yemen or Iraq. If Trump can mix up al-Qaeda with the Kurds "
But of course Assad is as bad as the rest, another cheap dictator and a Russian stooge at that. Well
Assad defends his country's sovereignty against the US/Saudi/Jsraeli armed to the teeth jihadist foreign
legions of ISIS and Al-Qeada. So one lot of terrorists are as bad as the other. Is that right? What's with
this equi-distance between the invader and the defender. No difference really. But what exactly was Assad
and Syria supposed to do when being attacked by the US-Saudi funded head-choppers?
It gets better:
" well, then the Americans probably are finished in the Middle East.
We
know, of course, who is not finished in that region.''
Aha, yes, the hand of Putin is easily
recognisable in this middle-east cockpit. This sounds exactly like CNN 'newspeak'.
Finally, comes the oblique bias.
"After all, Moscow now seems to have more "territorial ambitions" (Surmelian's language, again) in the
Middle East than Washington."
Notice that Fisky attributes Moscow's 'territorial ambitions' to a certain Mr Surmelian, a gentleman I am
not familiar with, but its an easy way to get another snide little falsehood into the article.
Moscow's presence and strategy in Syria is quite simply explained: namely, it is to keep the
head-choppers out of Russia's soft underbelly of Chechnya and Dagestan where two bloody wars were fought as
well as terrorist outrages in the big cities of Moscow and St.Petersburg.
This sort of mealy-mouthed evasion is typical of the likes of Fisk and Monbiot.
Capricornia Man
,
Difficult to trust anyone in any way connected with the established media – even some alt-media.
Meanwhile the lies and incompetence of the state broadcasters seem to be ever proliferating. Australian
Broadcasting Corporation talking heads are still pontificating about Russian 'interference' in foreign
elections (despite Mueller) while the annexation of Crimea gets another run around the block without
mention of the referendum or Russian ownership prior to 1954. Putin's big speech is portrayed as nothing
more than a power-grab (so why is the power to appoint the PM being devolved to the Duma?) and nothing is
said about the proposed sweeping improvements to social welfare. Mentioning that might make Putin look
less like a pantomime villain. Couldn't have that, could we?
Dungroanin
,
Gatekeepers and limited hang-out specialists.
norman wisdom
,
a famous reporter for the bbc his name is gabriel gatehouse
you have to admit the khazar pirates do have a rather good and rather sick sense of humours
is it
nor
already
norman wisdom
,
jason bournes and james bonds the special forces of the world could not find osama bin atlarges cia name
tim osman (sounds jewish)
yet fisked pop over to the afgham plains and mountains and found him on a
donkey track
never get fisked over time it will hurt
never get gnome chumpskied
read a saymore hershey bar with caution
and never get your cockburnt
without some kosher chabad certifried salt rubbing salve
Loverat
,
So many parallels with the lead up to WW2 and the way Nazis behaved. The media back then complicit or silent
to the cruelties, racism, censorship, foreign aggression and obvious false flags (,even doubts over 911
aside) the pretext to all that.
We're heading towards a very dark place at lightning speed. Are there enough mainstream jounalists and
others breaking ranks? Not yet, some recently though – Tareq Haddad and Anna Brees and Hitchens as always
pushing – and independent media fighting back strong, the OPCW scandal one example. Too many like Monbiot
and ' liberal' press hiding behind ' 'progressive' issues to avoid addtessing the most pressing and
important. Keeping their personal gravy train going. We need more people of courage and intelligence to
counter the ignorant mass which make up MSM. This next year I think will be crucial for all of our futures.
Actually most "journalist" are like hookers they'd be turning tricks if they weren't working in the news
room.
Capricornia Man
,
'Liberal' media are the number one menace to public enlightenment because (unlike the tabloids, from
which nobody expects the truth) the public was brought up to trust them as reasonably accurate and fair
-which they are not, and perhaps never were.
Casandra2
,
A fully converted (or freed up) media could never counter what's coming our way. As you say, 'the next
year is crucial' . Somebody has better better rise to the occasion.
George Mc
,
The 9/11 Commission Report is so obviously a crass fraud that it gives weight to Petra/Flaxgirl's assertions
that the Deep State make their bullshit deliberately blatant because they are having a laugh at us all. The
commission report starts like a fictional narrative:
Tuesday, September 11, 2001, dawned temperate and nearly cloudless in the eastern United States.
Millions of men and women readied themselves for work.
And it continues in this vein until we get this:
At 8:46:40, American 11 crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. All
on board, along with an unknown number of people in the tower, were killed instantly.
How could the authors possibly know that? I didn't bother reading further apart from skipping ahead to
see how they covered the collapse of the towers. At that point I found out there was NO INDEX! There was an
enormous amount of small print verbiage that was practically impenetrable. I wasted no further time with it.
Mike Ellwood
,
The 9/11 Commission Report is so obviously a crass fraud
Thus continuing in that fine tradition established by the Warren Commission Report of 1964.
WTC7 is, I believe, the key to it all, or much of it. Really establish the truth of what went on
there, and much else may be revealed. ("And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the
building collapse".
Larry Silverstein
)
It's the "dog that didn't bark in the night". It's Jack Ruby being able to walk into Dallas Police
Headquarters and shoot Oswald at point blank range. It's the "three tramps". It's the fake Secret Service
agents with authentic looking ID on the grassy knoll. And much else. All the things that just don't add
up, and which make the official story look even shakier than it was to begin with.
paul
,
Very true. Most people soon accept 9/11 was a hoax when WTC7 is pointed out to them.
WTC-7 is key in more ways than one, Mike. Its collapse is a little like the scripted line from Oswald,
"I'm just a patsy," which is the truth, of course, but also functions as propaganda directed at
skeptics to make them believe that Oswald needed to be silenced. Oswald was an agent and, of course,
would not be spilling any beans, he would simply be "sheepdipped" (given a new identity and shipped
off somewhere). And as George says above about making their BS blatant:
-- there is no correspondence
between any still in the footage of the murder on LIVE TV and the famous photograph so we can tell it
was faked from the evidence of multiple takes – they didn't have to do multiple takes, did they? or
they certainly could have made it much less obvious. (
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/lho-shot-tvphoto-comparison.html
).
-- an assassin would not choose a $12 mail-order Carcano, a relic of Mussolini's WWII armed forces,
for his crackshot assassination either
-- and we're supposed to believe that Jack Ruby shows the signs he didn't really have the intention
to kill Oswald but only did it under "Mafia pressure" because when he arrived at the police station he
had his weenie, Sheba, with him and his alleged mistress says that Ruby would never have taken Sheba
with him if he really planned on shooting Oswald, knowing that he would have to abandon her. Doncha
love it?
The similarity with WTC-7?
WTC-7 was given to us on a platter – there was absolutely no need to bring down WTC-7 on the day,
just as they didn't bring any of the other buildings at the WTC on the day apart from the twin towers
(which they needed for their terror story). It was a perfect implosion that serves as a way to keep
skeptics' focus on controlled demolition. The perps want all the attention on controlled demolition,
much less on the planes (because the faked plane crashes means no deaths on planes and tends to lead
much more easily to the hypothesis of completely staged death and injury) and right away from death
and injury. They do not want skeptics of the story to realise that 9/11 was completely staged apart
from the buildings.
It's all about focus and distraction. That's how the propaganda works.
milosevic
,
assertions that the Deep State make their bullshit deliberately blatant
because they are having a laugh at us all
An alternative hypothesis would be that it was produced
by vulgar, stupid people, who assumed, rightly or wrongly, that the target audience was even more vulgar
and stupid than themselves.
who've managed to persuade lots of millions that 19 terrorists armed with boxcutters yada yada
yada and persuaded fewer millions that the US government cold-bloodedly killed all those poor people
in the buildings. Admittedly, the same MO has been in operation for centuries at least so it's hard to
know where their smarts really come in but I would tend not to underestimate it.
So what about these, milo. What's your alternative hypothesis for these?
-- having the nose cone of the second plane pop out the other side of the South tower (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH5InKzdQHw
)
with a freelance FoxNews reporter, Mark Walsh, describe how he saw the second plane "ream right into
the side of the twin tower exploding through the other side." (
https://youtu.be/f-pLwI7dcQ0?t=56s
)
-- the newscaster Brian Williams say to David Restuccio, FDNY EMS Lieutenant, "Can you confirm that
it was No 7 that just went in?", "went in" being a term used in controlled demolition that comes from
the fact that the buildings fall in on themselves.
https://youtu.be/i5b719rVpds?t=224
I thank you, George, from the bottom of my heart. This seems to be a first from an OffGer who previously
wasn't aware of their signs chiming in with me. Mark Gobell knows independently about the signs
(especially the "date arithmetic") but I haven't seen his name in absolutely ages – perhaps others too
but I'm simply not aware of them.
Just a quibble – "assertion" lacks the connotation of
"evidence-based". My claims about blatancy are 100% evidence-based.
Yes, it is very tedious to wade through the ludicrous and sometimes extremely convoluted BS being
lazy, I simply switch to seek other less mind-consuming examples of the blatant BS to make my case.
The misconduct for which Donald Trump has been impeached centers on an attempt to drag a
foreign government into a U.S. election campaign. That caper has increased public attention
to the problem of foreign interference in U.S. politics, but the problem is more extensive
than discourse about the impeachment process would suggest.
Exactly why the people who brought you the world wars inserted Mussolini, under the
influence of his Jewish lover, into the mix.
For example, has anybody thoroughly researched whether some Allied agent "incentivized" Il
Duce to invade Greece, thereby drawing off energy from Hitler's forces in the East? I don't
know enough about strategy to be able to use BOGO coupons, but even I can see how weird it
was for Mussolini to take a notion to invade Greece, and how obvious it would be for Allies
to see the usefulness of such a gambit.
Ever notice that for all the shouting we hear of "Fascism," very little is explored of the
real role of Italy and Mussolini in the Allied take-down of Western Europe.
Guido Preparata has written a bit about the Mussolini-Hitler relationship, but he
studiously avoids in depth discussion of the deliberate discombobulation of Italy by FDR and,
earlier, by Wilson.
[A] powerful argument for the continuities of U.S. economic policy from the
post–World War I period to the post–World War II period, a primary goal of
which was the stabilization of Europe as an outlet for U.S. capital and manufactured
goods.
In this project, Mussolini was a key component. Instead of viewing him as the destroyer of
democracy in Italy, many Americans saw him as the guarantor of stability and a willing
partner in U.S. capitalist expansion in the 1920s. This commitment required peace, which
Mussolini dutifully offered, contrary to all his bellicose rhetoric, because he needed U.S.
investment to stabilize his fledgling dictatorship. It was only the Depression and the
contraction of U.S. economic involvement in Europe that broke this close relationship and
led Italy down the path of imperialism and war.
@SolontoCroesus I agree Mussolini was probably a Western sleeper agent the whole time. At
the same time, I feel like Hitler sabotaged himself and Germany as a whole with Operation
Barbarossa. The most astute German minds like Bismarck or Karl Haushofer always argued that
German interests dictated close cooperation with Russia in a Eurasian continental bloc.
Germany, Russia, and Japan was the ideal combination against the Zionist Anglo bloc. The
Japanese Foreign Minister at the time, Matsuoka, was a visionary who saw this potential and
argued for a German Soviet Japanese combination before Hitler took the fateful step of
invading Russia.
Fascism is the most extreme form of counterrevolution. Counterrevolution itself only
emerges as a response to revolution. Nazism, for example, didn't arrive because the
German people all of a sudden lost their bearings from an overdose of Wagner's operas and
Nietzsche's aphorisms. It arrived at a time when massive worker's parties threatened
bourgeois rule during a period of terrible economic hardship. Big capital backed Hitler
as a last resort. The Nazis represented reactionary politics gone berserk. Not only could
Nazism attack worker's parties, it could also attack powerful institutions of the ruling
class, including its churches, media, intellectuals, parties and individual families and
individuals. Fascism is not a scalpel. It is a very explosive, uncontrollable weapon that
can also inflict some harm on its wielder.
Fascism emerges in the period following the great post-World War I revolutionary
upsurge in Europe. The Bolsheviks triumphed in Russia, but communists mounted challenges
to capitalism in Hungary, Germany and elsewhere. These revolutions receded but but their
embers burned. The world-wide depression of 1929 added new fuel to the glowing embers of
proletarian revolution. Socialism grew powerful everywhere because of the powerful
example of the USSR and the suffering capitalist unemployment brought.
Proletarian revolutions do not break out every year or so, like new car models. They
appear infrequently since working-people prefer to accomodate themselves to capitalism if
at all possible. They tend to be last-ditch defensive reactions to the mounting violence
and insecurity brought on by capitalist war and depression.
The proletarian revolution first emerges within the context of the bourgeois
revolutions of 1848. Even though the revolutions in Germany, France and Italy on the
surface appeared to be a continuation of the revolutions of the 1780's and 90's, they
contain within them anticapitalist dynamics. The working-class at this point in its
history has neither the numbers, nor the organization, nor the self- consciousness to
take power in its own name. Its own cause tends to get blurred with the cause of of other
classes in the struggle against feudal vestiges.
Marx was able to distinguish the contradictory class aspects of the 1848 revolutionary
upsurge with tremendous alacrity, however. Some of his most important contributions to
historical materialism emerge out of this period and again in 1871 when the proletariat
rises up in its own name during the Paris Commune. The 18th Brumaire was written in the
aftermath of the failure of the revolution in France in 1848 to consolidate its gains.
Louis Bonaparte emerges as a counterrevolutionary dictator who seems to suppress all
classes, including the bourgeoisie. Marx is able to show that Bonapartism, like Fascism,
is not a dictatorship that stands above all classes. The Bonapartist regime, whose social
base may be middle-class, acts in the interest of the big bourgeoisie.
Robert Tucker's notes in his preface to the 18th Brumaire that, "Since Louis
Bonaparte's rise and rule have been seen as a forerunner of the phenomenon that was to
become known in the twentieth century as fascim, Marx's interpretation of it is of
interest, among other ways, as a sort of a prologue to later Marxist thought on the
nature and meaning of fascism."
The 18th Brumaire was written by Marx in late 1851 and early 1852, and appeared first
in a NY magazine called "Die Revolution". This was a time of great difficulty for Marx.
He was in financial difficulty and poor health. The triumph of the counterrevolution in
France deepened his misery. In a letter to his friend Weydemeyer, Marx confides, "For
years nothing has pulled me down as much as this cursed hemorrhoidal trouble, not even
the worst French failure."
In section one of the 18th Brumaire, Marx draws a clear distinction between the
bourgeois and proletarian revolution.
"Bourgeois revolutions like those of the eighteenth century storm more swiftly from
success to success, their dramatic effects outdo each other, men and things seem set in
sparkling diamonds, ecstasy is the order of the day- but they are short-lived, soon they
have reached their zenith, and a long Katzenjammer [crapulence] takes hold of society
before it learns to assimilate the results of its storm-and-stress period soberly. On the
other hand, proletarian revolutions like those of the nineteenth century constantly
criticize themselves, constantly interrupt themselves in their own course, return to the
apparently accomplished, in order to begin anew; they deride with cruel thoroughness the
half-measures, weaknesses, and paltriness of their first attempts, seem to throw down
their opponents only so the latter may draw new strength from the earth and rise before
them again more gigantic than ever, recoil constantly from the indefinite colossalness of
their own goals -- until a situation is created which makes all turning back impossible,
and the conditions themselves call out: Hic Rhodus, hic salta! "
Proletarian revolutions, Marx correctly points out, emerge from a position of weakness
and uncertainty. The bourgeoisie emerges over hundreds of years within the framework of
feudalism. At the time it is ready to seize power, it has already conquered major
institutions in civil society. The bourgeoisie is not an exploited class and therefore is
able to rule society long before its political revolution is effected. When it delivers
the coup de grace to the monarchy, it does so from a position of overwhelming
strength.
The workers are in a completely different position, however. They lack an independent
economic base and suffer economic and cultural exploitation. Prior to its revolution, the
working-class remains backward and therefore, unlike the bourgeoisie, is unable to
prepare itself in advance for ruling all of society. It often comes to power in coalition
with other classes, such as the peasantry.
Since it is in a position of weakness, it is often beaten back by the bourgeoise. But
the bourgeoisie itself is small in numbers. It also has its own class interests which set
it apart from the rest of society. Therefore, it must strike back against the workers by
utilizing the social power of intermediate classes such as the peasantry or the
middle-classes in general. It will also draw from strata beneath the working-class, from
the so-called "lumpen proletariat". Louis Bonaparte drew from these social layers in
order to strike back against the workers, so did Hitler.
Bonaparte appears as a dictator whose rule constrains all of society. In section seven
of the Eighteenth Brumaire, Marx characterized Bonapartist rule in the following
manner:
"The French bourgeoisie balked at the domination of the working proletariat; it has
brought the lumpen proletariat to domination, with the Chief of the Society of December
10 at the head. The bourgeoisie kept France in breathless fear of the future terrors of
red anarchy- Bonaparte discounted this future for it when, on December 4, he had the
eminent bourgeois of the Boulevard Montmartre and the Boulevard des Italiens shot down at
their windows by the drunken army of law and order. The bourgeoisie apotheosized the
sword; the sword rules it. It destroyed the revolutionary press; its own press is
destroyed. It placed popular meetings under police surveillance; its salons are placed
under police supervision. It disbanded the democratic National Guard, its own National
Guard is disbanded. It imposed a state of siege; a state of siege is imposed upon it. It
supplanted the juries by military commissions; its juries are supplanted by military
commissions. It subjected public education to the sway of the priests; the priests
subject it to their own education. It jailed people without trial, it is being jailed
without trial. It suppressed every stirring in society by means of state power; every
stirring in its society is suppressed by means of state power. Out of enthusiasm for its
moneybags it rebelled against its own politicians and literary men; its politicians and
literary men are swept aside, but its moneybag is being plundered now that its mouth has
been gagged and its pen broken. The bourgeoisie never tired of crying out to the
revolution what St. Arsenius cried out to the Christians: 'Fuge, tace, quiesce!' ['Flee,
be silent, keep still!'] Bonaparte cries to the bourgeoisie: 'Fuge, tace, quiesce!'"
At first blush, Bonaparte seems to be oppressing worker and capitalist alike.
Supported by the bourgeoisie at first, he drowns the Parisian working-class in its own
blood in the early stages of the counterrevolution. He then turns his attention to the
bourgeoisie itself and "jails", "gags" and imposes a "state of siege" upon it. By all
appearances, the dictatorship of Bonaparte is a personal dictatorship and all social
classes suffer. The Hitler and Mussolini regimes gave the same appearance. This led many
to conclude that fascism is simply a totalitarian system in which every citizen is
subordinated to the industrial-military-state machinery. There is the fascism of Hitler
and there is the fascism of Stalin. A class analysis of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia
would produce different political conclusions, however. Hitler's rule rested on
capitalist property relations and Stalin's on collectivized property relations.
Bonaparte's rule, while seeming to stand above all social classes, really served to
protect capitalist property relations. Bonaparte represents the executive branch of
government and liquidates the parliamentary branch. The parliament contains parties from
every social class, so a superficial view of Bonapartist rule would conclude that all
classes have been curtailed. In actuality, the bourgeoisie maintains power behind the
scenes.
In order to maintain rule, Bonapartism must give concessions to the lower-classes. It
can not manifest itself openly as an instrument of the ruling-classes. It is constantly
on the attack against both exploiter and exploited. It acts against exploited because it
is ultimately interested in the preservation of the status quo. It acts against the
exploiters, because it must maintain the appearance of "neutrality" above all
classes.
Marx describes this contradictory situtation as follows:
"Driven by the contradictory demands of his situation, and being at the same time,
like a juggler, under the necessity of keeping the public gaze on himself, as Napoleon's
successor, by springing constant surprises -- that is to say, under the necessity of
arranging a coup d'etat in miniature every day -- Bonaparte throws the whole bourgeois
economy into confusion, violates everything that seemed inviolable to the Revolution of
1848, makes some tolerant of revolution and makes others lust for it, and produces
anarchy in the name of order, while at the same time stripping the entire state machinery
of its halo, profaning it and making it at once loathsome and ridiculous. The cult of the
Holy Tunic of Trier, he duplicates in Paris in the cult of the Napoleonic imperial
mantle. But when the imperial mantle finally falls on the shoulders of Louis Bonaparte,
the bronze statue of Napoleon will come crashing down from the top of the Vendome
Column."
Bonaparte throws the bourgeois economy into a confusion, violates it, produces anarchy
in the name of order. This is exactly the way fascism in power operates. Fascism in power
is a variant of Bonapartism. It eventually stabilizes into a more normal dictatorship of
capital, but in its early stages has the same careening, out-of-control behavior.
Bonapartism does not rest on the power of an individual dictator. It is not Louis
Napoleon's or Adolph Hitler's power of oratory that explains their mastery over a whole
society. They have a social base which they manipulate to remain in power. Even though a
Bonapartist figure is ultimately loyal to the most powerful industrialists and
financiers, he relies on a mass movement of the middle-class to gain power.
Louis Bonaparte drew from the peasantry. The peasantry was in conflict with the big
bourgeoisie but was tricked into lending support to someone who appeared to act in its
own behalf. The peasantry was unable to articulate its own social and political interests
since the mode of production it relied on was an isolating one. Marx commented:
"The small-holding peasants form an enormous mass whose members live in similar
conditions but without entering into manifold relations with each other. Their mode of
production isolates them from one another instead of bringing them into mutual
intercourse. The isolation is furthered by France's poor means of communication and the
poverty of the peasants. Their field of production, the small holding, permits no
division of labor in its cultivation, no application of science, and therefore no
multifariousness of development, no diversity of talent, no wealth of social
relationships. Each individual peasant family is almost self-sufficient, directly
produces most of its consumer needs, and thus acquires its means of life more through an
exchange with nature than in intercourse with society. A small holding, the peasant and
his family; beside it another small holding, another peasant and another family. A few
score of these constitute a village, and a few score villages constitute a department.
Thus the great mass of the French nation is formed by the simple addition of homonymous
magnitudes, much as potatoes in a sack form a sack of potatoes. Insofar as millions of
families live under conditions of existence that separate their mode of life, their
interests, and their culture from those of the other classes, and put them in hostile
opposition to the latter, they form a class. Insofar as there is merely a local
interconnection among these small-holding peasants, and the identity of their interests
forms no community, no national bond, and no political organization among them, they do
not constitute a class. They are therefore incapable of asserting their class interest in
their own name, whether through a parliament or a convention. They cannot represent
themselves, they must be represented. Their representative must at the same time appear
as their master, as an authority over them, an unlimited governmental power which
protects them from the other classes and sends them rain and sunshine from above. The
political influence of the small-holding peasants, therefore, finds its final expression
in the executive power which subordinates society to itself. "
Intermediate layers such as the peasantry are susceptible to Bonapartist and Fascist
politicians. They resent both big capital and the working- class. They resent the banks
who own their mortgage. They also resent the teamsters and railroad workers whose strikes
disrupts their own private economic interests. They turn to politicians whose rhetoric
seems to be both anti-capitalist and anti-working class. Such politicians are often
masters of demagoguery such as Hitler and Mussolini who often employ the stock phrases of
socialism.
The peasantry backed Bonaparte. It was also an important pillar of Hitler's regime. In
the final analysis, the peasants suffered under both because the banks remained powerful
and exploitative. The populism of Bonaparte and the "socialism" of Hitler were simply
deceptive mechanisms by which the executive was able to rule on behalf of big
capital.
Bonapartism, populism and fascism overlap to a striking degree. We see elements of
fascism, populism and Bonapartism in the politics of Pat Buchanan. Buchanan rails against
African-Americans and immigrants, both documented and undocumented. He also rails against
Wall St. which is "selling out" the working man. Is he a fascist, however? Ross Perot
employs a number of the same themes. Is he?
The problem in trying to answer these questions solely on the basis of someone's
speeches or writings is that it ignores historical and class dynamics. Bonaparte and
Hitler emerged as a response to powerful proletrian revolutionary attacks on capital.
What are the objective conditions in American society today? Hitler based their power on
large-scale social movements that could put tens of thousands of people into the streets
at a moment's notice. These movements were not creatures of capitalist cabals. They had
their own logic and their own warped integrity. Many were drawn to Hitler in the deluded
hope that he would bring some kind of "all-German" socialism into existence. These
followers were not Marxists, but they certainly hated the capitalist class. Are the
people who attend Buchanan, Perot and Farrakhan rallies also in such a frenzied,
revolutionary state of mind?
At what point are we in American society today?
I would argue that rather than being in a prerevolutionary situation, that rather we
are in a period which has typified capitalism for the better part of a hundred and fifty
years.We are in a period of capitalist "normalcy". Capitalism is a system which is prone
to economic crisis and war. The unemployment and "downsizing" going on today are typical
of capitalism in its normal functioning. We have to stop thinking as if the period of
prosperity following WWII as normal. It is not. It is an anomaly in the history of
capitalism. When industrial workers found themselves in a position to buy houses, send
children through college, etc., this was only because of a number of exceptional
circumstances which will almost certainly never arise again.
We are in a period more like the late 1800's or the early 1900's. It is a period of
both expansion and retrenchment. It is a period of terrible reaction which can give birth
to the Ku Klux Klan and the skinheads and other neo-Nazis. It is also a period which can
give birth to something like Eugene V. Debs socialist party.
But if we don't recognize at which point we stand, we will never be able to build a
socialist party. We will also not be in a position to resist fascism when it makes its
appearance.
In my next report, I will take a look at the American Populist movement led by Tom
Watson at the turn of the century. It is a highly contradictory social movement. In some
respects it is fascist-like, in other respects it is highly progressive. If we understand
American Populism, we will in a much better position to understand the populism of
today.
These are the types of questions that we should be considering in the weeks to
come:
1) Why did fascism emerge when it did? Could there have been fascism in the
1890's?
2) Is fascism limited to imperialist nations? Could there be fascism in third-world
countries? Did Pinochet represent fascism in Chile?
3) What is the class base of the Nation of Islam? Can there be fascism emerging out of
oppressed nationalities? Can a Turkish or Algerian fascism develop as a response to
neo-fascism in Europe today?
4) The Italian government includes a "fascist" party that openly celebrates Mussolini.
What should we make of this?
5) What is the difference between fascism and ultrarightism? Ultrarightism is a
permanent feature of US and world politics. Was George Wallace a fascist? What would a
European equivalent be?
6) Is fascism emerging in the former Soviet Union? Does Zherinovsky represent fascism?
Is the cause of the civil war in former Yugoslavia Serbian or Croatian fascism?
7) Can there be a fascism which does not incorporate powerful anticapitalist themes
and demagoguery? Joe McCarthy was regarded as a fascist-like figure, but had no use for
radical left-wing verbiage or actions. What should we make of him?
8) If fascism emerged as a reaction to the powerful proletarian revolutionary
movements of the 1920's and 30's, what types of conditions can we see in the foreseeable
future that would provoke new fascist movements? If socialism is no longer objectively
possible because of the ability of capitalism to "deliver the goods", what would the need
for fascism be? Why would the capitalist class support a new Hitler when the
working-class is so quiescient? Should we be thinking about a new definition of
fascism?
9) Fascism has a deeply expansionist and bellicose dynamics. In the age of nuclear
weaponry, can we expect imperialism to opt for a fascist solution? Would the Rockefellers
et al allow a trigger-happy figure like "Mark from Michigan" in control of our nuclear
weapons?
10) What tools are necessary to analyze fascism? Should we be looking at the speeches
of Farrakhan or Mark from Michigan? Was this Marx's approach to Bonapartism?
2. TROTSKY ON BONAPARTISM AND FASCISM
Trotsky, like Lenin, was a revolutionary politician and not an economist or political
scientist. Every article or book the two wrote was tied to solving specific political
problems. When Lenin wrote "Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism", he was trying
to define the theoretical basis for the Zimmerwald opposition to W.W.I. Similarly, when
Trotsky wrote about German fascism, his purpose was to confront and defeat it.
Trotsky's understanding of how fascism came to power is very much grounded in the
definition of "Bonapartism" contained in Marx's "18th Brumaire", a classic study of
dictatorship in the 19th century. Marx was trying to explain how dictatorships of "men on
horseback" such as Louis Bonaparte, Napoleon's nephew, can appear to stand suspended
above all classes and to act as impartial arbitrator between opposing classes, even
though they carry out the wishes of the capitalist ruling class. The capitalist class is
small in number and periods of revolutionary crisis depend on these types of seemingly
neutral strong men.
A true Bonapartist figure is somebody who emerges out of the military or state
apparatus. In order to properly bamboozle the masses, he should have charismatic
qualities. War heroes tend to move to the front of the pack when a Bonapartist solution
is required. Charles DeGaulle is the quintessential Bonapartist figure of the modern age.
If the US labor movement and the left had been much more powerful than it had been during
the Korean war and had mounted a serious resistance to the war and to capitalist rule, it
is not hard to imagine a figure such as General Douglas MacCarthur striving to impose a
Bonapartist dictatorship. Since there was no such left-wing, it was possible for US
capitalism to rule democratically. Democracy is a less expensive and more stable
system.
Germany started out after W.W.I as a bourgeois democracy-- the Weimar Republic. The
republic was besieged by a whole number of insurmountable problems: unemployment,
hyperinflation, and resentment over territory lost to the allies.
The workers had attempted to make a socialist revolution immediately after W.W.I, but
their leadership made a number of mistakes that resulted in defeat. The defeat was not so
profound as to crush all future revolutionary possibilities. As the desperate 20's wore
on, the working- class movement did regain its confidence and went on the offensive
again. The two major parties of the working class, the CP and the SP, both grew.
In the late 1920's, Stalin had embarked on an ultraleft course in the USSR and CP's
tended to reflect this ultraleftism in their own strategy and tactics. In Germany, this
meant attacking the Socialist Party as "social fascist". The Socialist Party was not
revolutionary, but it was not fascist. A united SP and CP could have defeated fascism and
prevented WWII and the slaughter of millions. It was Stalin's inability to size up
fascism correctly that lead to this horrible outcome.
Hitler's seizure of power was preceded by a series of rightward drifting governments,
all of which paved the way for him. The SP found reasons to back each and every one of
these governments in the name of the "lesser evil". (This is an argument we have heard
from some leftists in the United States: "Clinton is not as bad as Bush"; "Johnson is not
as bad as Goldwater, etc." The problem with this strategy is that allows the ruling class
to limit the options available to the oppressed. The lesser evil is still evil.)
The last "lesser evil" candidate the German Social Democracy urged support for was
Paul Von Hindenburg, a top general in W.W.I.. The results were disastrous. Hindenburg
took office on April 10 of 1932 and basically paved the way for Adolph Hitler. Hindenburg
allowed the Nazi street thugs to rule the streets, but enforced the letter of the law
against the working-class parties. Elections may have been taking place according to the
Weimar constitution, but real politics was being shaped in the streets through the
demonstrations and riots of Nazi storm-troopers.
As these Nazi street actions grew more violent and massive, Hindenburg reacted on May
31 by making Franz Von Papen chancellor and instructed him to pick a cabinet "above the
parties", a clear Bonapartist move. Such a cabinet wouldn't placate the Nazis. All they
wanted to do was smash bourgeois democracy. As the civil war in the streets continued,
Papen dissolved the Reichstag and called for new elections on July 31, 1932.
On July 17, the Nazis held a march through Altona, a working class neighborhood, under
police protection. The provocation resulted in fighting that left 19 dead and 285
wounded. The SP and CP were not able to mount a significant counteroffensive and the
right-wing forces gathered self-confidence and support from "centrist" voters. When
elections were finally held on July 31, the Nazi party received the most votes and took
power.
In his article "German Bonapartism", Trotsky tries to explain the underlying
connections between the Bonapartist Hindenburg government and the gathering Nazi
storm:
"Present-day German Bonapartism has a very complex and, so to speak, combined
character. The government of Papen would have been impossible without fascism. But
fascism is not in power. And the government of Papen is not fascism. On the other hand,
the government of Papen, at any rate in the present form, would have been impossible
without Hindenburg who, in spite of the final prostration of Germany in the war, stands
for the great victories of Germany and symbolizes the army in the memory of the popular
masses. The second election of Hindenburg had all the characteristics of a plebiscite.
Many millions of workers, petty bourgeois, and peasants (Social Democracy and Center)
voted for Hindenburg. They did not see in him any one political program. They did not see
in him any one political program. They wanted first of all to avoid civil war, and raised
Hindenburg on their shoulders as a superarbiter, as an arbitration judge of the nation.
But precisely this is the most important function of Bonapartism: raising itself over the
two struggling camps in order to preserve property and order."
The victory of Hitler represents a break with Bonapartism, since it represents the
naked rule of finance capital and heavy industry. Fascism in Germany breaks the tension
between classes by imposing a reign of terror on the working class. Once in power,
however, fascism breaks its ties with the petty-bourgeois mass movement that ensured its
victory and assumes a more traditional Bonapartist character. Hitler in office becomes
much more like the Bonapartist figures who preceded him and seeks to act as a
"superarbiter". In order to make this work, he launches an ambitious publics works
program, invests in military spending and tries to coopt the proletariat. Those in the
working-class who resist him are jailed or murdered.
In "Bonapartism and Fascism", written on July 15, 1934, a year after Hitler's rise to
power, Trotsky clarifies the relationship between the two tendencies:
"What has been said sufficiently demonstrates how important it is to distinguish the
Bonapartist form of power from the fascist form. Yet, it would be unpardonable to fall
into the opposite extreme, that is, to convert Bonapartism and fascism into two logically
incompatible categories. Just as Bonapartism begins by combining the parliamentary regime
with fascism, so triumphant fascism finds itself forced not only to enter a bloc with the
Bonapartists, but what is more, to draw closer internally to the Bonapartist system. The
prolonged domination of finance capital by means of reactionary social demagogy and
petty- bourgeois terror is impossible. Having arrived in power, the fascist chiefs are
forced to muzzle the masses who follow them by means of the state apparatus. By the same
token, they lose the support of broad masses of the petty bourgeoisie."
3. MICHAEL MANN ON FASCISM
Michael Mann believes that 20th century Marxism has made a mistake by describing
fascism as a petty-bourgeois mass movement. He does not argue that the leaders were not
bourgeois, or that the bourgeoisie behind the scenes was financing the fascists. He
develops these points at some length in an article "Source of Variation in Working-Class
Movements in Twentieth-Century Movement" which appeared in the New Left Review of
July/August 1995.
If he is correct, then there is something basically wrong with the Marxist approach,
isn't there? If the Nazis attracted the working-class, then wouldn't we have to
reevaluate the revolutionary role of the working-class? Perhaps it would be necessary to
find some other class to lead the struggle for socialism, if this struggle has any basis
in reality to begin with.
Mann relies heavily on statistical data, especially that which can be found in M.
Kater's "The Nazi Party" and D. Muhlberger "Hitler's Followers". The data, Mann reports,
shows that "Combined, the party and paramilitaries had relatively as many workers as in
the general population, almost as many worker militants as the socialists and many more
than the communists".
Pretty scary stuff, if it's true. It is true, but, as it turns out, there are workers
and there are workers. More specifically, Mann acknowledges that "Most fascist
workers...came not from the main manufacturing industries but from agriculture, the
service and public sectors and from handicrafts and small workshops." Let's consider the
political implications of the class composition of this fascist strata." He adds that,
"The proletarian macro-community was resisting fascism, but not the entire
working-class." Translating this infelicitous expression into ordinary language, Mann is
saying that as a whole the workers were opposed to fascism, but there were
exceptions.
Let's consider who these fascist workers were. Agricultural workers in Germany: were
they like the followers of Caesar Chavez, one has to wonder? Germany did not have
large-scale agribusiness in the early 1920's. Most farms produced for the internal market
and were either family farms or employed a relatively small number of workers. Generally,
workers on smaller farms tend to have a more filial relationship to the patron than they
do on massive enterprises. The politics of the patron will be followed more closely by
his workers. This is the culture of small, private agriculture. It was no secret that
many of the contra foot-soldiers in Nicaragua came from this milieu.
Turning to "service" workers, this means that many fascists were white-collar workers
in banking and insurance. This layer has been going through profound changes throughout
the twentieth century, so a closer examination is needed. In the chapter "Clerical
Workers" in Harry Braverman's "Labor and Monopoly Capital", he notes that clerical work
in its earlier stages was like a craft. The clerk was a highly skilled employee who kept
current the records of the financial and operating condition of the enterprise, as well
as its relations with the external world. The whole history of this job category in the
twentieth century, however, has been one of de-skilling. All sorts of machines, including
the modern-day, computer have taken over many of the decision-making responsibilities of
the clerk. Furthermore, "Taylorism" has been introduced into the office, forcing clerks
to function more like assembly-line workers than elite professionals.
We must assume, however, that the white-collar worker in Germany in the 1920's was
still relatively high up in the class hierarchy since his or her work had not been
mechanized or routinized to the extent it is today. Therefore, a clerk in an insurance
company or bank would tend to identify more with management than with workers in a
steel-mill. Even under today's changed economic conditions, this tends to be true. A bank
teller in NY probably resents a striking transit worker, despite the fact that they have
much in common in class terms. This must have been an even more pronounced tendency in
the 1920's when white-collar workers occupied an even more elite position in society.
Mann includes workers in the "public sector". This should come as no surprise at all.
Socialist revolutions were defeated throughout Europe in the early 1920's and right-wing
governments came to power everywhere. These right-wing governments kept shifting to the
right as the mass working-class movements of the early 1920's recovered and began to
reassert themselves. Government workers, who are hired to work in offices run by
right-wingers, will tend to be right-wing themselves. There was no civil-service and no
unions in this sector in the 1920's. Today, this sector is one of the major supporters of
progressive politics internationally. They, in fact, spearheaded the recent strikes in
France. In the United States, where their composition tends to be heavily Black or
Latino, also back progressive politics. But in Germany in the 1920's, it should come as
no major surprise that some public sector workers joined Hitler or Mussolini's cause.
When Trotsky or E.J. Hobsbawm refer to the working-class resistance to Hitler or
Mussolini, they have something specific in mind. They are referring to the traditional
bastions of the industrial working-class: steel, auto, transportation, mining, etc. Mann
concurs that these blue- collar workers backed the SP or CP.
There is a good reason why this was no accident. In Daniel Guerin's "Fascism and Big
Business", he makes the point that the capitalists from heavy industry were the main
backers of Hitler. The reason they backed Hitler was that they had huge investments in
fixed capital (machines, plants, etc.) that were financed through huge debt. When
capitalism collapsed after the stock-market crash, the owners of heavy industry were more
pressed than those of light industry. The costs involved in making a steel or chemical
plant profitable during a depression are much heavier. Steel has to be sold in dwindling
markets to pay for the cost of leased machinery or machinery that is financed by bank
loans When the price of steel has dropped on a world scale, it is all the more necessary
to enforce strict labor discipline..
Strikes are met by violence. When the boss calls for speed-up because of increased
competition, goons within a plant will attack workers who defend decent working
conditions. This explains blue-collar support for socialism. It has a class basis.
These are the sorts of issues that Marxists should be exploring. Michael Mann is a
"neo-Weberian" supposedly who also finds Marx useful. Max Weber tried to explain the
growth of capitalism as a consequence of the "Protestant ethic". Now Mann tries to
explain the growth of fascism as a consequence of working-class support for "national
identity". That is to say, the workers backed Hitler because Hitler backed a strong
Germany. This is anti-Marxist. Being determines consciousness, not the other way around.
When you try to blend Marx with anti-Marxists like Weber or Lyotard or A.J. Ayer, it is
very easy to get in trouble. I prefer my Marx straight, with no chaser.
4. NICOS POULANTZAS ON FASCISM
Nicos Poulantzas tried to carve out a political space for revolutionaries outside of
the framework of the CP, especially the French Communist Party. Poulantzas wrote "Fascism
and Dictatorship, The Third International and the Problem of Fascism" in 1968 when he was
in the grips of a rather severe case of Maoism.
This put him in an obviously antagonistic position vis a vis Trotsky. Trotsky was the
author of a number of books that tried to explain the victory of Hitler, Mussolini and
Franco in terms of the failure of the Comintern to provide revolutionary leadership.
Poulantzas's Maoism put him at odds with this analysis. His Maoist "revolutionary
heritage" goes back through Dmitrov to Stalin and Lenin. In this line of pedigrees,
Trotsky remains the mutt.
Poulantzas could not accept the idea that the Comintern was the gravedigger of
revolutions, since the current he identified with put this very same Comintern on a
pedestal. Yet the evidence of Comintern failure in the age of fascism is just too
egregious for him to ignore. He explains this failure not in terms of bureaucratic
misleadership, but rather in terms of "economism". This Althusserian critique targets the
Comintern not only of the 1930s when Hitler was marching toward power, but to the
Comintern of the early 1920s, before Stalin had consolidated his power. All the
Bolsheviks to one extent or another suffered from this ideological deviation: Stalin and
Trotsky had a bad case of it, so did Bukharin, Zinoviev and Kamenev.
What form did this "economism" take? Poulantzas argues that the Third International
suffered in its infancy from "economic catastrophism", a particularly virulent form of
this ideological deviation. What happened, you see, is that the Communists relied too
heavily on Lenin's "Imperialism, the Latest Stage of Capitalism". Lenin's pamphlet
portrayed capitalism as being on its last legs, a moribund, exhausted economic system
that was hanging on the ropes like a beaten prize-fighter. All the proletariat had to do
was give the capitalist system one last sharp punch in the nose and it would fall to the
canvas.
If capitalism was in its death-agony, then fascism was the expression of the weakness
of the system in its terminal stages. Poulantzas observes:
"The blindness of both the PCI and KPD leaders in this respect is staggering. Fascism,
according to them, would only be a 'passing episode' in the revolutionary process.
Umberto Terracini wrote in Inprekorr, just after the march on Rome, that fascism was at
most a passing 'ministerial crisis'. Amadeo Bordiga, introducing the resolution on
fascism at the Fifth Congress, declared that all hat had happened in Italy was 'a change
in the governmental team of the bourgeoisie'. The presidium of the Comintern executive
committee noted, just after Hitler's accession to power: 'Hitler's Germany is heading for
ever more inevitable economic catastrophe...The momentary calm after the victory of
fascism is only a passing phenomenon. The wave of revolution will rise inescapably
Germany despite the fascist terror..."
Now Poulantzas is correct to point out this aspect of the Comintern's inability to
challenge and defeat fascism. Yes, it is "economic catastrophism" that clouded its
vision. We must ask is this all there is to the problem? If Lenin's pamphlet had not
swept the Communists off their feet, could they have gotten a better handle on the
situation?
Unfortunately, the failure of the Comintern to provide an adequate explanation of
fascism and a strategy to defeat it goes much deeper than this. The problem is that
Stalin was rapidly in the process of rooting out Marxism from the Communist Party in the
*very early* stages of the Comintern. Stalin's supporters were already intimidating and
silencing Marxists in 1924, the year of the Fifth Congress of the Comintern.
>From around that time forward, the debate in the Comintern was not between a wide
range of Marxist opinion. The debate only included the rightist followers of Bukharin and
Stalin, the cagey spokesman for the emerging bureaucracy. The Soviet secret police and
Stalin's goons were suppressing the Left Opposition. Shortly, Stalin would jail or kill
its members. So when Poulantzas refers to the "Comintern", he is referring to a rump
formation that bore faint resemblance to the Communist International of the heroic, early
days of the Russian Revolution.
When Stalin took power, the Comintern became an instrument of Soviet foreign policy
and Communist Parties tried to emulate the internal shifts of the Soviet party. The
ultraleft, third period of the German Communist Party mirrored the extreme turn taken by
Stalin against Bukharin and the right Communists in the late 1920s. Bukharin was for
appeasement of the kulaks and, by the same token, class-collaborationist alliances with
the national bourgeoisie of various countries. Stalin had embraced this policy when it
was convenient.
When Stalin broke with Bukharin, he turned sharply to the ultraleft and dumped the
rightist leadership of the Comintern. He replaced it with his lackeys who were all to
happy to march in lock-step to the lunatic left. The German CP went to the head of the
pack during this period by attacking the social democrats as being "social fascists".
Poulantzas maintains that the Kremlin did not have a master-puppet relationship to the
Communist Parties internationally. Since the evidence to the contrary is rather
mountainous, his explanations take on a labored academic cast that are in sharp
contradistinction to his usually lucid prose. It also brings out the worst of his Maoist
mumbo- jumbo:
"To sum up: the general line which was progressively dominant in the USSR and in the
Comintern can allow us to make a relatively clear [!] periodization of the Comintern, a
periodization which can also be very useful for the history of the USSR. But this is
insufficient. For example, we have seen how the Comintern's Sixth (1928) and Seventh
(1935) Congresses cannot be interpreted on the model of a pendulum (left
opportunism/right opportunism), but that there is no simple continuity between them
either. That corroborates the view that the turn in Soviet policy in relationship to the
peasantry as a whole was not a simple, internal, 'ultra-left' turn. But it will be
impossible to make a deeper analysis of this problem in relation to the Comintern until
we have exactly established what was the real process involving the Soviet bourgeoisie
[Don't forget, gang, this is 1968] during the period of the class struggle in the USSR --
which was considerably more than a simple struggle of the proletariat and poor peasants
against the kulaks."
As Marxists, we should always avoid the temptation to resort to "deterministic" types
of analysis. Poulantzas, the Althusserian, would never yield to such temptation. That is
why refuses to make a connection between the ultraleft attack on the peasantry within the
Soviet Union and the ultraleft turn internationally. I am afraid, however, that no other
analysis makes any sense. Sometimes, a cigar is simply a cigar. Stalin, the
quintessential bureaucrat seems only capable of lurching either to the extreme left or
extreme right. His errors reflect an inability to project working-class, i.e., Marxist,
solutions to political problems. By concentrating such enormous power in his hands, he
guaranteed that every shift he took, the Communist Parties internationally would
follow.
Ideology plays much too much of a role in the Poulantzas scheme of things. The
Comintern messed up because it put Lenin on a pedestal. He also says that the bourgeoisie
supported fascism because it too was in a deep ideological crisis. What does Poulantzas
have to say about the German working-class? What does he say about the parties of the
working-class? Could ideological confusion explain their weakness in face of the Nazi
threat? You bet.
Poulantzas alleges that the rise of fascism in Germany corresponds to an ideological
crisis of the revolutionary organizations, which in turn coincided with an ideological
crisis within the working class. He says:
"Marxist-Leninist ideology was profoundly shaken within the working class: not only
did it fail to conquer the broad masses, but it was also forced back where it managed to
root itself. It is clear enough what happens when revolutionary organizations fail in
their ideological role of giving leadership on a mass line: particular forms of bourgeois
and petty-bourgeois ideology invade the void left by the retreat of Marxist- Leninist
ideology.
The influence of bourgeois ideology over the working class, in this situation of
ideological crisis, took the classic form of trade unionism and reformism. It can be
recognized not only in the survival, but also in the extending influence of social
democracy over the working class, through both the party and trade unions, all through
the rise of fascism. The advancing influence of social-democratic ideology was felt even
in those sections of the working class supporting the communist party."
Comrades, this is not what Lenin said! Lenin said that socialist consciousness has to
be brought into the working-class from the outside, from intellectuals who have mastered
Marxism. Not is it only what Lenin said, it is happily what makes sense. Workers *never*
rise above simple trade union consciousness.
When Poulantzas says that bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology "invades" the
working-class, he is mixing things up hopelessly. This type of ideology has no need to
invade, it is *always* there. It is socialist ideas that are the anomaly, the
exception.
Workers have no privileged status in class society. The ruling ideas of any society
are the ideas of the ruling class. When Jon the railroad worker reports to this l*st
about the numbers of his co-workers who are for Perot, he is conveying the same truth
that is found in What is to be Done. The ideas that he supports are being "imported" into
the rail yards. That's the way it goes.
This also explains the murderous fanaticism of the Shining Path. When they witness the
"bourgeois" ideas of ordinary Peruvian workers, it is very tempting for them to put a
bullet in the brain of any of them who stand in their way. If Maoism posits ideology as
the enemy, no wonder they conceive of the class struggle as a struggle against impure
thoughts. The answer to impure thoughts, of course, is patient explanation. This is the
method of Marxism, the political philosophy of the working-class. Marxists try to resolve
contradictions by reaching a higher level of understanding. Sometimes, it can be
frustrating to put up with and work through these contradictions, but the alternative
only leads down the blind alley to sectarianism and fanaticism.
5. DELEUZE/GUATTARI ON FASCISM
In the translator's foreword to "A Thousand Plateaus", Brian Massumi tells us that the
philosopher Gilles Deleuze was prompted by the French worker-student revolt of 1968 to
question the role of the intellectual in society. Felix Guattari, his writing partner,
was a psychoanalyst who identified with R.D. Laing's antipsychiatry movement of the
1960's. Laing created group homes where schizophrenics were treated identically to the
sane, sort of like the Marxism list. Guattari also embraced the protests of 1968 and
discovered an intellectual kinship with Deleuze. Their first collaboration was the 1972
"Anti-Oedipus". Massumi interprets this work as a polemic against "State-happy or
pro-party versions of Marxism". "A Thousand Plateaus", written in 1987, is basically part
two of the earlier work. Deleuze and Guattari state that the two books make up a grand
opus they call "Capitalism and Schizophrenia".
I read the chapter "1933" in "A Thousand Plateaus" with as much concentration as I can
muster. Stylistically, it has a lot in common with philosophers inspired by Nietzsche. I
am reminded of some of the reading I did in Wyndham Lewis and Oswald Spengler in a
previous lifetime. These sorts of authors pride themselves in being able to weave
together strands from many different disciplines and hate being categorized. Within a few
pages you will see references to Kafka, American movies, Andre Gorz's theory of work and
Clausewitz's military writings.
Their approach to fascism is totally at odds with the approach we have been developing
in our cyberseminar. Thinkers such as Marx and Trotsky focus on the class dynamics of
bourgeois society. Bonapartism is rooted in the attempt of the French bourgeoisie in 1848
to stave off proletarian revolution. Trotsky explains fascism as a totalitarian last-
ditch measure to preserve private property when bourgeois democracy or the Bonapartist
state are failing.
Deleuze and Guattari see fascism as a permanent feature of social life. Class is not
so important to them. They are concerned with what they call "microfascism", the fascism
that lurks in heart of each and every one of us. When they talk about societies that were
swept by fascism, such as Germany, they totally ignore the objective social and economic
framework: depression, hyperinflation, loss of territory, etc.
This is wrong. Fascism is a product of objective historical factors, not shortcomings
in the human psyche or imperfections in the way society is structured. The way to prevent
fascism is not to have unfascist attitudes or live in unfascist communities, like the
hippies did in the 1960's. It is to confront the capitalist class during periods of
mounting crisis and win a socialist victory.
In a key description of the problem, they say, "The concept of the totalitarian State
applies only at the macropolitical level, to a rigid segmentarity and a particular mode
of totalization and centralization. But fascism is inseparable from a proliferation of
molecular focuses in interaction, which skip from point to point, before beginning to
resonate together in the National Socialist State. Rural fascism and city or neighborhood
fascism, youth fascism and war veteran's fascism, fascism of the Left and fascism of the
Right, fascism of the couple, family, school, and office: every fascism is defined by a
micro-black hole that stands on its own and communicates with the others, before
resonating in a great, generalized central black hole."
This is a totally superficial understanding of how fascism came about. What is Left
fascism? It is true that the Communist Party employed thuggish behavior on occasion
during the ultraleft "Third Period". They broke up meetings of small Trotskyist groups
while the Nazis were breaking up the meetings of trade unions or Communists. Does this
behavior equal left Fascism? Fascism is a class term. It describes a mass movement of the
petty-bourgeoisie that seeks to destroy all vestiges of the working-class movement. This
at least is the Marxist definition.
Fascism is not intolerance, bad attitudes, meanness or insensitivity. It is a violent,
procapitalist mass movement of the middle-class that employs socialist
phrase-mongering.
I want to conclude with a few words about Felix Guattari and Toni Negri's "Communists
like Us". Unlike Deleuze/Guattari's collaborations, this is a perfectly straightforward
political manifesto that puts forward a basic challenge to Marxism. It is deeply inspired
by a reading of the 1968 struggle in France as a mass movement for personal liberation.
Students and other peripheral sectors move into the foreground while workers become
secondary. It is as dated as Herbert Marcuse's "One Dimensional Man".
The pamphlet was written in 1985 but has the redolence of tie-dyed paisley, patchouli
oil and granny glasses. Get a whiff of this:
"Since the 1960's, new collective subjectivities have been affirmed in the dramas of
social transformation. We have noted what they owe to modifications in the organization
of work and to developments in socialization; we have tried to establish that the
antagonisms which they contain are no longer recuperable within the traditional horizon
of the political. But it remains to be demonstrated that the innovations of the '60s
should above all be understood within the universe of consciousnesses, of desires, and of
modes of behaviour."
I have some trouble understanding why Deleuze and Guattari are such big favorites with
some of my younger friends. My friend Catherine who works in the Dean of Studies office
at Barnard was wild about Derrida when I first met her four years ago. She started
showing more of an interest in Marxism after Derrida did. But she is not reading the 18th
Brumaire. She is reading Bataille, Deleuze/Guattari and Simone Weil. My guess is that a
lot of people from her milieu feel a certain nostalgia for the counterculture of the
1960's and in a funny sort of way, Deleuza/Guattari take that nostalgia and cater to it
but in an ultrasophisticated manner. They wouldn't bother with Paul Goodman and Charles
Reich, this crowd. But French and Italian theorists who write in a highly allusive and
self-referential manner: Like wow, man!
6. TOM WATSON
Tom Watson was born in Thompson, Georgia on September 5, 1856. His father owned 45
slaves and 1,372 acres of land on which he grew cotton. These assets put the Watson
family in the top third of the Georgian land-owning class, but not at the very top of the
slaveocracy.
The slave-owning class hated the Northern industrial class which had won the civil
war. The northerners brought an end to the old agrarian ways at the point of the bayonet
during reconstruction. The Yankee industrial capitalist sought free land and free labor.
This would allow him to commercially exploit the south and break up the older semi-
feudal relations.
Young Tom Watson hated what was happening to the south and joined the Democratic Party
soon after graduating college and starting a law profession. The Democrats in the south
formed the political resistance to the northern based Republicans. The "white man's
party" and the Democratic Party were terms used interchangeably.
Some of the southern capitalists aligned with the Democratic Party realized that the
future belonged to the northern capitalist class and joined forces with them. They became
avid partners in the commercial development of agriculture and the expansion of the
railroads throughout the south. Most of these southerners were connected with a newly
emerging finance capital, especially in the more forward- looking cities like Atlanta,
Georgia. Atlanta has always seen itself as representative of a "new south". It was to be
the first to end Jim Crow and it was the first to develop an intensive financial and
services-based infrastructure after WWII.
The intensive commercialization of the south impoverished many of the small and
mid-sized farmers who found themselves caught between the hammer and anvil of railroad,
retail store and bank. The banks charged exorbitant mortgages for land while the
railroads exacted steep fees for transporting grain and cotton. It often cost a farmer a
bushel of wheat just to bring a bushel of wheat to market. The retail stores charged high
prices for manufactured goods and were often owned behind the scenes by bank or
railroad.
Tom Watson identified with the exploited farmers who had begun to organize themselves
into a group called the Farmer's Alliance, which started in Texas but soon spread
throughout the south in the 1880's. The Alliance was determined to defend the interests
of small farmers against the juggernaut of bank, railroad and retail entrepreneur. The
Alliance evolved into the People's Party, the original version of the populists, a term
that is much overused today.
In this emerging class conflict, what side would a Marxist support? After all, didn't
Marx support the Yankees in the Civil War? Didn't the north represent industrialization,
progress and modernization? Wasn't the Alliance simply a continuation of the old
agricultural system?
When Tom Watson joined the Alliance cause, his words would not give a modernizer much
encouragement. He said, "Let there come once more to Southern heart and Southern brain
the Resolve--waste places built up. In the rude shock of civil war that dream perished.
Like victims of some horrid nightmare, we have moved ever since--
powerless--oppressed--shackled--".
The Alliance, like the Democratic Party in the south, was for white people only. The
leader of the Alliance in Texas, Charles Macune, was an outspoken racist.
A preliminary Marxist judgment on the Populists would be negative, wouldn't it, since
their nostalgia for the old south is reactionary. Their roots in the Democratic Party,
the "white man's party" would also make them suspect. Finally, why would Marxists support
the antiquated agrarian life-style of small farmers against the northern capitalist class
and their "new south" allies?
This snap judgment would fail to take into account the brutal transformations that
were turning class relations upside down in the south. As farmers became pauperized by
the commercial interests, many became share-croppers who had everything in common with
the impoverished Okies depicted by John Steinbeck in the "Grapes of Wrath". Others became
wage laborers on plantations, while others entered the industrial proletariat itself in
the towns and cities of the "new south". The class interests of these current and former
petty- bourgeois layers were arrayed against the big bourgeoisie of the south and
north.
This impoverished white farmers found itself joined in dire economic circumstances
with black farmers who had recently been freed from slavery, but who remained
share-croppers for the most part. Those with a pessimistic view of human nature might
assume that white and black farmer remained divided and weak. After all, doesn't racial
solidarity supersede class interest again and again in American history?
The Populists defied expectations, however. They united black and white farmers and
fought valiantly against Wall St. and their southern partners throughout the 1890's and
nearly succeeded in becoming a permanent third party.
At their founding convention, the delegates to the People's Party adopted a program
which included the following demands:
"The conditions which surround us best justify our cooperation; we meet in the midst
of a nation brought to the verge of moral, political, and material ruin. Corruption
dominates the ballot-box, the legislature, the Congress, and touches even the ermine of
the bench. The people are demoralized...
We have witnessed for more than a quarter of a century the struggles of the two great
political parties for power and plunder, while grievous wrongs have been inflicted upon
the suffering people...
The land, including all the natural sources of wealth, is the heritage of the people,
and should not be monopolized for speculative purposes, and alien ownership of land
should be prohibited.
All land now held by railroads and other corporations in excess of their actual needs,
and all lands owned by aliens [i.e., absentee landlords] should be reclaimed by the
government and held for actual settlers only."
This program galvanized millions of farmers into action. They joined the People's
Party and elected local, state and federal politicians including Tom Watson himself who
went to Congress and spoke forcefully for the interests of small farmers.
Watson also was one of the Populist leaders who saw most clearly the need for
black-white unity. Watson framed his appeal this way:
"Now the People's Party says to these two men, 'You are kept apart that you may be
separately fleeced of your earnings. You are made to hate each other because upon that
hatred is rested the keystone of the arch of financial despotism which enslaves you both.
You are deceived and blinded that you may not see how this race antagonism perpetuates a
monetary system which beggars both.'"
Watson spoke out forcefully against lynching, nominated a black man to his state
executive committee and often spoke from the same platform with black populists to mixed
audiences.
The Populists were a real threat to the capitalist system. While they did not advocate
socialist solutions, they objectively defended the interests of both poor farmer and
working-class. In many states in the west and north, populist farmers began to form ties
with the newly emerging Knights of Labor. Both populist farmer and northern worker saw
Wall St. as the enemy.
How and why did the populists disappear?
Watson became the Vice Presidential running-mate of the Democratic nominee William
Jennings Bryan in 1896. Bryan had the reputation of being some kind of populist radical,
but nothing could be further from the truth. He was the first in a long line of
Democratic Party "progressives" who fooled the mass movement into thinking that the party
could accommodate their needs.
Bryan did support the adoption of the silver standard (this was favored by farmers who
sought more plentiful currency in expectation that this would bring down prices), but was
cool to the rest of the populist demands. He had no use especially for any anti-corporate
measures.
The populists were fooled into supporting Bryan, but the Democrats knew who their
class-enemy was. Throughout the south, armed thugs destroyed populist party headquarters
and terrorized party members. The combination of Bryan's co-optation and violence at the
street level took the momentum out of this movement.
In a few short years, other factors served to dampen farmer radicalism. There was a
European crop failure and American farmers were able to sell their goods at a higher
price. Also, the United States started to develop as an imperial power through its
conquest of the Philippines, Cuba, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. The material and psychological
benefits of these new colonies tended to mute class-consciousness among worker and farmer
alike.
The populists dissolved slowly as the twentieth century approached. Some activists
became members of the Progressive Party, while others joined Deb's Socialist Party. The
working-class began to emerge as more of a self-aware, insurgent force in its own right,
especially in its drive to form unions.
What lessons can be drawn about the People's Party? At the very least, it should teach
us that politics can often be unpredictable. Who would imagine that the son of a
slave-owner would end up as a defender of black rights nearly a century before the civil
rights movement?
As we move forward in our study of fascism, and especially as we come close to the
period when Black Nationalism and the militias show up, let us take care to look at a
movement's class dynamics rather than the words of one or another leader. Marxism is
suited to analysis of social forces in formation and development. It is ideally suited to
understanding the types of rapid changes that are beginning to appear on the American
political landscape.
7. PAT BUCHANAN AND AMERICAN FASCISM
The United States in the 1930s became a battleground between industrial workers and
the capitalist class over whether workers would be able to form industrial unions. There
had been craft unions for decades, but only industrial unions could fight for all of the
workers in a given plant or industry. This fight had powerful revolutionary implications
since the captains of heavy industry required a poorly paid, docile work-force in order
to maximize profits in the shattered capitalist economy. There were demonstrations,
sit-down strikes and even gun-fights led by the Communist Party and other left groups to
establish this basic democratic right.
Within this political context, fascist groups began to emerge. They drew their
inspiration from Mussolini's fascists or Hitler's brown- shirts. In a time of severe
social crisis, groups of petty-bourgeois and lumpen elements begin to coalesce around
demagogic leaders. They employ "radical" sounding rhetoric but in practice seek out
working- class organizations to intimidate and destroy. One such fascist group was the
Silver Shirts of Minneapolis, Minnesota.
In chapter eleven of "Teamster Politics", SWP leader Farrell Dobbs recounts "How the
Silver Shirts Lost Their Shrine in Minneapolis". It is the story of how Local 544 of the
Teamsters union, led by Trotskyists, defended itself successfully from a fascist
expedition into the city. Elements of the Twin Cities ruling-class, alarmed over the
growth of industrial unionism in the city, called in Silver Shirt organizer Roy Zachary.
Zachary hosted two closed door meetings on July 29 and August 2 of 1938. Teamster "moles"
discovered that Zachary intended to launch a vigilante attack against Local 544
headquarters. They also discovered that Zachary planned to work with one F.L. Taylor to
set up an "Associated Council of Independent Unions", a union-busting operation. Taylor
had ties to a vigilante outfit called the "Minnesota Minute Men".
Local 544 took serious measures to defend itself. It formed a union defense guard in
August 1938 open to any active union member. Many of the people who joined had military
experience, including Ray Rainbolt the elected commander of the guard. Rank-and-filers
were former sharpshooters, machine gunners and tank operators in the US Army. The guard
also included one former German officer with WWI experience. While the guard itself did
not purchase arms except for target practice, nearly every member had hunting rifles at
home that they could use in the circumstance of a Silver Shirt attack.
Events reached a climax when Pelley came to speak at a rally in the wealthy section of
Minneapolis.
Ray Rainbolt organized a large contingent of defense guard members to pay a visit to
Calhoun Hall where Pelley was to make his appearance. The powerful sight of disciplined
but determined unionists persuaded the audience to go home and Pelley to cancel his
speech.
This was the type of conflict taking place in 1938. A capitalist class bent on taming
workers; fascist groups with a documented violent, anti-labor record; industrial workers
in motion: these were the primary actors in that period. It was characteristic of the
type of class conflict that characterized the entire 1930s. It is useful to keep this in
mind when we speak about McCarthyism.
WWII abolished a number of major contradictions in global capital while introducing
others. The United States emerged as the world's leading capitalist power and took
control economically and politically of many of the former colonies of the exhausted
European powers. Inter-imperialist rivalries and contradictions seemed to be a thing of
the past. England was the U.S.'s junior partner. The defeated Axis powers, Germany and
Japan, were under Washington's thumb. France retained some independence. (To this day
France continues to act as if it were an equal partner of the US, detonating nuclear
weapons in the Pacific or talking back to NATO over policies in Bosnia.)
Meanwhile the USSR survived the war bloodied but unbowed. In a series of negotiations
with the US and its allies, Stalin won the right to create "buffer" states to his West. A
whole number of socialist countries then came into being. China and Yugoslavia had
deep-going proletarian revolutions that, joined with the buffer states, would soon
account for more than 1/4 of the world's population.
World imperialism took an aggressive stance toward the socialist bloc before the smoke
had cleared from the WWII battlegrounds. Churchill made his "cold war" speech and
contradictions between the socialist states and world capitalism grew very sharp.
Imperialism began using the same type of rhetoric and propaganda against the USSR that it
had used against the Nazis. Newreels of the early fifties would depict a spreading red
blot across the European continent. This time the symbol superimposed on the blot was a
hammer-and-sickle instead of a swastika. The idea was the same: to line up the American
people against the enemy overseas that was trying to gobble up the "free world".
A witch-hunt in the United States, sometimes called McCarthyism, emerged in the United
States from nearly the very moment the cold war started. The witch-hunt would serve to
eradicate domestic opposition to the anti-Communist crusade overseas. The witch-hunters
wanted to root up and eradicate all sympathy to the USSR. President Harry Truman, a
Democrat and New Dealer, started the anticommunist crusade. He introduced the first
witch-hunt legislation, a bill that prevented federal employees from belonging to
"subversive" organizations. When Republican Dwight Eisenhower took office, he simply kept
the witch-hunt going. The McCarthy movement per se emerges out of a reactionary climate
created by successive White House administrations, Democrat and Republican alike.
I will argue that a similar dynamic has existed in US politics over the past twenty
years. Instead of having a "cold war" against the socialist countries, we have had a
"cold war" on the working-class and its allies. James Carter, a Democrat, set into motion
the attack on working people and minorities, while successive Republican and Democratic
administrations have continued to stoke the fire. Reaganism is Carterism raised to a
higher level. All Buchanan represents is the emergence of a particularly reactionary
tendency within this overall tendency toward the right.
Attacks on the working-class and minorities have nothing to do with "bad faith" on the
part of people like William Clinton. We are dealing with a global restructuring of
capital that will be as deep-going in its impact on class relations internationally as
the cold war was in its time. The cold war facilitated the removal of the Soviet Union as
a rival. Analogously, the class war on working people in the advanced capitalist
countries that began in the Carter years facilitates capital's next new expansion.
Capitalism is a dynamic system. This dynamism includes not only war and "downsizing", it
also includes fabulous growth in places like the East Coast of China. To not see this is
to not understand capitalism.
"The United States, the most powerful capitalist country in history, is a component
part of the world capitalist system and is subject to the same general laws. It suffers
from the same incurable diseases and is destined to share the same fate. The overwhelming
preponderance of American imperialism does not exempt it from the decay of world
capitalism, but, on the contrary, acts to involve it even more deeply, inextricably and
hopelessly. US capitalism can no more escape from the revolutionary consequences of world
capitalist decay than the older European capitalist powers. The blind alley in which
world capitalism has arrived, and the US with it, excludes a new organic era of
capitalist stabilization. The dominant world position of American imperialism now
accentuates and aggravates the death agony of capitalism as a whole."
This appears in an article in the April 5, 1954 Militant titled "First Principles in
the Struggle Against Fascism". It is of course based on a totally inaccurate
misunderstanding of the state of global capital. Capitalism was not in a "blind alley" in
1954. The truth is that from approximately 1946 on capitalism went through the most
sustained expansion in its entire history. To have spoken about the "death agony" of
capitalism in 1954 was utter nonsense. This "catastrophism" could only serve to misorient
the left since it did not put McCarthyism in proper context.
One of the great contributions made by Nicos Poulantzas in his "Fascism and the Third
International" was his diagnosis of the problem of "catastrophism". According to
Poulantzas, the belief that capitalism has reached a "blind alley" first appeared in the
Comintern of the early 1920's. He blames this on a dogmatic approach to Lenin's
"Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism" that existed in a communist movement that
was all too eager to deify the dead revolutionist.
Lenin's theory of imperialism owed much to Hilferding and Bukharin who believed that
capitalism was moribund and incapable of generating new technical and industrial growth.
Moreover, this capitalist system was in a perpetual crisis and wars were inevitable. The
Comintern latched onto this interpretation and adapted it to the phenomenon of fascism.
Fascism, in addition to war, was also a permanent feature of the decaying capitalist
system. A system that had reached such an impasse was a system that was in a permanent
catastrophic mode. The Comintern said that it was five minutes to midnight.
The SWP's version of catastrophism did not allow it to see McCarthy's true mission.
This mission was not to destroy the unions and turn the United States into a totalitarian
state. It was rather a mission to eliminate radical dissent against the stepped-up attack
on the USSR, its allies and revolutionary movements in the third world. The witch- hunt
targeted radicals in the unions, the schools, the State Department, the media and
elsewhere. After the witch-hunt had eradicated all traces of radical opinion, the US
military could fight its imperialist wars without interference from the left. This is
exactly what took place during the Korean War. There were no visible signs of dissent
except in the socialist press and in some liberal publications like I.F. Stone's
Newsletter. This clamp-down on dissent lasted until the Vietnam war when a newly
developing radicalization turned the witch-hunt back for good.
In the view of the SWP, nothing basically had changed since the 1930's. The target of
McCarthyite "fascism" was the working-class and its unions. The Militant stated on
January 18, 1954:
"If the workers' organizations don't have the answer, the fascists will utilize the
rising discontent of the middle class, its disgust with the blundering labor leadership,
and its frenzy at being ruined economically, to build a mass fascist movement with armed
detachments and hurl them at the unions. While spouting a lot of radical-sounding
demagogy they will deflect the anti-capitalist wrath of the middle class and deploy it
against labor, and establish the iron- heel dictatorship of Big Capital on the smoking
ruins of union halls."
One wonders if the party leadership in 1954 actually knew any middle- class people,
since party life consisted of a "faux proletarian" subculture with tenuous ties to
American society. Certainly they could have found out about the middle-class on the newly
emerging TV situation comedies like "Father Knows Best" or "Leave it to Beaver". Rather
than expressing "rising discontent" or "frenzy", the middle- class was taking advantage
of dramatic increases in personal wealth. Rather than plotting attacks on union halls
like the Silver Shirts did in 1938, they were moving to suburbia, buying televisions and
station wagons, and taking vacations in Miami Beach or Europe. This was not only
objectively possible for the average middle-class family, it was also becoming possible
for the worker in basic industry. For the very same reason the working-class was not
gravitating toward socialism, the middle-class was not gravitating toward fascism. This
reason, of course, is that prosperity had become general.
The other day Ryan Daum posted news of the death of Pablo, a leader of the Trotskyist
movement in the 1950s. European Trotskyism is generally much less dogmatic than its
American and English cousins. While the party leadership in the United States hated Pablo
with a passion, rank and filers often found themselves being persuaded by some ideas put
forward by the Europeans.
One of these differences revolved around how to assess McCarthy. The party leadership
viewed McCarthy as a fascist while a minority grouping led by Dennis Vern and Samuel Ryan
based in Los Angeles challenged this view. Unfortunately I was not able to locate
articles in which the minority defends its view. What I will try to do is reconstruct
this view through remarks directed against them by Joseph Hansen, a party leader. This is
a risky method, but the only one available to me.
Vern and Ryan criticize the Militant's narrow focus on the McCarthyite threat. They
say, "The net effect of this campaign is not to hurt McCarthy, or the bourgeois state,
but to excuse the bourgeois state for the indisputable evidences of its bourgeois
character, and thus hinder the proletariat in its understanding that the bourgeois-
democratic state is an 'executive committee' of the capitalist class, and that only a
workers state can offer an appropriate objective for the class struggle."
I tend to discount statements like "only a workers state" since they function more as
a mantra than anything else ("only socialism can end racism"; "only socialism can end
sexism"-- you get the picture.) However, there is something interesting being said here.
By singling out McCarthy, didn't the SWP "personalize" the problems the left was facing?
A Democratic president initiated the witch-hunt, not a fascist minded politician. Both
capitalist parties created the reactionary movement out of which McCarthy emerges. By the
same token, doesn't the narrow focus on Buchanan today tend to lift some of the pressure
on William Clinton. After all, if our problem is Buchanan, then perhaps it makes sense to
throw all of our weight behind Clinton.
Vern and Ryan also offer the interesting observation that McCarthy has been less
anti-union than many bourgeois politicians to his left. The liberal politicians railed
against McCarthy's assault on civil liberties, but meanwhile endorsed all sorts of
measures that would have weakened the power of the American trade union movement.
This was an interesting perception that has some implications I will attempt to
elucidate. McCarthy did not target the labor movement as such because the post WWII
social contract between labor and big business was essentially class-collaborationist.
The union movement would keep its mouth shut about foreign interventions in exchange for
higher wages, job security, etc. Social peace at home accompanied and eased the way of US
capitalist expansionism overseas. The only obstacle to this social contract was the
ideological left, those members of the union movement, the media, etc. They were all
possible supporters of the Vietminh and other liberation movements. McCarthy wanted to
purge the union movement of these elements, but not destroy the union movement itself.
Turning our clock forward to 1996, does anybody think that Buchanan intends to break the
power of the US working-class? Does big business need Buchanan when the Arkansas
labor-hater is doing such a great job?
The SWP has had a tremendous attraction toward "catastrophism". Turning the clock
forward from 1954 to 1988, we discover resident genius Jack Barnes telling a gathering of
the faithful that capitalism finally is in the eleventh hour. In a speech on "What the
1987 Stock Market Crash Foretold", he says:
"Neither past sources of rapid capital accumulation nor other options can enable the
imperialist ruling classes to restore the long-term accelerating accumulation of world
capitalism and avert an international depression and general social crisis....
"The period in the history of capitalist development that we are living through today
is heading toward intensified class battles on a national and international scale,
including wars and revolutionary situations. In order to squeeze out more wealth from the
labor of exploited producers....
"Before the exploiters can unleash a victorious reign of reaction [i.e., fascism],
however, the workers will have the first chance. The mightiest class battles of human
history will provide the workers and exploited farmers in the United States and many
other countries the opportunity to place revolutionary situations on the order of the
day."
Someone should have thrown a glass of cold water in the face of this guru before he
made this speech. He predicted depression, but the financial markets ignored him. The
stock market recovered from the 1987 crash and has now shot up to over 5000 points. His
statement that nothing could have averted an international depression shows that he much
better qualified at plotting purges than plotting out the development of capital
accumulation.
His statement that the "period in the history of capitalist development that we are
living through" is heading toward wars and revolution takes the word "period" and strips
it of all meaning. Nine years have passed and there is neither depression nor general
social crisis. Is a decade sufficient to define a period? I think all of us can benefit
from Jack Barnes' catastrophism if we simply redefine what a period is. Let us define it
as a hundred years, then predictions of our Nostradamus might begin to make sense.
Unfortunately, the art of politics consists of knowing what to do next and predictions of
such a sweeping nature are worthless.
Sally Ryan posted an article from the Militant newspaper the other day. It states that
Buchanan is a fascist:
"Buchanan is not primarily out to win votes, nor was he four years ago. He has set out
to build a cadre of those committed to his program and willing to act in the streets to
carry it out. He dubs his supporters the 'Buchanan Brigades'....
"Commenting on the tone of a recent speech Buchanan gave to the New Hampshire
legislature, Republican state representative Julie Brown, said, 'It's just mean - like a
little Mussolini.'....
"While he is not about to get the Republican nomination, Buchanan is serious in his
campaign. The week before his Louisiana win, he came in first in a straw poll of Alaska
Republicans and placed third in polls in New Hampshire, where the first primary election
will be held. He is building a base regardless of how the vote totals continue to fall.
And he poses the only real alternative that can be put forward within the capitalist
system to the like-sounding Clinton and Dole - a fascist alternative."
These quotations tend to speak for a rather wide-spread analysis of Buchanan that a
majority of the left supports, including my comrades on this list.
I want to offer a counter-analysis:
1) We are in a period of quiescence, not class confrontation.
Comrades, this is the good news and the bad news. It is good news because there is no
threat of a fascist movement coming to power. It is bad news because it reflects how
depoliticized the US working-class remains.
There is no fascist movement in the United States of any size or significance. It is
time to stop talking about the militias of Montana. Let us speak instead of New York, Los
Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, etc. Has there been any growth of fascism? Of course
not. In New York, my home town, there is no equivalent of the German- American bund, the
fascists of the 1930s who had a base on New York's upper east side, my neighborhood.
There are no attacks on socialist or trade union meetings. There are not even attacks
on movements of allies of the working-class. The women's movement, the black movement,
the Central American movement organize peacefully and without interference for the simple
reason that there are no violent gangs to subdue them.
The reason there are no violent gangs of fascists is the same as it was in the 1950s.
We are not in a period of general social crisis. There are no frenzied elements of the
petty-bourgeoisie or the lumpen proletariat being drawn into motion by demagogic and
charismatic leaders like Mussolini or Hitler. There are no Silver Shirts that the labor
or socialist movement needs protection from.
There is another key difference from the 1930s that we must consider. Capital and
labor battled over the rights of labor within the prevailing factory system. Capitalism
has transformed that factory system. Workers who remain in basic industry are not
fighting for union representation. They simply want to keep their jobs. Those who remain
employed will not tend to enter into confrontations with capital as long as wages and
benefits retain a modicum of acceptability. That is the main reason industrial workers
tend to be quiescent and will remain so for some time to come.
In the 1930s, workers occupied huge factories and battled the bosses over the right to
a union. The bosses wanted to keep these factories open and strikes tended to take on a
militant character in these showdowns. Strike actions tended to draw the working-class
together and make it easier for socialists to get a hearing. This was because strikes
were much more like mass actions and gave workers a sense of their power. The logical
next step, according to the socialists, was trade union activity on a political level
and, ultimately, rule by the workers themselves.
The brunt of the attack today has been downsizing and runaway capital. This means that
working people have a fear of being unemployed more than anything else. This fear grips
the nation. When a worker loses a job today, he or she tends to look for personal
solutions: a move to another city, signing up for computer programming classes, etc.
Michael Moore's "Roger and Me" vividly illustrated this type of personal approach Every
unemployed auto worker in this film was trying to figure out a way to solve their
problems on their own.
In the face of the atomization of the US working class, it is no surprise that many
workers seem to vote for Buchanan. He offers them a variant on the personal solution. A
worker may say to himself or herself, "Ah, this Buchanan's a racist bigot, but he's the
only one who seems to care about what's happening to me. I'll take a gamble and give him
my vote." Voting is not politics. It is the opposite of politics. It is the capitalist
system's mechanism for preventing political action.
2) Buchanan is a bourgeois politician.
Pat Buchanan represents the thinking of an element of the US ruling class, and views
the problems of the United States from within that perspective. Buchanan's nationalism
relates very closely to the nationalism of Ross Perot, another ruling class
politician.
A consensus exists among the ruling class that US capital must take a global route.
The capitalist state must eliminate trade barriers and capital must flow to where there
is greatest possibility for profit. Buchanan articulates the resentments of a section of
the bourgeoisie that wants to resist this consensus. It would be an interesting project
to discover where Buchanan gets his money. This would be a more useful of one's time than
comparing his speeches to Father Coughlin or Benito Mussolini's.
There are no parties in the United States in the European sense. In Europe, where
there is a parliamentary system, people speak for clearly defined programs and are
responsible to clearly defined constituencies. In the United States, politics revolves
around "winner take all" campaigns. This tends to put a spotlight on presidential
elections and magnify the statements of candidates all out of proportion.
Today we have minute textual analysis of what Buchanan is saying. His words take on a
heightened, almost ultra-real quality. Since he is in a horse race, the press tends to
worry over each and every inflammatory statement he makes. This tends to give his
campaign a more threatening quality than is supported by the current state of class
relations in the United States.
3) The way to fight Buchanan is by developing a class alternative.
The left needs a candidate who is as effective as Buchanan in drawing class lines.
The left has not been able to present an alternative to Buchanan. It has been making
the same kinds of mistakes that hampered the German left in the 1920s: ultraleft
sectarianism and opportunism. Our "Marxist-Leninist" groups, all 119 of them, offer
themselves individually as the answer to Pat Buchanan. Meanwhile, social democrats and
left-liberals at the Nation magazine and elsewhere are preparing all the reasons one can
think of to vote for the "lesser evil".
What the left needs to do is coalesce around a class-based, militant program. The left
has not yet written this program, despite many assurances to the contrary we can hear on
this list every day. It will have to be in the language of the American people, not in
Marxist- Leninist jargon. Some people know how speak effectively to working people. I
include Michael Moore the film-maker. I also include people like our own Doug Henwood,
and Alex Cockburn and his co-editor Ken Silverstein who put out a newsletter called
"Counterpunch".
Most of all, the model we need is like Eugene V. Debs and the Socialist Party of the
turn of the century, minus the right-wing. Study the speeches of Debs and you get an idea
of the kind of language we need to speak. Our mission today remains the same as it was in
turn of the century Russia: to build a socialist party where none exists.
Barack Obama's private assessment of Donald Trump: He's a fascist.
That is, at least, according to Tim Kaine, the Democratic senator from Virginia and a friend of the former president.
In a video clip from October 2016, Kaine is seen relaying Obama's comment to Hillary Clinton. The footage is part of the
new Hulu documentary
Hillary
, which was obtained by
The Atlantic
ahead of its premiere at the Sundance
Film Festival today.
"President Obama called me last night and said, 'Tim, this is no time to be a purist,'" Kaine tells his then–running
mate. "'You've got to keep a fascist out of the White House.'"
Clinton replies: "I echo that sentiment."
A representative for Obama declined to comment on the conversation. A representative for Kaine did not respond to
requests for comment.
In an interview at Sundance today with Jeffrey Goldberg,
The Atlantic
's editor in chief, Clinton elaborated
on her exchange with Kaine. "If you look at the definition [of
fascist
], which I've had the occasion to read
several times," Clinton said, "I think we can agree on several things: One, he has authoritarian tendencies and he
admires authoritarian leaders, [Vladimir] Putin being his favorite. He uses a form of really virulent nationalism. He
identifies targets: immigrants, blacks, browns, gays, women, whoever the target of the day or week is I think you see
a lot of the characteristics of what we think of [as] nationalistic, fascistic kinds of tendencies and behaviors."
Obama has been careful
in how he's publicly discussed his successor. Campaigning against Trump in 2016, Obama said several times that
"democracy is on the ballot," and he often portrayed the then–Republican nominee as an easily triggered hate-monger who
couldn't be trusted with the presidency. The night before the November election, at a closing rally in Philadelphia with
Clinton, Obama said that the presidency reveals people for who they really are, and that Americans should be worried
about what Trump had revealed about himself. Since then, Obama has largely stayed away from offering specific criticism
of Trump. But he campaigned in 2017 and 2018 to defeat the president's Republican allies, declaring, in a repeat of his
2016 message, that "our democracy's at stake."
Obama has never gone as far as using the word
fascist
in public, even though that's not an uncommon opinion,
especially on the left. Journalists and academics who have lived in and studied fascist regimes regularly point to the
traits Trump seems to share with those leaders, including demanding fealty, deliberately spreading misinformation, and
adopting Joseph Stalin's slur that the press is the "enemy of the people." And that's not to mention Trump's apparent
admiration for living authoritarians, such as Russia's Putin, Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and North Korea's Kim Jong
Un. "He speaks, and his people sit up at attention," Trump gushed about Kim in a 2018 interview on
Fox & Friends
.
"I want my people to do the same."
In the Sundance interview, Clinton said that Obama had never used the word
fascist
in conversations with her
about Trump. But, she said, what Obama "observed was this populism untethered to facts, evidence, or truth; this total
rejection of so much of the progress that America has made, in order to incite a cultural reaction that would play into
the fear and the anxiety and the insecurity of people -- predominantly in small-town and rural areas -- who felt like they
were losing something. And [Trump] gave them a voice for what they were losing and who was responsible."
In the documentary footage, Clinton also notes that she is "scared" and suspicious of what Trump is up to. "His
agenda is other people's agenda," she says. "We're scratching hard, trying to figure it out. He is the vehicle, the
vessel for all these other people."
"[Paul] Manafort, all these weird connections," Kaine replies, referring to Trump's former campaign chair, who is now
in prison after being convicted of financial crimes related to his international business dealings.
"[Michael] Flynn, who is a paid tool for Russian television," Clinton continues, referring to Trump's onetime
national security adviser and former campaign surrogate. "The way that Putin has taken over the political apparatus "
she starts to say. Then, a voice off camera interrupts her.
"... The US President Donald Trump assassinated the commander of the "Axis of the Resistance", the (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) IRGC – Quds Brigade Major General Qassem Soleimani at Baghdad airport with little consideration of the consequences of this targeted killing. It is not to be excluded that the US administration considered the assassination would reflect positively on its Middle Eastern policy. Or perhaps the US officials believed the killing of Sardar Soleimani would weaken the "Axis of the Resistance": once deprived of their leader, Iran's partners' capabilities in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen would be reduced. Is this assessment accurate? ..."
The US President Donald Trump assassinated the commander of the "Axis of the
Resistance", the (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) IRGC – Quds Brigade Major General
Qassem Soleimani at Baghdad airport with little consideration of the consequences of this
targeted killing. It is not to be excluded that the US administration considered the
assassination would reflect positively on its Middle Eastern policy. Or perhaps the US
officials believed the killing of Sardar Soleimani would weaken the "Axis of the Resistance":
once deprived of their leader, Iran's partners' capabilities in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq
and Yemen would be reduced. Is this assessment accurate?
A high-ranking source within this "Axis of the Resistance" said " Sardar Soleimani was the direct and fast track link
between the partners of Iran and the Leader of the Revolution Sayyed Ali Khamenei. However, the
command on the ground belonged to the national leaders in every single separate country. These
leaders have their leadership and practices, but common strategic objectives to fight against
the US hegemony, stand up to the oppressors and to resist illegitimate foreign intervention in
their affairs. These objectives have been in place for many years and will remain, with or
without Sardar Soleimani".
"In Lebanon, Hezbollah's Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah leads Lebanon and is
the one with a direct link to the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. He supports Gaza, Syria,
Iraq and Yemen and has a heavy involvement in these fronts. However, he leads a large number
of advisors and officers in charge of running all military, social and relationship affairs
domestically and regionally. Many Iranian IRGC officers are also present on many of these
fronts to support the needs of the "Axis of the Resistance" members in logistics, training
and finance," said the source.
In Syria, IRGC officers coordinate with Russia, the Syrian Army, the Syrian political
leadership and all Iran's allies fighting for the liberation of the country and for the defeat
of the jihadists who flocked to Syria from all continents via Turkey, Iraq and Jordan. These
officers have worked side by side with Iraqi, Lebanese, Syrian and other nationals who are part
of the "Axis of the Resistance". They have offered the Syrian government the needed support to
defeat the "Islamic State" (ISIS/IS/ISIL) and al-Qaeda and other jihadists or those of similar
ideologies in most of the country – with the exception of north-east Syria, which is
under US occupation forces. These IRGC officers have their objectives and the means to achieve
a target already agreed and in place for years. The absence of Sardar Soleimani will hardly
affect these forces and their plans.
In Iraq, over 100 Iranian IRGC officers have been operating in the country at the official
request of the Iraqi government, to defeat ISIS. They served jointly with the Iraqi forces and
were involved in supplying the country with weapons, intelligence and training after the fall
of a third of Iraq into the hands of ISIS in mid-2014. It was striking and shocking to see the
Iraqi Army, armed and trained by US forces for over ten years, abandoning its positions and
fleeing the northern Iraqi cities. Iranian support with its robust ideology (with one of its
allies, motivating them to fight ISIS) was efficient in Syria; thus, it was necessary to
transmit this to the Iraqis so they could stand, fight, and defeat ISIS.
The Lebanese Hezbollah is present in Syria and Yemen, and also in Iraq. The Iraqi Prime
Minister Nuri al-Maliki asked Sayyed Nasrallah to provide his country with officers to stand
against ISIS. Dozens of Hezbollah officers operate in Iraq and will be ready to support the
Iraqis if the US forces refuse to leave the country. They will abide by and enforce the
decision of the Parliament that the US must leave by end January 2021. Hezbollah's long warfare
experience has resulted in painful experiences with the US forces in Lebanon and Iraq
throughout several decades and has not been forgotten.
Sayyed Nasrallah, in his latest speech, revealed the presence in mid-2014 of Hezbollah
officials in Kurdistan to support the Iraqi Kurds against ISIS. This was when the same Kurdish
Leader Masoud Barzani announced that it was due to Iran that the Kurds received weapons to
defend themselves when the US refused to help Iraq for many months after ISIS expanded its
control in northern Iraq.
The Hezbollah leaders did not disclose the continuous visits of Kurdish representatives to
Lebanon to meet Hezbollah officials. In fact, Iraqi Sunni and Shia officials, ministers and
political leaders regularly visit Lebanon to meet Hezbollah officials and its leader.
Hezbollah, like Iran, plays an essential role in easing the dialogue between Iraqis when these
find it difficult to overcome their differences together.
The reason why Sayyed Nasrallah revealed the presence of his officers in Kurdistan when
meeting Masoud Barzani is a clear message to the world that the "Axis of the Resistance"
doesn't depend on one single person. Indeed, Sayyed Nasrallah is showing the unity which reigns
among this front, with or without Sardar Soleimani. Barzani is part of Iraq, and Kurdistan
expressed its readiness to abide by the decision of the Iraqi Parliament to seek the US forces'
departure from the country because the Kurds are not detached from the central government but
part of it.
Prior to his assassination, Sardar Soleimani prepared the ground to be followed (if killed
on the battlefield, for example) and asked Iranian officials to nominate General Ismail Qaani
as his replacement. The Leader of the revolution Sayyed Ali Khamenei ordered Soleimani's wish
to be fulfilled and to keep the plans and objectives already in place as they were. Sayyed
Khamenei, according to the source, ordered an "increase in support for the Palestinians and, in
particular, to all allies where US forces are present."
Sardar Soleimani was looking for his death by his enemies and got what he wished for. He was
aware that the "Axis of the Resistance" is highly aware of its objectives. Those among the
"Axis of the Resistance" who have a robust internal front are well-established and on track.
The problem was mainly in Iraq. But it seems the actions of the US have managed to bring Iraqi
factions together- by assassinating the two commanders. Sardar Soleimani could have never
expected a rapid achievement of this kind. Anti-US Iraqis are preparing this coming Friday to
express their rejection of the US forces present in their country.
Sayyed Ali Khamenei , in his Friday prayers last week, the first for eight years, set up a
road map for the "Axis of the Resistance": push the US forces out of the Middle East and
support Palestine.
All Palestinian groups, including Hamas, were present at Sardar Soleimani's funeral in Iran
and met with General Qaani who promised, "not only to continue support but to increase it
according to Sayyed Khamenei's request," said the source. Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas Leader, said
from Tehran: "Soleimani is the martyr of Jerusalem".
Many Iraqi commanders were present at the meeting with General Qaani. Most of these have a
long record of hostility towards US forces in Iraq during the occupation period (2003-2011).
Their commander, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes, was assassinated with Sardar Soleimani and they are
seeking revenge. Those leaders have enough motivation to attack the US forces, who have
violated the Iraq-US training, cultural and armament agreement. At no time was the US
administration given a license to kill in Iraq by the government of Baghdad.
The Iraqi Parliament has spoken: and the assassination of Sardar Soleimani has indeed fallen
within the ultimate objectives of the "Axis of the Resistance". The Iraqi caretaker Prime
Minister has officially informed all members of the Coalition Forces in Iraq that "their
presence, including that of NATO, is now no longer required in Iraq". They have one year to
leave. But that absolutely does not exclude the Iraqi need to avenge their commanders.
Palestine constitutes the second objective, as quoted by Sayyed Khamenei. We cannot exclude
a considerable boost of support for the Palestinians, much more than the actually existing one.
Iran is determined to support the Sunni Palestinians in their objective to have a state of
their own in Palestine. The man – Soleimani – is gone and is replaceable like any
other man: but the level of commitment to goals has increased. It is hard to imagine the "Axis
of the Resistance" remaining idle without engaging themselves somehow in the US Presidential
campaign. So, the remainder of 2020 is expected to be hot.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
"... Wilkerson provided a harsh critique of US foreign policy over the last two decades. Wilkerson states: ..."
"... America exists today to make war. How else do we interpret 19 straight years of war and no end in sight? It's part of who we are. It's part of what the American Empire is. ..."
"... We are going to lie, cheat and steal, as [US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo] is doing right now, as [President Donald Trump] is doing right now, as [Secretary of Defense Mark Esper] is doing right now, as [Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)] is doing right now, as [Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR)] is doing right now, and a host of other members of my political party -- the Republicans -- are doing right now. We are going to cheat and steal to do whatever it is we have to do to continue this war complex. That's the truth of it, and that's the agony of it. ..."
"... That base voted for Donald Trump because he promised to end these endless wars, he promised to drain the swamp. Well, as I said, an alligator from that swamp jumped out and bit him. And, when he ordered the killing of Qassim Suleimani, he was a member of the national security state in good standing, and all that state knows how to do is make war. ..."
Lawrence Wilkerson, a College of William & Mary professor who was chief of staff for
Secretary of State Colin Powel in the George W. Bush administration, powerfully summed up the
vile nature of the US national security state in a recent interview with host Amy Goodman at
Democracy Now.
Asked by Goodman about the escalation of US conflict with Iran and how it compares with the
prior run-up to the Iraq War, Wilkerson provided a harsh critique of US foreign policy over the
last two decades. Wilkerson states:
Ever since 9/11, the beast of the national security state, the beast of endless wars, the
beast of the alligator that came out of the swamp, for example, and bit Donald Trump just a
few days ago, is alive and well.
America exists today to make war. How else do we interpret 19 straight years of war and no
end in sight? It's part of who we are. It's part of what the American Empire is.
We are going to lie, cheat and steal, as [US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo] is doing
right now, as [President Donald Trump] is doing right now, as [Secretary of Defense Mark
Esper] is doing right now, as [Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)] is doing right now, as [Senator
Tom Cotton (R-AR)] is doing right now, and a host of other members of my political party --
the Republicans -- are doing right now. We are going to cheat and steal to do whatever it is
we have to do to continue this war complex. That's the truth of it, and that's the agony of
it.
What we saw President Trump do was not in President Trump's character, really. Those boys
and girls who were getting on those planes at Fort Bragg to augment forces in Iraq, if you
looked at their faces, and, even more importantly, if you looked at the faces of the families
assembled along the line that they were traversing to get onto the airplanes, you saw a lot
of Donald Trump's base. That base voted for Donald Trump because he promised to end these
endless wars, he promised to drain the swamp. Well, as I said, an alligator from that swamp
jumped out and bit him. And, when he ordered the killing of Qassim Suleimani, he was a member
of the national security state in good standing, and all that state knows how to do is make
war.
Wilkerson, over the remainder of the two-part interview provides many more
insightful comments regarding US foreign policy, including recent developments concerning Iran.
Watch Wilkerson's interview here:
"... Amidst all the anti-Russia brouhaha that has enveloped our nation , we shouldn't forget that the U.S. national-security establishment -- specifically the Pentagon, CIA, and FBI -- was convinced that Martin Luther King Jr. was a communist agent who was spearheading a communist takeover of the United States. ..."
"... State-sponsored assassinations to protect national security were among the dark-side practices that began to be utilized after the federal government was converted into a national-security state . As early as 1953, the CIA was developing a formal assassination manual that trained its agents in the art of assassination and, equally important, in the art of concealing the CIA's role in state-sponsored assassinations. ..."
"... Why did they target Kennedy? For the same reason they targeted all those other people for assassination -- they concluded that Kennedy had become a grave threat to national security and, they believed, it was their job to eliminate threats to national security. ..."
"... After the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy achieved a breakthrough that enabled him to recognize that the Cold War was just one great big racket for the national-security establishment and its army of defenseť contractors and sub-contractors. ..."
"... That's when JFK announced an end to the Cold War and began reaching out to the Soviets and the Cubans in a spirit of peace, friendship, and mutual coexistence. Kennedy's Peace Speech at American University on June 10, 1963, where he announced his intent to end the Cold War and normalize relations with the communist world, sealed President Kennedy's fate. ..."
Amidst all the anti-Russia brouhaha that has enveloped our nation , we shouldn't forget that the U.S. national-security establishment
-- specifically the Pentagon, CIA, and FBI -- was convinced that Martin Luther King Jr. was a communist agent who was spearheading
a communist takeover of the United States.
This occurred during the Cold War, when Americans were made to believe that there was a gigantic international communist conspiracy
to take over the United States and the rest of the world. The conspiracy, they said, was centered in Moscow, Russia. Yes, that Russia!
That was, in fact, the justification for converting the federal government to a national-security state type of governmental structure
after the end of World War II. The argument was that a limited-government republic type of governmental structure, which was the
national's founding governmental system, was insufficient to prevent a communist takeover of the United States. To prevail over the
communists in what was being called a â€cold War, a€ť it would be necessary for the federal government, they said, to become a national-security
state so that it could wield the same type of sordid, dark-side, totalitarian-like practices that the communists themselves wielded
and exercised.
The conviction that the communists were coming to get us became so predominant, primarily through official propaganda and indoctrination,
especially in the national's public (i.e., government) schools, that the matter evolved into mass paranoia. Millions of Americans
became convinced that there were communists everywhere. Americans were exhorted to keep a careful watch on everyone else, including
their neighbors, and report any suspicious activity, much as Americans today are exhorted to do the same thing with respect to terrorists.
Some Americans would even look under their beds for communists. Others searched for communists in Congress and within the federal
bureaucracies, even the Army, and Hollywood as well. One rightwing group became convinced that even President Eisenhower was an agent
of the Soviet government.
In the midst of all this national paranoia, the FBI, the Pentagon, and the CIA became convinced that King was a communist agent.
When King began criticizing U.S. interventionism in Vietnam, that solidified their belief that he was a communist agent. After all,
they maintained, wouldn't any true-blue American patriot rally to his government in time of war, not criticize or condemn it? Only
a communist, they believed, would oppose his government when it was committed to killing communists in Vietnam.
Moreover, when King began advocating for civil rights, especially in the South, that constituted additional evidence, as far as
the FBI, CIA, and Pentagon were concerned, that he was, in fact, a communist agent, one whose mission was to foment civil strife
in America as a prelude to a communist takeover of America . How else to explain why a black man would be fighting for equal rights
for blacks in nation that purported to be free?
The website kingcenter.org points out:
After four weeks of testimony and over 70 witnesses in a civil trial in Memphis, Tennessee, twelve jurors reached a unanimous
verdict on December 8, 1999 after about an hour of deliberations that Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated as a result of a
conspiracy. Mrs. Coretta Scott King welcomed the verdict saying, there is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in
the assassination of my husband Martin Luther King Jr. The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented
during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal governments were deeply
involved in the assassination of my husband.”
And why not? Isn't it the duty of the U.S. national-security state to eradicate threats to national security? What bigger threat
to national security than a person who is supposedly serving as an agent for the communists and also as a spearhead for an international
communist conspiracy to take over the United States?
State-sponsored assassinations to protect national security were among the dark-side practices that began to be utilized after
the federal government was converted into a national-security state . As early as 1953, the CIA was developing a formal
assassination manual that trained its agents
in the art of assassination and, equally important, in the art of concealing the CIA's role in state-sponsored assassinations.
In 1954, the CIA targeted the democratically elected president of Guatemala for assassination because he was reaching out
to Russia in a spirt of peace, friendship, and mutual co-existence. In 1960-61, the CIA conspired to assassinate Patrice Lumumba,
the head of the Congo because he was perceived to be a threat to U.S. national security. In the early 1960s, the CIA , in partnership
with the Mafia, the worldâ's premier criminal organization, conspired to assassinate Fidel Castro, the leader of Cuba, a country
that never attacked or invaded the United States. In 1973, the U.S. national-security state orchestrated a coup in Chile, where its
counterparts in the Chilean national-security establishment conspired to assassinate the democratically elected president of the
country, Salvador Allende, by firing missiles at his position in the national palace.
The mountain of circumstantial evidence that has accumulated since November 1963 has established that foreign officials werenâ't
the only ones who got targeted as threats to national security. As James W. Douglas documents so well in his remarkable and profound
bookÂ
JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters , the U.S. national-security establishment also targeted President John
F. Kennedy for a state-sponsored assassination as well.
Why did they target Kennedy? For the same reason they targeted all those other people for assassination -- they concluded
that Kennedy had become a grave threat to national security and, they believed, it was their job to eliminate threats to national
security.
After the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy achieved a breakthrough that enabled him to recognize that the Cold War was just one
great big racket for the national-security establishment and its army of defenseť contractors and sub-contractors.
That's when JFK announced an end to the Cold War and began reaching out to the Soviets and the Cubans in a spirit of peace,
friendship, and mutual coexistence. Kennedy's
Peace Speech at American University on June 10, 1963, where he announced his intent to end the Cold War and normalize relations
with the communist world, sealed President Kennedy's fate.
But what many people often forget is that one day after his Peace Speech at American University, Kennedy delivered a
major televised address to the nation defending the civil rights movement, the movement that King was leading.
What better proof of a threat to national security than that â€" reaching out to the communist world in peace and friendship and
then, one day later, defending a movement that the U.S. national-security establishment was convinced was a spearhead for the communist
takeover of the United States?
The loss of both Kennedy and King constituted conclusive confirmation that the worst mistake in U.S. history was to abandon a
limited-government republic type of governmental system in favor of a totalitarian governmental structure known as a national-security
state. A free nation does not fight communism with communist tactics and an omnipotent government. A free nation fights communism
with freedom and limited government.
There is no doubt what both John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. would have thought about a type of totalitarian-like governmental
structure that has led our nation in the direction of state-sponsored assassinations, torture, invasions, occupations, wars of aggression,
coups, alliances with dictatorial regimes, sanctions, embargoes, regime-change operations, and massive death, suffering, and destruction,
not to mention the loss of liberty and privacy here at home.
At 10:01 UTC today the Associated Press tweeted that "hundreds" gather in central Baghdad to
demand that American troops leave the country.
Thirty eight minutes earlier CNN had already reported that "hundreds of thousands" are
protesting in Baghdad against the U.S. troop presence in Iraq.
When AP sent the misleading tweet the commander of the Iraqi Federal Police Forces Jaffar
al-Batat had already announced that the number of demonstrators exceeds one million.
That number may well be correct. Reports said that the column of protesters was already
eight kilometers long even while many were still arriving.
A new poll shows a plurality of Americans approve of President Trump's decision to order
the drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
Forty-one percent of Americans agreed with the decision, according to the Associated Press
and NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released Friday. Thirty percent disapproved
and the remaining 30 percent were indifferent.
On Jan. 3 the U.S. killed Soleimani at the Baghdad airport. The move raised tensions in
the Middle East and fears of a new war. Iran launched rocket attacks on two bases with U.S.
personnel in Iraq days later.
You are likely confusing the US with the UK. I tried to look up the tale of the "Basra
bombers" again, but it appears to be pretty well scrubbed from the web.. Here's some of what
I could scramble to find:
The article mentions Samsung dismal profit rates from last quarter (that I posted here a
few weeks ago) and China-USA trade war. Both excuses are false; instead, South Korea is just
the latest victim of the chronic falling profitability stage, a stage every fully developed
capitalist nation will go through.
The South Korea Times was more sincere, it mentioned the country is entereing a "slow
growth trap" (the bourgeois term to designate Marx's Tendency of the Profit Rate to
Fall).
Apple was barred from offering customers encrypted iCloud storage because US intelligence
agencies insisted on maintaining open access to users' files, their primary means of
evidence-gathering, sources claim.
The FBI quashed a planned feature that would have allowed Apple users to encrypt their
iCloud storage, claiming that it would cut the agency off from its best source of evidence
against iPhone-using suspects, according to sources who spoke to Reuters on Wednesday.
Apple reportedly went along with the agency , hoping to avoid being made an example
of in the media or used as the test case for a draconian new anti-encryption law, and the
program was put to bed two years ago – yet the crusading surveillance state has
returned in the wake of the Pensacola naval air base shooting to demand still greater
incursions on user privacy.
So, when the USA does it, it isn't "totalitarianism", but "national security".
In his recent extended article titled How to Fight Antisemitism, published by the
purportedly 'Left' Jewish Currents, Sanders takes up the same line you'd expect from an ADL
spokesman, ticking every Hasbara box from the Jewish right of 'self determination 'to the
primacy of Jewish suffering.
The ideology of the Empire is Exceptionalism and Zionism is a key pillar. Zionists
take pains to draw parallels between USA and Israel as divinely-inspired settler
states .
Both parties support the Empire's New World Order (NWO) and Bernie has no answer for
the toxic empire-building fantasies that plague those who rule in the West . He
blithely joins other Democrats in focusing on "bread and butter" issues of "ordinary
Americans" so as to distract from the truth that EMPIRE skews everything and
disadvantages all of us except the ideologues and their wealthy backers.
Bernie is part of the problem. His sheep-dogging for Hillary was not an aberration. The
establishment has doubled-down yet again on EMPIRE. And whatever the outcome, we lose.
Can "corporate democrats" be viewed as modern day neofascists ? The fact that they do support
remnants of Nazi coalition forces in eastern Europe is especially alarming.
When I launched Immigrants as a Weapon back in September, I argued that America had done
more to promote the far-right around the world than any other country on earth. I wasn't
exaggerating. America really is the biggest and most active player in the field -- the
biggest by far.
Even a cursory look at modern American history shows that promoting nationalism and
backing far-right emigre groups has been a major plank of American foreign policy going
back to the very end of World War II. This mixture of covert and overt programs and
initiatives was first deployed to fight the Soviet Union and left-wing political movements
but has over the years touched down all over the globe -- wherever America has some sort of
geopolitical interest, including modern capitalist states like Russia and China. One of
these nationalism weaponization initiatives -- which targeted the USSR for destabilization
in the 70s and 80s -- was how a Soviet kid like me ended up in San Francisco as a political
refugee.
This history is important. Without it, it's impossible to understand the mechanics of
our reactionary foreign policy today -- whether in China or with our "strategic partner"
Ukraine, a country that's at the center of today's impeachment show.
There are all sorts of possible entry points into this story. I guess I could go all the
way back to America's support for the White Russians against the Bolsheviks in the Russian
Civil War. But for now I'd like to start at the very end of World War II -- when this
approach was just beginning to crystalize as a distinct strategy inside America's foreign
policy apparatus.
... ... ...
As Ira was made to understand, to fight the commies the Allies needed a strong,
economically stable Germany. That's why denazification efforts had been scrapped and Allied
military command was busy putting former Nazis back in charge of industry to "reconstitute
the German economy as quickly as possible." This new war footing against the Soviet Union
was also why military officials didn't want to seize German property for Jewish survivors.
They thought giving Jews anything at the expense of German citizens strained relations and
caused bad blood between them and a vital new ally.
And anyway, it wasn't like military command had much sympathy for the Jews.
General George Patton, who for a short time ran occupied Bavaria after the war, was
infamous for his contempt for Jewish survivors. In his diary, he described Jews as "lower
than animals" who would multiply like "locusts" if not kept under strict armed guard in
their camps. "I have never looked at a group of people who seem to be more lacking in
intelligence and spirit," he wrote. Patton refused to authorize the confiscation of German
property to house Jewish survivors because, he explained, it was "against my Anglo-Saxon
conscience to remove a person from a house." And when an underling had no choice but to
move a few wealthy German families to make room for Jewish survivors, Patton confessed to
his diary that he felt guilty -- like he was committing a crime.
He had been fired shortly before Ira came to Europe, but many in the US Army agreed with
his views about the Jews and continued to follow his lead. The debased and broken
conditions of Jewish survivors only confirmed people's worst antisemitic stereotypes. The
Jews were a filthy and disgusting race unfit for cohabitation with the civilized. Why give
them anything? Maybe the Germans were right in trying to wipe them out. And the Brits?
Well, if anything, even more antisemitic.
It didn't take long for Ira, an American Jew, to realize that most of the top Allied
military command was set against Jewish survivors. To them, these Jews were a liability and
a nuisance.
And the non-Jewish displaced groups? Well, they were a different story.
Among them were thousands of hardcore anticommunists. They were hardened fighters
with plenty of killing experience. They had lost their fascist wars. Their dream of
building ethnically pure utopias on their home turf had collapsed. The communists had won.
Now they had nothing left to lose and had an endless appetite for revenge. And, as it
turned out, they also had the same goal as the Allies: to destroy the Soviet Union.
No one told Ira that this was happening, but they didn't have to.
As he toured the camps it became obvious to him that the Allies were maneuvering to,
as he called it, "consolidate the forces of reaction." On the sly, they were whipping these
fascists and Nazi collaborators into the nucleus of what they hoped would to be a new
fighting force against the Soviet Union.
He saw this as the ultimate betrayal.
Ira was a bit naive about the nature of American liberalism. But on the question of
weaponized fascism, he turned out to be right. Even as he toured the camps in 1946, Britain
and America had already started working with Eastern European fascist groups for
intelligence gathering and covert commando raids on Soviet territory -- including in Latvia
and Ukraine. And by the time his book appeared in stores three years later, the
weaponization of European fascist movements had become official American policy, secretly
crafted by the most celebrated foreign policy brain of that generation: George
Kennan.
To occupatio: We know that the US/ZATO is in the weaponized pathogen development
business. The US has set up "plausible deniablility" black bio-weapons production sites in
former Eastern Bloc countries, and the UK still runs Porton Downs, not far from the Skripal
"poisoning" location.
They have been doing this for a long, long time at Porton Down. Not living in the UK, I first
became aware of it in 1979 via a song called "Porton Down" by Peter Hammill.
An excerpt from the lyrics gives it away
Won't hear a sound at Porton Down
The clear liquids keep their silence
Buried underground at Porton Down
The fast form of the final violence
Hurry on round about Porton Down
A quick glimpse of the future warfare
Hidden underground at Porton Down
Far too frightening to say what you saw there
>In the article you link to, Levine seems to use the Ira Hirschmann book,
> The Embers Still Burn, to reinforce the notion of the preeminence of Jewish
suffering.
But of course: Hirschmann was very much a Zionist. But that need not compromise the
validity of his observations regarding the US/UK's nurturing of Central and Eastern European
fascisms.
This is a relevant quote from a commentary in NYT, March 26, 2018 by Kadri Liik (@KadriLiik)
is a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations and the former
director of the International Center for Defense Studies in Estonia.
"The world does not yet know the full details of the Skripal poisoning, but it does not
feel like waiting, as the expulsions make clear. Too often in the past, Moscow has denied its
involvement in cases that later end up being traced to the Kremlin or its proxies. The result
is that its denials lack credibility. Now, the successful use of "plausible deniability" in
all the previous cases collides with the Kremlin's current interests and contributes to the
verdict: guilty until proven innocent."
Punishment before the proof, if you reverse the order you [do what Putin wants|make Putin
happy], the outcome so ghastly that we cannot risk it. The truth has to be declared, and
then, optionally, proven. Another option is to just repeat that, say, Qassim Suleimani was a
terrorist. And punish.
Bombing of Barzeh as a punishment for un-investigated crime follows the template, duly
approved by the sophisticated Europeans from a myriad of outfits like International Center
for Defense Studies in Estonia. I would move all of them to Tiksi (check accuweather), a
quiet and somewhat depopulated city on the shore of beautiful Arctic ocean, with an airport,
a few thousand of empty apartments should accommodate them (if not, there are also former
mining towns in the interior, although the may be colder). Cold Warriors should embrace the
cold.
"... Many of those who sneaked out to Argentina and concealed themselves would have done better to have waited for Canada and the States to invite them to come and 'do their thing' in Cleveland, Chicago, Montreal and Edmonton, Alberta. ..."
"... Which leads me to the point I came here to make: the astonishing thing about the OPCW hearing is that Henderson was denied a visa. That really is shocking and a measure of how brutal, intellectually and actually, the US government has become. ..."
"... Not to mention the imposition of semi colonial hegemony over Europe. ..."
somebody@94
Don't underestimate the transformation of residual 'blood and soil' themes in fascism into
foundations of the Green movements. They were not simply dissenters within the communist
tradition but rabid anti-communists. It was the intellectual traditions and the residual
popular support among generations schooled in fascism-often literally schooled- which were
preserved and amplified by the wave of anti-communism which came in from America. Like the
legendary 'cavalry' rescuing the embattled settlers the US swooped into Europe, when all
seemed lost, and turned the remnants of fascism into heroes.
Many of those who sneaked out to Argentina and concealed themselves would have done
better to have waited for Canada and the States to invite them to come and 'do their thing'
in Cleveland, Chicago, Montreal and Edmonton, Alberta.
Which leads me to the point I came here to make: the astonishing thing about the OPCW
hearing is that Henderson was denied a visa. That really is shocking and a measure of how
brutal, intellectually and actually, the US government has become. It has long been bad
but things have reached the stage now where it has become clear that the likes Of Al Capone
and the models for The Godfather movies, were babes in arms compared with the likes of Bolton
or Pompeo.
When we consider Trump and the key, almost impossibly apt, fact that Roy Cohn was his mentor
it is easy to forget that, in a sense, Roy Cohn was America's mentor. Cohn, who got the job
of McCarthy's counsel, in competition with Bobby Kennedy, turned the Wisconsin Senator from a
loose cannon into a guided missile against the residual American left and, a much easier
target, the Intelligentsia.
And Cohn and McCarthy and the forces that they represented- the primordial forces of
Capitalism- put the fear of poverty into them. It is impossible to understand the USA today,
and its role in the world, without understanding that its intellectuals were intimidated into
exile, silence, compromise, retreat and impotence as the new Imperialism set about its
ruthless work. Look at the late forties, from Taft Hartley (and the crushing of the Unions)to
such forgotten but signatory interventions as that in Guyana against Cheddi Jagan (repeated
by JFK in 1960) Guatemala and Iran. Not to mention the imposition of semi colonial
hegemony over Europe.
All these things have lasted. And Cohn's role in producing them was crucial-it was the
bipartisanship of bigotry and brutality and Tammany gangsterism. (An old alliance that,
between Jim Crow and the Machines.)
Trump is one of Cohn's kids but much more representative of them is Hillary Clinton,
daughter of a John Bircher, a Goldwater girl, a 'feminist'-of the thoroughly sickening
variety- and imbued with a hatred of Russia.
The Soviet Union won the war, the United States won the peace... That didn't happen by
accident.
The Outlaw US Empire immediately initiated the Cold War as soon as V-E day happened by
collecting SS and Gestapo for redeployment into Eastern Europe to commit acts of terrorism, a
preplanned exercise. It later held the farcical trials at Nuremburg. Walter's provided lots
of nice insight into the aims of the Manhattan Project and real reason for murdering hundreds
of thousands of innocent Japanese. The Great Evil that's today's USA got its start during
WW2, but its philosophical underpinnings are as old as the Republic.
If History is going to be remembered correctly, then ALL of that History must be
revealed--true and raw, just as Putin and the Russians propose to do with their historical
memory project.
another benefit for the u.s., all those german scientists via operation paperclip. helped
keep the mic running after it would normally ramp down postwar.
pretzelattack , Jan 22 2020 18:01 utc |
115karlof1 , Jan 22 2020 19:02 utc |
116
bevin @103--
Yes, Standing Ovation!! So much of that's now swept under the rug. Henry Wallace was all
too correct about US Fascism in his 1944 essay. During WW2, Charles Beard wrote a book that
was initially serialized in Life magazine beginning on 17 Jan 1944, The Republic:
Conversations on Fundamentals , which was read by and sold more copies than any of his
works--ever--and was the last major book he produced. Yet, when you look at the short
bibliography at Wikipedia or the one provided by its link to the American History
Association, it is omitted--WHY? I used it as a teaching tool for both history and polisci
because of its brilliant construction--the way in which Beard composed it as a series of
conversations. This link provides a hint , or
you can join the
archive and "borrow" it as there's no open downloading of this book available--WHY? Lots
of his other works are feely available. It's not hard to find used first editions for under
$4, which attests to the number published. But it certainly seems like we're not supposed to
know of this work as its airbrushing from his AHA bibliography suggests.
Maybe what Beard wrote about was too contrary to The Plan. Aha!! Beard wrote that it was
his rebuttal to Henry Luce--the owner/publisher of Life and Time magazines--and
his idea of an American Century meaning American Empire a la Rome/Britain--Pax Americana. The
mystery gets deeper upon reading the introduction at the first link above. I wish I could
copy/paste, but I'm barred from doing that, so you'll need to read it yourself. One can
envision Bradbury's Firemen rushing out to eliminate just such a book with its heretical
ideas about how the US federal government's supposed to operate and for whom.
But back to bevin and his recounting of a critical historical chapter that's also being
airbrushed. Some of us barflies are akin to Bradbury's "Train People" from Fahrenheit
451 , but how confident are we that the stories we have to tell are being heard AND
remembered so they don't vanish with us?
This is more for Bubbles @71, but applies to all.
This is from 2017 upon the release of UN Holocaust files held back on request by the
Outlaw US Empire and its vassal Britain as reported in an excellent article by Finnian
Cunningham:
"In other words, the Cold War which the US and Britain embarked on after 1945 was but a
continuation of hostile policy towards Moscow that was already underway well before the
Second World War erupted in 1939 in the form of a build up of Nazi Germany. For various
reasons, it became expedient for the Western powers to liquidate the Nazi war machine, along
with the Soviet Union. But as can be seen, the Western assets residing in the Nazi machine
were recycled into American and British Cold War posture against the Soviet Union. It is a
truly damning legacy that American and British military intelligence agencies were
consolidated and financed by Nazi crimes.
"The recent release of UN Holocaust files – in spite of American and British
prevarication over many years – add more evidence to the historical analysis that these
Western powers were deeply complicit in the monumental crimes of the Nazi Third Reich. They
knew about these crimes because they had helped facilitate them. And the complicity stemmed
from Western hostility towards Russia as a perceived geopolitical rival.
" This is not a mere historical academic exercise . Western complicity with Nazi
Germany also finds a corollary in the present-day ongoing hostility from Washington, Britain
and their NATO allies towards Moscow. The relentless build up of NATO offensive forces around
Russia's borders, the endless Russophobia in Western propagandistic news media, the economic
blockade in the form of sanctions based on tenuous claims, are all deeply rooted in history.
[My Emphasis]
"The West's Cold War towards Moscow preceded the Second World War, continued after the defeat
of Nazi Germany and persists to this day regardless of the fact that the Soviet Union no
longer exists. Why? Because Russia is a perceived rival to Anglo-American capitalist
hegemony, as is China or any other emerging power that undermines that desired unipolar
hegemony.
"American-British collusion with Nazi Germany finds its modern-day manifestation in NATO
collusion with the neo-Nazi regime in Ukraine and jihadist terror groups dispatched in proxy
wars against Russian interests in Syria and elsewhere. The players may change over time, but
the root pathology is American-British capitalism and its hegemonic addiction.
"The never-ending Cold War will only end when Anglo-American capitalism is finally
defeated and replaced by a genuinely more democratic system."
The picture becomes clearer as we begin to realize that today's monsters--Pompeo, Pence,
Bolton, Abrams, Rove, and others--are the same as yesterday's monsters, although they've
moved from one side of the Atlantic to the other. What's currently happening ought to make
informed people think again about who the Arc of Resistance is actually defending and what
message Trump's murder of Soleimani is meant to convey--it's TINA once again: Neoliberal
Fascism. It should also be noted that the release occurred soon after Trump became POTUS,
giving a strong secondary motive for Russiagate and the Skripals shortly afterward.
Thanks for your reply. Are you aware of Operation Unthinkable , Operation
Sunrise from which the former sprang, and Allen Dulles's activities in Italy and Germany
during 1945?
AntiSpin @121--
Good to hear from you! I had a hard time digging up a copy of Life to read Luce's
screed on the American Century which I photocopied. Today, a quick search now finds it
online here (PDF), while here's a
dissection that sets up the conflicting outlooks of Beard and Luce that IMO's useful.
Indeed, Luce's views are quite the read given what the USA's become--do note the political
party that feared and predicted such an outcome. It's a great misfortune that a discussion of
the two doesn't even enter into graduate seminars about WW2; at least my undergrads got some
exposure and learned of the two essay's existence.
One of two things is wrong with America: Either the entire system is broken or is on the
verge of breaking, and we need someone to bring about radical, structural change, or -- we
don't need that at all! Which is it? Who can say? Certainly not me, and that is why I am
telling you now which candidate to vote for.
George Galloway was a member of the British Parliament for nearly 30 years. He presents TV
and radio shows (including on RT). He is a film-maker, writer and a renowned orator.
Whoever replaces outgoing BBC Director General Tony Hall, be sure that establishment
interests will be in safe hands. But multiple scandals the broadcaster has been involved in
damaged it quite possibly beyond repair.
... ... ...
Corbyn had to be destroyed at almost ANY cost. Their news and current affairs output (and
appointments) over the Corbyn era of 2015-2019 was as crude, and crudely effective, as any
screaming, screeching Rupert Murdoch tabloid. Perhaps they were worried the ghost of Sir
Alasdair Milne would return to haunt them in the form of his son Seumas Milne, Corbyn's
director of communications and strategy and right-hand man. The junior Milne – also
Winchester and Oxford – is a considerably harder nut to crack than anyone the BBC had
ever had to deal with before
"... "disinformation and the cost of fake news." ..."
"... "how post-truth culture has become an increasingly dangerous part of the global information environment," ..."
"... To say Stelter's involvement in the documentary attracted mockery online would be an understatement. "This is like Harvey Weinstein doing a documentary on sexual assault," lawyer and journalist Rogan O'Handley wrote. ..."
"... "HBO has hired Brian Stelter to do a documentary on Fake News. That's like hiring Bernie Madoff to teach accounting. Like hiring Michael Moore to host a fashion show. Not to mention [Stelter] is the dullest human ever on television," ..."
If you were making a documentary on fake news and wanted to get journalists involved behind
the scenes, there are a few people you may want to avoid. One of those is CNN host Brian
Stelter. The HBO network is rightly being mocked for putting Stelter – the host of a CNN
show ironically named 'Reliable Sources' – on the team for an upcoming documentary on
fake news.
According to Stelter himself, the documentary will investigate "disinformation and the
cost of fake news." The film, for which Stelter was executive producer, will dive into
"how post-truth culture has become an increasingly dangerous part of the global information
environment," according to WarnerMedia.
HBO just announced something I've been working on for a couple of years: A documentary
titled "AFTER TRUTH: DISINFORMATION AND THE COST OF FAKE NEWS." The film will premiere on TV
and online this March. Directed by @a_rossi !
To say Stelter's involvement in the documentary attracted mockery online would be an
understatement. "This is like Harvey Weinstein doing a documentary on sexual assault," lawyer
and journalist Rogan O'Handley wrote.
"HBO has hired Brian Stelter to do a documentary on Fake News. That's like hiring Bernie
Madoff to teach accounting. Like hiring Michael Moore to host a fashion show. Not to mention
[Stelter] is the dullest human ever on television," radio host Mark Simone added.
What a chilling statement attributed to Henry Kissinger that American soldiers are "
dumb , stupid animals to be used as pawns in the conduct of [ American ] policy." Martin
Luther King recognized that our soldiers were "pawns " and in his "searing" anti-war speech
on April4, 1968
he advised ministers and boys facing the draft to register for conscientious objector status
. This speech is said to have help seal his death warrant and exactly a year later he was
assassinated . See :
"When MLK turned on Vietnam , even 'liberal' allies turned on him " cnn.com
"The verdict was harsh .By one count 168 newspapers condemned his speech . King became
'persona non grata' in the Johnson Whitehouse."
The MIC/deep state does not take kindly to anti-war/peacemakers .
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted
influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for
the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.
Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new
in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is
felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize
the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave
implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure
of our society."
General Dwight D Eisenhower
Farewell address 1961
Congress just passed a near trillion dollar military budget at a time when the United States
faces no evident state threats at home or abroad. Ike was right.
Illustrating Ike's prescient warning, Brown University's respected Watson Institute just
released a major study which found that the so-called 'wars on terror' in Iraq, Afghanistan,
Syria and Pakistan have cost US taxpayers $6.4 trillion since they began in 2001.
The extensive study found that over 800,000 people have died as a result of these military
operations, a third of them civilians. An additional 21 million civilians have been displaced
by US military operations. According to the Pentagon, these US wars have so far cost each
American taxpayer $7,623 – and that's a very conservative estimate.
Most of this money has been quietly added to the US national debt of over $23 trillion. Wars
on credit hide the true cost and pain from the public.
As General Eisenhower warned, military spending has engulfed the nation.
A trillion annual military budget represents just about half the world's military
expenditures. The Pentagon, which I've visited numerous times, is bustling with activity as if
the nation was on a permanent war footing.
The combined US intelligence budget of some $80 billion is larger than Russia's total
military budget of $63 billion. US troops, warplanes and naval vessels are stationed around the
globe, including, most lately, across Africa. And yet every day the media trumpets new
'threats' to the US. Trump is sending more troops to the Mideast while claiming he wants to
reduce America's powerful military footprint there. Our military is always in search of new
missions. These operations generate promotions and pay raises, new equipment and a reason for
being.
Back in the day, the Republican Party of General Eisenhower was a centrist conservative's
party with a broad world view, dedicated to lower taxes and somewhat smaller government. It was
led by the Rockefellers and educated Easterners with a broad world view and respect for
tradition.
Today's Republican Party is a collection of rural interests from flyover country,
handmaidens of the military industrial complex and, most important, militant evangelical
Christians who see the world through the spectrum of the Old Testament. Israel's far right has
come to dominate American evangelists by selling them a bill of goods about the End of Days and
the Messiah's return. Many of these rubes see Trump as a quasi-religious figure.
Mix the religious cultists – about 25% of the US population – with the farm and
Israel lobbies and the mighty military industrial complex and no wonder the United States has
veered off into the deep waters of irrationality and crusading ardor. The US can still afford
such bizarre behavior thanks to its riches, magic green dollar, endless supply of credit and a
poorly educated, apathetic public too besotted by sports and TV sitcoms to understand what's
going on abroad.
All the war party needs is a steady supply of foreign villains (preferably Muslims) who can
be occasionally bombed back to the early Islamic age. Americans have largely forgotten George
W. Bush's lurid claims that Iraqi drones of death were poised to shower poisons on the sleeping
nation. Even the Soviets never ventured so deep into the sea of absurdity.
The military industrial complex does not care to endanger its gold-plated F-35 stealth
aircraft and $13 billion apiece aircraft carriers in a real war against real powers. Instead,
the war party likes little wars against weak opponents who can barely shoot back. State-run TV
networks thrill to such minor scraps with fancy headlines and martial music. Think of the
glorious little wars against Panama, Grenada, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya. Iran
looks next.
The more I listen to his words, the more I like Ike.
I think Paul is wrong. Neo-fascist movements are based on far right party. Trump does not
have its own party. He has a faction with the Republican Party, and this faction is not even a
majority.
Notable quotes:
"... an incoherent program of national revenge led by a strongman; a contempt for parliamentary government and procedures; an insistence that the existing, democratically elected government, whether Léon Blum's or Barack Obama's, is in league with evil outsiders and has been secretly trying to undermine the nation; a hysterical militarism designed to no particular end than the sheer spectacle of strength; an equally hysterical sense of beleaguerment and victimization; and a supposed suspicion of big capitalism entirely reconciled to the worship of wealth and "success." ..."
"... The idea that it can be bounded in by honest conservatives in a Cabinet or restrained by normal constitutional limits is, to put it mildly, unsupported by history ..."
"... Paul Street's latest book is They Rule: The 1% v. Democracy (Paradigm, 2014) ..."
When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.
– Maya Angelou
"It's amazing," fellow CounterPuncher Eric Draitser recently wrote me, "that people
ever thought a Trump administration would be something other than this."
"This" is the demented neofascistic Trump-Pence regime, which openly violates basic
constitutional norms and rules while conducting itself in barefacedly racist, sexist, and
eco-cidal ways.
The long record of this presidency's transgressions now includes the open dog-wagging
assassination – on brazenly false pretexts – of a foreign military commander atop a
state (Iran) with which the United States is not at war and without the permission of a
government (Iraq) on whose soil the monumental war crime took place.
... ... ...
Another person likely unsurprised by Trump's horrifying presidency is New
Yorker columnist Adam Gopnik. "Trump," Gopnik wrote in July of 2016, summarizing elementary
facts of Trump' life: "is unstable, a liar, narcissistic, contemptuous of the basic norms of
political life, and deeply embedded among the most paranoid and irrational of conspiracy
theorists. There may indeed be a pathos to his followers' dreams of some populist rescue for
their plights. But he did not come to political attention as a 'populist'; he came to politics as
a racist, a proponent of birtherism." As Gopnik had explained two months before, the correct
description of Trump needed to include the world "fascist" in one way or another:
"There is a simple formula for descriptions of Donald Trump: add together a qualification, a
hyphen, and the word "fascist." The sum may be crypto-fascist, neo-fascist, latent fascist,
proto-fascist, or American-variety fascist -- one of that kind, all the same. Future political
scientists will analyze (let us hope in amused retrospect, rather than in exile in New Zealand
or Alberta) the precise elements of Poujadisme, Peronism and Huck Finn's Pap that compound in
Trump's 'ideology.' But his personality and his program belong exclusively to the same dark
strain of modern politics: an incoherent program of national revenge led by a strongman; a
contempt for parliamentary government and procedures; an insistence that the existing,
democratically elected government, whether Léon Blum's or Barack Obama's, is in league
with evil outsiders and has been secretly trying to undermine the nation; a hysterical
militarism designed to no particular end than the sheer spectacle of strength; an equally
hysterical sense of beleaguerment and victimization; and a supposed suspicion of big capitalism
entirely reconciled to the worship of wealth and "success." It is always alike, and always
leads inexorably to the same place: failure, met not by self-correction but by an inflation of
the original program of grievances, and so then on to catastrophe. The idea that it can be
bounded in by honest conservatives in a Cabinet or restrained by normal constitutional limits
is, to put it mildly, unsupported by history (emphasis liberally added) ." [Adam
Gopnik, "Going There With Donald Trump," The New Yorker , May 11, 2016].
But the article was flimsy even by Russiagate standards, and so certain questions inevitably
arise. What was it really about? Who's behind it? Who's the real target?
Here's a quick answer. It was about boosting Joe Biden, and its real target was his chief
rival, Bernie Sanders. And poor, inept Bernie walked straight into the trap.
The article was flimsy because rather than saying straight out that Russian intelligence
hacked Burisma, the company notorious for hiring Biden's son, Hunter, for $50,000 a month job,
reporters Nicole Perlroth and Matthew Rosenberg had to rely on unnamed "security experts" to
say it for them. While suggesting that the hackers were looking for dirt, they didn't quite say
that as well. Instead, they admitted that "it is not yet clear what the hackers found, or
precisely what they were searching for."
So we have no idea what they were up to, if anything at all. But the Times then quoted
"experts" to the effect that "the timing and scale of the attacks suggest that the Russians
could be searching for potentially embarrassing material on the Bidens – the same kind of
information that Mr. Trump wanted from Ukraine when he pressed for an investigation of the
Bidens and Burisma, setting off a chain of events that led to his impeachment." Since Trump and
the Russians are seeking the same information, they must be in cahoots, which is what Democrats
have been saying from the moment Trump took office. Given the lack of evidence, this was
meaningless as well.
But then came the kicker: two full paragraphs in which a Biden campaign spokesman was
permitted to expound on the notion that the Russians hacked Burisma because Biden is the
candidate that they and Trump fear the most.
"Donald Trump tried to coerce Ukraine into lying about Joe Biden and a major bipartisan,
international anti-corruption victory because he recognized that he can't beat the vice
president," the spokesman, Andrew Bates, said. "Now we know that Vladimir Putin also sees Joe
Biden as a threat. Any American president who had not repeatedly encouraged foreign
interventions of this kind would immediately condemn this attack on the sovereignty of our
elections."
If Biden is the number-one threat, then Sanders is not, presumably because the Times sees
him as soft on Moscow. If so, it means that he could be in for the same neo-McCarthyism that
antiwar candidate Tulsi Gabbard encountered last October when Hillary Clinton blasted her as
"the favorite of the Russians." Gabbard had the good sense to
blast her right back.
"Thank you @Hillary Clinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and
personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally
come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a
concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know
– it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and
war machine ."
If only Sanders did the same. But instead he put out a statement filled with the usual
anti-Russian clichés:
"The 2020 election is likely to be the most consequential election in modern American
history, and I am alarmed by new reports that Russia recently hacked into the Ukrainian gas
company at the center of the impeachment trial, as well as Russia's plans to once again meddle
in our elections and in our democracy. After our intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that
Russia interfered in the 2016 election, including with thousands of paid ads on Facebook, the
New York Times now reports that Russia likely represents the biggest threat of election meddle
in 2020, including through disinformation campaigns, promoting hatred, hacking into voting
systems, and by exploiting the political divisions sewn [sic] by Donald Trump ."
And so on for another 250 words. Not only did the statement put him in bed with the
intelligence agencies, but it makes him party to the big lie that the Kremlin was responsible
for putting Trump over the top in 2016.
Let's get one thing straight. Yes, Russian intelligence may have hacked the Democratic
National Committee. But cybersecurity was so lax that others may have been rummaging about as
well. (CrowdStrike, the company called in to investigate the hack, says it found not one but
two cyber-intruders.) Notwithstanding the Mueller report, all the available evidence
indicates
that Russia did not then pass along thousands of DNC emails that Wikileaks published in July
2016. (Julian Assange's statement six months later that "our source
is not the Russian government and it is not a state party" remains uncontroverted.) Similarly,
there's no evidence that the Kremlin had anything to do with the $45,000 worth of Facebook ads
purchased by a St. Petersburg company known as the Internet Research Agency – Robert
Mueller's 2018 indictment of the IRA was completely silent
on the subject of a Kremlin connection – and no evidence that the ads, which were
politically all over the map, had a remotely significant impact on the 2016 election.
All the rest is a classic CIA disinformation campaign aimed at drumming up anti-Russian
hysteria and delegitimizing anyone who fails to go along. And now Bernie Sanders is trying to
cover his derrière by hopping on board.
It won't work. Sanders will find himself having to take one loyalty oath after another as
the anti-Russia campaign flares anew. But it will never be enough, and he'll only wind up
looking tired and weak. Voters will opt for the supposedly more formidable Biden, who will end
up as a bug splat on the windshield of Donald Trump's speeding election campaign. With
impeachment no longer an issue, he'll be free to behave as dictatorially as he wishes as he
settles into his second term.
After inveighing against billionaire's wars, he'll find himself ensnared by the same
billionaire war machine. The trouble with Sanders is that he thinks he can win by playing by
the rules. But he can't because the rules are stacked against him. He'd know that if his
outlook was more radical. His problem is not that he's too much of a socialist. Rather, it's
that he's not enough.
Its chosen candidates are: Elizabeth Warren, the Republican-turned-progressive who for years posed as a Native American to game
America's system of affirmative action - and Amy Klobuchar, the midwestern senator from the great state of Minneapolis with a reputation
for being an unhinged dragon-lady boss.
That the NYT selected the two remaining women among the top tier of contenders is hardly a surprise: This is, after all, the same
newspaper that kicked off #MeToo by dropping the first expose about Harvey Weinstein's history of abusing, harassing and assaulting
women just days before the New Yorker followed up with the first piece from Ronan Farrow.
...After all, if the editors went ahead with their true No. 1 choice, Klobuchar, a candidate who has very little chance of actually
capturing the nomination, they would look foolish.
Warren is a much better candidate than Biden is in my view.
Warren seems to get into trouble sometimes for all kinds of reasons like most people do, but the problems are usually trivial,
more silly than dangerous. There is tendency in her to stick to her guns even when she does not know what she is doing.
When i run into something unexpected or something that seems to be something i don't understand, i usually backtrack and look
at the problem from some distance to see what happened and why before trying to correct or fix the problem, rather than just doing
something.
Its not a perfect plan, but it seems to work most of the time.
NYT remains a joke. Their endorsement is straight up virtue-signalling.
Here's some reality: Warren's latest antics have cemented her image as dishonest and high-strung. Knoblocker has no charisma
and remains practically unknown.
I've personally sat down and talked with Klobuchar. Not a lot of depth of intelligence in her, that's for sure, easily manipulated
by lobbyists. Warren, at least, knows what the problem is, although she might have swallowed the proverbial Democratic party "kool
aid".
Warren is the deep state establishment pick. If you must vote Dem, pick someone that isn't, or one the establishment seems
to work against. Better yet, vote Trump, safe bet on gun rights, freedoms.
If you wonder what the post-Trump Republican Party will look like,
take a glimpse at Tom Cotton, one of the US senators from Arkansas (where I live). Cotton has
waged a
relentless campaign for war against Iran and has supported every horror produced by the US
foreign-policy establishment for the last 20 years. He makes other American hawks look like
pacifists. Cotton once said that his only criticism of the US prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
where people are held indefinitely without charge or trial, is that too many beds are empty.
Typical of take-no-prisoners warmongers, Cotton savages critics of the pro-war policy that
has characterized US foreign policy in the 21st century. No baseless charge is beneath him. He
recently attacked the Quincy Institute in the course of remarks about anti-Semitism. (You can
see what's coming.) According to Jewish Insider , Cotton
said that anti-Semitism "festers in Washington think tanks like the Quincy Institute, an
isolationist blame America first money pit for so-called 'scholars' who've written that
American foreign policy could be fixed if only it were rid of the malign influence of Jewish
money."
This is worse than a series of malicious lies – every word is false. In fact, it's an
attempt to incite hostility toward and even disruption of one of the bright spots on the mostly
desolate foreign-policy-analysis landscape.
The Quincy Institute for Responsible
Statecraft (QI) started last year with money from, among others, the Charles Koch
Foundation and George Soros's Open Society Foundations. Its officers and staff include
respected and sober foreign-policy analysts and journalists such as Andrew Bacevich, Trita
Parsi, Jim Lobe, and Eli Clifton. Also associated with the institute are the well-credentialed
foreign-policy authorities John
Mearsheimer, Paul Pillar, Gary Sick, Stephen Walt, and Lawrence Wilkerson. This is indeed a
distinguished team of foreign-policy "realists" who are heroically resisting America's
endless-war-as-first-resort policy.
Named for John Quincy Adams – who as secretary of state famously declared that
"America "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy" – QI "promotes ideas that
move U.S. foreign policy away from endless war and toward vigorous diplomacy in the pursuit of
international peace." The QI website goes on to state:
The US military exists to defend the people and territory of the United States, not to
act as a global police force. The United States should reject preventive wars and military
intervention to overthrow regimes that do not threaten the United States. Wars of these kinds
not only are counterproductive; they are wrong in principle.
It then goes on to indict the current foreign-policy establishment:
The foreign policy of the United States has become detached from any defensible
conception of US interests and from a decent respect for the rights and dignity of humankind.
Political leaders have increasingly deployed the military in a costly, counterproductive, and
indiscriminate manner, normalizing war and treating armed dominance as an end in
itself.
Moreover, much of the foreign policy community in Washington has succumbed to
intellectual lethargy and dysfunction. It suppresses or avoids serious debate and fails to hold
policymakers and commentators accountable for disastrous policies. It has forfeited the
confidence of the American public. The result is a foreign policy that undermines American
interests and tramples on American values while sacrificing the stores of influence that the
United States had earned.
This may not be pure libertarian foreign policy ("US interests" is too slippery a term for
my taste), but compared to what passes for foreign-policy thinking these days, it's pretty damn
good.
So why is Tom Cotton so upset? It should be obvious. QI opposes the easy-war policy of the
last 20 years. Of course Cotton is upset. Take away war, and he's got nothing in his toolbox.
He certainly doesn't want to see the public turn antiwar before he's had a shot at high office,
say, secretary of state, secretary of defense, CIA director, or even the presidency.
Cotton's charges against QI are wrong on every count.
QI is not isolationist as long as it supports trade with the world and diplomacy as the
preferred method of resolving conflicts.
It's not a blame-America-first outfit because the object of its critique is not America or
Americans, but the imperial war-loving elite of the American political establishment. Cotton is
part of that elite, but that does not entitle him to identify the mass of Americans with his
lethal policy preferences.
It's not a money pit. As you can see, QI boasts an eminent lineup thinkers and writers. So
the money is obviously well-spent on badly needed analysis. QI should have been set up long
ago. Cotton shows his pettiness by putting the word scholars in sarcasm quotes. He
should aspire to such scholarship as Bacevich, Parsi, et al. have produced.
But where Cotton really shows his agenda is his absurd claim that anti-Semitism "festers" in
QI (and other think tanks – which ones?).
Cotton here is performing that worn-out trick that, alas, still has some life in it:
conflating criticism of Israel and its American lobby with people who are Jewish (and who may
well oppose how the Israeli state mistreats the Palestinians). I'm sure he knows better: this
is demagogy and not ignorance.
On its face, the proposition that virtually anyone who criticizes Israel's conduct toward
the Palestinians and its Arab and Iranian neighbors probably hates Jews as Jews is patently
ridiculous. Any clear-thinking person dismisses that claim out of hand.
Undoubtedly Cotton has in mind primarily Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, authors of
The Israel Lobby and Foreign Policy , published in 2008. (It began as an essay
in The London Review of Books .) In that work, Walt and Mearsheimer reasonably attribute
the lion's share of influence on US policy in the Middle East to the Israel lobby, "a loose
coalition of individuals and organizations that actively works to move US foreign policy in a
pro-Israel direction." They add, "[I]t is certainly not a cabal or conspiracy that 'controls'
US foreign policy. It is simply a powerful interest group, made up of both Jews and gentiles,
whose acknowledged purpose is to press Israel's case within the United States and influence
American foreign policy in ways that its members believe will benefit the Jewish state."
This is hardly controversial stuff, although reasonable people can disagree over whether the
lobby was decisive in any given case.
But does anyone doubt that American champions of Israel work overtime and spend a lot of
money to advance what they see as Israel's interests? If so, see this and my book
Coming to Palestine . (Many non-Zionist Jews disagree with them about those
interests.) Organizations like AIPAC often boast about their influence. That they sincerely
believe Israel's interests coincide with America's interests is beside the point. (I won't
address that dubious contention here.) That influence, which supports massive annual military
aid to Israel, has helped to facilitate the oppression of the Palestinians, wars against
Lebanon, and attacks on Syria, Iraq, and Iran. It has also provoked hostility to America and
vengeful terrorism against Americans. (For example, the 9/11
attacks as acknowledged by the
government's commission .) Pro-Israel American political and military officials acknowledge
this.
Cotton need not wonder why the lobby has succeeded so often since he himself is using the
anti-Semitism canard to inhibit Israel's critics. No one wants to be condemned as anti-Semite
(or as any other kind of bigot), so we can easily imagine prominent people in the past
withholding criticism of Israel for fear of being thought anti-Jewish. (It's Israel and its
champions, not Israel's critics, who insist that Israel is the state of all Jews, no
matter where else they may be citizens.) Thankfully, despite the efforts of Cotton, Kenneth
Marcus, Bari Weiss , Bret Stephens, and others, the invidious conflation has lost much of
its force. More than ever, people understand that to oppose the entangling alliance with Israel
and to express solidarity with the long-suffering Palestinians do not constitute bigotry
against Jews.
Can Cotton produce any evidence that anyone at QI believes that pro-Israel Jewish Americans
should be barred from lobbying and making political donations or that such an obvious violation
of liberty would fix American foreign policy? Of course not. There is no evidence. Moreover,
I'm sure the QI realists understand that other interests also propel the pro-war US foreign
policy, including glory-seeking politicians and generals and the profit-craving
military-industrial complex.
Those who reflexively and slanderously tar Israel's critics as anti-Semites seem not to
realize that the worthy effort to eliminate real anti-Semitism is undermined by their efforts
to immunize Israel and its American champions from good-faith criticism.
Back in 2003, an alternative media site based in Belgium – Indy Media, published a
rather clever article titled "Why America Needs War" drafted by a renowned political scientist,
Jacques R. Pauwels. Due to the fact that this article has recently been republished by a
well-known and respected alternative media site Global Research, a lot of attention has been
drawn to the topic of Washington's never-ending wars. In the above-mentioned article it was
stated that wars are a terrible waste of lives and resources, and for that reason most people
are in principle opposed to wars. However, with the US being locked in a state of perpetual
conflict with other international players, it's only natural to wonder what is wrong with
American politicians? Are they all suffering from some mental disease?
The reason the events we're observing on the global stage are actually taking place is the
fact that the US has been relying on the thing that Dr. Pauwels describes as the "warfare
economy" that the US has been relying on for over a century now. This economy allows wealthy
individuals and corporations to profit from violence and bloodshed, which makes them prone to
advocating wars instead of peaceful conflict resolution. Yet, the article states that without
warm or cold wars, however, this system can no longer produce the expected result in the form
of the ever-higher profits the moneyed and powerful of America consider as their birthright.
It's clear that the US couldn't escape the cold grip of the Great Depression without entering
WWII, however, as it's been stated in the above-mentioned article:
During the Second World War, the wealthy owners and top managers of the big
corporations learned a very important lesson: during a war there is money to be made, lots of
money. In other words, the arduous task of maximizing profits -- the key activity within the
capitalist American economy -- can be absolved much more efficiently through war than through
peace; however, the benevolent cooperation of the state is required.
Yet, the people of the United States didn't notice this change as they were mesmerized by
the rapidly growing wages and booming corporations that needed an ever increasing number of new
employees. That's why there's been no real opposition to America's warmongering inside the US,
which means that Washington will be looking for new enemies even when it has none. This results
in the states like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela, that were willing at
one point or another to discuss their differences with the US, being antagonized and getting
designated as a threat to the US and its national security.
That's why the military expenditures in the US keep going through the roof, with research
and development programs for the US military getting unprecedented funding. However, what is
being presented as a race towards greater security represents a shameless siphoning of the
money paid by American taxpayer into the pockets of the major defence contractors. It would be
only logical if the US legal system, instead of investigating dubious reports of Russia's
alleged meddling in the US election, would take a closer look at the way blood money is shaping
the world of US politics.
Let us recall that the US military budget for 2020 has for the first time reached the
mind-numbing sum of 750 billion dollars! Over the past few decades, the United States has
invested some 30 billion dollars in various weapons programs, all of which have to one degree
or another failed,
according to The National Interest.
There's no shortage of media reports showing the complete failure of modern American
weapons, which, in spite of the massive sums wasted on their development, cannot protect either
the United States or its allies.
For instance, The National Interest has recently taken the effort to draw a comparison
between the Russian Su-35 jet-fighter and a total of four American competitors: F-15s, F-16s,
F-22s, and F-35s. The publication came to a disappointing conclusion that in spite of the
massive advertisement campaign that accompanied the development of F-35, it cannot stand its
ground against its Russian counterpart.
The ill-fated F-35 has recently been included in the list of the worst weapons ever produced
by the US Army due to its unbelievably high cost and reliability issues, says the Business
Insider. Therefore, it is not surprising that on top of Turkey's President Tayyip Erdogan
announcing his intention of buying Russian Su-35 and Su-57 fighters instead of siding with the
US, Germany has also made it clear that it has no intentions of acquiring this overpriced
winged catastrophe from the United States. To add insult to injury, the American portal We Are
The Mighty has recently
listed a total of three Russian fighters in the Top 5 list of the fastest jets in the
history of military aviation.
At sea, the situation is no better. In the event of a hypothetical military conflict between
the United States and Russia, even in the Black Sea, American aircraft carrier groups would get
obliterated rather quickly by Russian diesel submarines, land mobile missile systems and small
but dangerous missile boats. That's even before land-based aviation units armed with hypersonic
anti-ship missiles dubbed the Dagger would have something to say about it,
says The National Interest. Another publication
emphasizes that Russian missile corvettes, that go at a price of 30 million dollars a pop
have four times the missile range of the latest US destroyers and cruisers that come with a
price tag of 2 billion dollars.
But it was the American missile defense systems, especially the Patriot, that have recently
covered themselves with scandalous shame. A year ago, US President Donald Trump announced that
among the new priorities of the Pentagon the sale of US missile defense systems to its allies
ranked really high. To achieve this goal, Washington tried to force those states that chose a
far more effective solutions – Russia's S-300 and S-400 to rethink their decision. These
attempts resulted in Washington introducing sanctions against some of its closest allies, such
as Turkey, India and Morocco.
Meanwhile, The National Interest
admits that the new Russian S-500 is by far the most effective air defense system in
existence, while The Hill
acknowledges that Russia's hypersonic weapons have rendered such US missile defense systems
as Patriot and THAAD meaningless.
A year ago, the United States announced that a network of ground and surface missile
interceptors, radars and communications lines at a price tag of 180 billion dollars could
protect the country from a limited attack launched by the DPRK or Iran. However, shortly after
this statement was made, US-produced air defense systems failed to
repel a surprise drone attack on Saudi oil refineries, thus demonstrating their low
efficiency. At the same time, it will not be out of place to recall that a grand total of 88
Patriot launchers cover the northern border of Saudi Arabia, with three more US NAVY destroyers
armed with the Aegis system being stationed off shore in the same area. None of these systems
responded to the attack.
Yet again, during a retaliatory strike launched by Iran, American air defense systems were
powerless to shoot down a single missile launched against two US bases in Iraq.
That is why a number of Western military clients have recently taken steps to acquire
Russian alternatives. This was the result of serious flaws in US-produced air defense systems,
such as the Patriot, the repeated failures of which have recently become apparent in Israel,
Saudi Arabia and Iraq. The last of these clients was South Korea, which has long shown strong
interest in Russian military jets and air defense systems, but was unable to acquire them due
to the pressure being applied on it from Washington.
Those facts show that the military vehicles and aircraft advertised by Western media are
only good as scrap metal. Actually, this became clear to everyone, when Washington decided to
show its rusty armored vehicles on the parade assembled in celebration of last year's
Independence Day.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Vladimir Platov , an expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine
New Eastern Outlook ".
The United States has spent about $6 trillion on combat operations over the past 20 years,
according to Brown University
studies . If the warfare ends by 2023, researchers estimate the total cost will be $6.7
trillion at least, not counting the interest on debt.
In total, almost half a million people have died as a result of the wars.
The cost of 87 major programs for the purchase of weapons and military equipment conducted
by the US Department of Defense exceeded $2 trillion in 2018, according to the Pentagon's
Selected Acquisition Reports (SAR), which detail the implementation of major defense purchases.
The combined cost of all procurement programs was determined by the Pentagon to be over $2
trillion. This is equivalent to almost 10% of the annual gross domestic product of the United
States ($21.3 trillion).
Trying to justify such exorbitant spending on the army, the US military and political elites
actively promote their interests, advertising the national armed forces as the main fighting
force. Recently, Joseph F. Dunford, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, declared that
'there are no forces today capable of resisting an attack by the US Army.' Unsurprisingly, the
Department of Defense (DoD) desires even more money, although there is no logical explanation
as to why the most powerful army on the planet is in need of improvement when everyone else is
clearly lagging behind.
But what is the real face of the US Army today and how does the public feel about it?
Global Research
correctly remarked that, despite the largest military budget in the world (five times greater
than in six other countries), the highest number of military bases in the world (over 180) and
the most expensive military-industrial complex, the United States has failed to win a single
war in the 21 st century.
Every year, Pew Research Center publishes hundreds of studies on a wide range of topics.
Concerning the current problems of the US military, Pew studies note
that most American veterans and the majority of the general US public believe that the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan were not worth fighting. Over 60% of the American public is convinced that
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have not paid off, when the costs and benefits are weighed.
Responding to questions about the US military campaign in Syria, 55% of veterans and 58% of the
American public said that this campaign failed to pay off as well.
Frustration with the country's military policy has now become a big problem among active US
servicemen, veterans, and even among young soldiers who haven't participated in real
combat.
The incautious question 'How has serving impacted you?' posted by the Pentagon's official
Twitter account, has revealed the deep chasm of the US military's problems. So deep, in fact,
that the Pentagon had to urgently close and remove a huge number of subsequent replies, most of
which turned out to be very depressing in nature. US Army soldiers and officers shared the
shocking consequences of their service, including drug addiction, depression, post-traumatic
stress disorder, anxiety disorders and nightmares – some admitting they had repeatedly
wanted to commit suicide.
Currently there are up to 19 million retired veterans 'in the most belligerent democratic
country in the world.' Every day, about 20 of them commit suicide. The causes of suicide cited
by experts are diverse, the main ones being depressions, nervous breakdowns, spiritual and
psychological devastation coupled with guilt for killing innocent people, post-traumatic stress
disorder, increased military operations, medical abuse, and personal financial problems. Social
media are full of horrific stories about how injured soldiers weren't provided necessary
medical attention during military operations, which drove them to shooting themselves in the
head. Meanwhile junior army members state that they are basically expendable for their
commanders, and all of them combined present an endless means of earning money for the highest
elite.
Suicides are rampant among all the branches of US troops, and their rate is increasing. US
officials deliberately hide the horrific statistics of suicides among military personnel,
seriously concerned about the increase in their number since they negatively affect the future
of the 'most powerful armed forces in the world.' To date, suicide is the second leading cause
of death among members of the US military.
Another extremely troubling statistic was revealed by experts from the American publishing
house McClatchy. They studied the health of the US servicemen who had taken part in combat
operations in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 -- 2015. They have been literally mowed down by
cancer, which is confirmed by the sudden increase in the number of cancer patients in military
hospitals in Virginia. As it turned out, a significant cause of the disease is toxic rocket
fuel, which was used to massively burn garbage and waste near military bases. In addition, it
turned out that the fire foam used to extinguish these fires also causes cancer. It was quite
often that US soldiers had to dispose of garbage and waste in war zones, including human
corpses and animal carcasses. The Pentagon has not yet commented on the finding and is in no
hurry to grant applications for disability benefits; out of 11,000 applications only 2000 have
been 'lucky' so far.
The Heritage Foundation analysts published a report which shows that the US Army is at its
limits. One curious fact is significant: the conclusion about the decline of efficiency and
combat capability of the US Army came not from Russian or Chinese sources, but from American
analysts, which is further proof of the systemic problems in the Pentagon. The Heritage
Foundation analysts agree that right now, considering the current state of the US Army,
simultaneous participation in several wars is leading to its noticeable overexertion.
Taking this into account, Washington can only be advised to tread more carefully on the
international arena, avoid provoking armed conflicts that can lead to severe military defeats
for the US Army and result in sizable human losses, both among current servicemen and
veterans.
In the words of the Spanish newspaper El Pais , "The
Americans pose a much greater danger to themselves than the Islamists, North Koreans, Russians,
Houthis and all those who comprise the US-declared 'axis of evil' do."
Vladimir Platov, an expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine "
New Eastern Outlook ".
six
principles of political realism , found in his seminal work Politics Among Nations . The second, fourth and fifth
principles are of particular relevance to the current administration. Morgenthau's second
principle states that "the main signpost that helps political realism to find its way through
the landscape of international politics is the concept of interest defined as power."
Morgenthau believed that international politics is fundamentally a struggle for power
(understood in terms of the mutual relations of political control between nation-states), and
that peace is often tenuous in a world lacking a sovereign authority that can protect the
interests and survival of individual states (an insight that has been codified in the
neorealist conception of "international anarchy"). As a result, the "national interest" is
primarily concerned with the resources (especially military and economic capabilities) and
limitations (primarily the balance of power) that determine the national power of the state in
international politics.
The fourth principle states that "political realism is aware of the moral significance of
political action, but maintains that moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of
states in their abstract universal formulation." Morgenthau did not reject ethical
considerations in foreign policy (as is clear from his criticisms of the Vietnam War), but
believed that political prudence (i.e., the practical consideration of the consequences of
foreign policy) requires that moral principles be "filtered" through the "concrete
circumstances" of power politics. Moral ends should be pursued to the extent that they are
within the limits of national power and are consistent with national interests. The fifth
principle takes this one step further by stating that "political realism refuses to identify
the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe."
Morgenthau cautioned against the dangers of national "exceptionalism," which can lead to
"political folly," such as the fighting of wars that do nothing to advance or protect the
national interest, and can cause unnecessary human suffering through "moral excess." Thus,
"moderation in policies cannot fail to reflect the moderation of moral judgment."
President Trump criticized the Obama administration for getting outplayed and outsmarted by
Russian president Vladimir Putin, and yet he seems to be falling into the same trap as Obama by
thinking that he can do better vis-à-vis Russia through diplomatic rapprochement. The
problem is to see U.S. foreign-policy challenges with respect to Russia in terms of
misunderstandings between political leaders and administrations, rather than the fundamental
differences between United States and Russian national interests. Russia seeks to increase its
power and sphere of influence while the United States aims to maintain hegemony. If the current
administration seeks rapprochement by making concessions to Russia (e.g., by rolling back
sanctions), then foreign-policy analysts will soon be writing about another failed "reset." On
China, Trump broke with diplomatic precedent by accepting a phone call from Taiwanese president
Tsai Ing-wen, which called into question the United States' commitment to a "One China" policy.
The problem here is for foreign policy to extend beyond power, since the military balance
within the first island chain -- and specifically in a Taiwan war -- is rapidly shifting in
China's favor. While realism suggests that geopolitical rivalry between China and the United
States is inevitable, interest as power would suggest that picking a fight with China over
Taiwan is not a prudent course for U.S. foreign policy.
Two brothers are warning Japan not to succumb to this temptation, who were in one of the
Imperial Japanese Navy's kamikaze groups during the final stage of the war on Pacific, but the
war ended before they had the chance to fulfil their sacrificial military duty. Both elderly
veterans (97 and 99 years old) felt they needed to tell students
and teachers at Waseda University -- one of Japan's most prestigious institutions -- "what [to]
do to ensure that we don't repeat an event like the war."
They asked students to consider their speech and answers to questions as their "last
message" to the youth of today in Japan. They did not choose these words at random. Kamikaze
soldiers would write a "last message" to their closest relatives before flying or sailing out
on a mission which they would obviously not return from (these brothers were suicide vessel
pilots, so they did not fly).
The kamikaze tactic is a centuries-old, very specifically Japanese cultural and military
phenomenon. When other cultures try to copy the Japanese it turns into a parody or a
meaningless act of gang violence. One of these parodies was an attempt made by the German
Luftwaffe to do "something similar" to the Japanese kamikaze soldiers in the last days of the
Second World War.
Then there are today's Islamist terrorists (pumped up with drugs) who do not value their own
lives or anyone else's, and their acts have nothing in common with this concept.
Kamikaze volunteers were mainly undergraduates, which is reflected in the content and style
of their "last messages". The two brothers who gave their lecture at Waseda University were
both students when they voluntarily joined the Imperial Japanese Navy's kamikaze unit. This is
probably one reason why they chose to address students with the "last message" they have now
written.
Of course, we must take into account that the young sailors from 75 years ago and the
elderly people who speak today are ultimately different people. Japan has experienced a lot
since the war ended, as has the world in general, and the two brothers. All this experience has
undoubtedly affected how the former kamikaze soldiers think about what happened "then" and what
their "last message" should be, which they have now passed on. Apart from that, they will leave
this world in a very different way than the kamikaze soldiers did 75 years ago.
The first thing the audience at Waseda University were interested in hearing about were the
"last messages" written by kamikaze fighters, which make for extremely moving reading, even to
this day . They were
not dictated what to write, but the authors knew that their letters would be read by "the
relevant authorities." This is, by the way, what happens to messages sent by servicemen from
all different countries during times of war.
According to one of the brothers, not one of the kamikaze soldiers he knew really wanted to
die, and even then it was clear that the war was meaninglessness: "Do not follow my example,"
said the author in his message after 75 years had passed. "That's what I want to leave with the
young people today."
In this author's opinion, the main sentiment in the "last message" given by the two former
kamikaze fighters, namely that "war is hell", has a great measure of "the wisdom of hindsight."
That does not take away from this wisdom whatsoever, it is not something to be consigned to the
history books in today's Japan. It is very relevant considering the persistent attempts the
country's leadership has been making to "revise" Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution
outlawing war, which would go directly against the prevailing sentiment in Japanese
society.
Japan and its former Axis ally Germany have managed to climb to the top of the world's
political and economic hierarchy without firing a single shot and without any bloodshed.
Without harming any enemies or allies. In today's rapidly changing world, Japan and Germany
will only strengthen their positions on the world stage if they can resist temptation and do
not get trapped in the same vicious circle they got caught up in a century ago.
Moreover, it would be a perfect time for them to reignite and lead the (mistakenly
forgotten) "world peace movement". It could not be more relevant in the current critical stage
of the "Grand Global Game".
Something similar seems to have been implied in the "last message" passed on by the two
former kamikaze soldiers.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the
online magazine "New Eastern Outlook"
.
I do not believe that for a second.
US initiated wars have been going on for decades, but I see no indication that US americans
have any issues with it. The political parties are totally aligned on foreign wars, there are
no people protesting in US cities.
Posted by: Norwegian | Jan 17 2020 21:46 utc | 27
I do not believe it either!
Since a good many Usians are morally bankrupt; they spend words like cheap cash.
Why not? It keeps them from having to actually do anything.
It's all out there; the lies, theft, murders, kidnapping, torture, and a corrupt
educational system.
'It's all out there; the lies, theft, murders, kidnapping, torture, and a corrupt
educational system.
...and the band played on..."
The band plays on folks, because of that corrupt educational system. Every school kid in
america is brainwashed from nursery school, kindergarten, even before the formal waste of
time. Then if they decide on college, unless their parents are one percenters, or hollywood
insiders the kids are in hock to the tune of six figures when they grab that diploma. No one
has time to protest anymore. 'They' have 'em by the balls and they're in a vice bein'
squeezed daily. Most have to pull two, or even three jobs, just to get by. No one has the
time to realize all of america's boogeymen are cia assets.
Besides, one's protesting against one of the most powerful militaries in the world and the
police state is ever tightening here. Protesting is pretty much a fool's errand anymore, if
it's against the government in general it's not covered by the msm, so only the protesters
and their friends are aware of it.
Life if rough for many americans struggling to get by. They don't have time to protest,
however, if the dollar were to lose it's world currency and our financial systems collapses
there could be a revolt with all the guns here, but i wouldn't count on it looking anything
like america's first revolution.
Thank you, my thoughts exactly. The USians are propagandised from cradle to grave every
state has at least one Fort xyz and every stadium has military spectacles to ogle at. No
football game without a military parade.
It will take a Herculean effort to turn that propaganda around and thankfully there are
two candidates dedicated to that effort. More strength to their arm.
On the impeachment issue my take is like this:
Trump really cant afford to lose too many of them especially if the first motion to
dismiss the impeachment case is to succeed. He can only be removed from office if there is a
two thirds senate majority on the proposal to remove.
But a simple majority is what he has to hold to succeed at defeating all other forms of
censure motions and getting the witnesses he wants dragged before the Senate.
The numbers are:
Democrazies 45
Independent 2
Repugnants 53
So three repugnant defectors would give a tied vote (assuming the independents vote with
the democrazies).
Not a comfortable position and certainly not now after assassinating Souleimani,
Afghanistan war report looking ugly and who knows what else. The 'permanent state' gangsters
can do much damage to his brittle ego by getting four repugnants to defect.
So if Trump is damaged goods going into the election cycle he could well be defeated by
Bernie Sanders IF he can overcome the jackals in the democazie party machine. Hope is all I
have.
Life is rough for many americans struggling to get by. They don't have time to
protest, however, if the dollar were to lose it's world currency and our financial systems
collapses there could be a revolt with all the guns here, but i wouldn't count on it looking
anything like america's first revolution.
Posted by: aye, myself & me | Jan 18 2020 6:35 utc | 107
Yea, I know. I have a sister living in Oregon. She's still working @ 70yo.
Revolution almost never has a good ending; in the U.S., at this time; it would be the worst,
IMO.
Probably a sizeable chunk of the people. But not the ruling class.
"Most of this carnage by the United States is done in the name of dishonest and
non-existent defense of country, of "spreading democracy" or of forced regime change based
on the lie of protecting by force the people of other lands. The truth of all these
politically motivated lies is that the brutality of U.S. aggression is purposeful slaughter
for political and geo-political gain, all at the expense of innocent populations around the
globe."
"I want to win," he said. "We don't win any wars anymore . . . We spend $7
trillion, everybody else got the oil and we're not winning anymore."..."I wouldn't go to war
with you people,"..."You're a bunch of dopes and babies."
If this is true, it means that Trump does not consider those ME wars useless or
unwinnables, but only the people who manage them are not clever or resolute enough, which is
quite scary, because imply that instead of "dupes and babies" if he put in charge "winners"
and "real men" may be they can "go to Theran", or "win a land war in Asia" (Montgomery
recommend not to start any never).
This language about "winners" and "losers" is so....American, it means that you do not
"win" or "lose" as a matter of life, NO, but you are inherently a "winner" (always win)or a
f**king "loser", it is the predestinationist (calvinistic) roots of the American culture and
you can see it clearly in almost all the Hollywood movies with the "good gay" ("winner")
overcoming an incredible number of obstacles, and at the end he kills all the "bad gays"
("losers"). It is all about is the Good against the Evil, the Winners (The Justs) against the
Losers (The Doomed)
May be now the "winners" start to learn (again) how to lose (as in Vietnam), and this
cultural roots make very dangerous for the US to lose a war, because it crumbles all this
narrative of the Manifest Destiny, the Chosen People, and all that BS. The blow back could be
devastating.
I think The American people love wars, they love to see in the CNN Tomahawks flying inside
the Revolucionary Guard buildings and blowing them, US helicopters piercing with missiles the
Iraqi APAC's packed with soldiers, the Abrams tanks blowing-up the Iraqi T72 with DU rounds,
the videos US planes crushing the hangars, the command centers, the A10 straffing with their
guns the "Highway of Death" and the bodies of Saddam soldiers scorched black inside the
destroyed buses...They like it, especially if you carefully hide the busted bodies of woman
and children from the cameras, or conceal the dead and injures GI's. They like the new tech
weapons and how they "work" against the "bad guys"
American people love wars, what they hate is losing wars...and Trump represents, as
someone said, what a good percentage of American people want to be, it is the archetype of
"The Winner", a populists "Caesar", the last chance of a crumbling Empire
"The Marxist political parties, including the Social Democrats and their followers, had
fourteen years to prove their abilities. The result is a heap of ruins. All around us are
symptoms portending this breakdown. With an unparalleled effort of will and of brute force the
Communist method of madness is trying as a last resort to poison and undermine an inwardly
shaken and uprooted nation.
In fourteen years the November parties have ruined the German farmer. In fourteen years they
created an army of millions of unemployed. The National Government will carry out the following
plan with iron resolution and dogged perseverance. Within four years the German farmer must be
saved from pauperism. Within four years unemployment must be completely overcome.
Our concern to provide daily bread will be equally a concern for the fulfillment of the
responsibilities of society to those who are old and sick. The best safeguard against any
experiment which might endanger the currency lies in economical administration, the promotion
of work, and the preservation of agriculture, as well as in the use of individual
initiative."
Adolf Hitler, Radio Appeal to the German People, February 1, 1933
"Both religion and socialism thus glorify weakness and need. Both recoil from the world as
it is: tough, unequal, harsh. Both flee to an imaginary future realm where they can feel safe.
Both say to you. Be a nice boy. Be a good little girl. Share. Feel sorry for the little people.
And both desperately seek someone to look after them -- whether it be God or the State.
A thriving upper class accepts with a good conscience the sacrifice of untold human beings,
who, for its sake, must be reduced and lowered to incomplete human beings,to slaves, to
instruments... One cannot fail to see in all these noble races the beast of prey, the splendid
blond beast, prowling about avidly in search of spoil and victory; this hidden core needs to
erupt from time to time, the animal has to get out again and go back to the wilderness."
Friedrich Nietzsche
"At a certain point in their historical cycles, social classes become detached from their
traditional parties. In other words, the traditional parties, in their particular
organisational bias, with the particular men who constitute, represent and lead them, are no
longer recognised by their class as their own, and representing their interests. When such
crises occur, the immediate situation becomes delicate and dangerous, because the field is open
for violent solutions, for the activities of unknown forces, represented by charismatic 'men of
destiny' [demagogues].
The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of
monsters."
Antonio Gramsci, Prison Notebooks, 1930-35
"Be human in this most inhuman of ages; guard the image of man for it is the image of God.
You agree? Good. Then go with my blessing. But I warn you, do not expect to make many friends.
One of the awful facts of our age is the evidence that it is stricken indeed, stricken to the
very core of its being by the presence of the Unspeakable."
Thomas Merton, Raids on the Unspeakable
"The more power a government has the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and
desires of the elite, and the more it will make war on others and murder its foreign and
domestic subjects."
R. J. Rummel, Death by Government: A History of Mass Murder and Genocide Since
1900
"This is as old as Babylon, and evil as sin. It is the power of the darkness of the world,
and of spiritual wickedness in high places. The only difference is that it is not happening in
the past, or in a book, or in some vaguely frightening prophecy -- it is happening here and
now."
Jesse
"The wealth of another region excites their greed; and if it is weak, their lust for power
as well. Nothing from the rising to the setting of the sun is enough for them. Among all others
only they are compelled to attack the poor as well as the rich. Plunder, rape, and murder they
falsely call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace."
Tacitus
"Thus did a handful of rapacious citizens come to control all that was worth controlling in
America. Thus was the savage and stupid and entirely inappropriate and unnecessary and
humorless American class system created. Honest, industrious, peaceful citizens were classed as
bloodsuckers, if they asked to be paid a living wage.
And they saw that praise was reserved henceforth for those who devised means of getting paid
enormously for committing crimes against which no laws had been passed. Thus the American dream
turned belly up, turned green, bobbed to the scummy surface of cupidity unlimited, filled with
gas, went bang in the noonday sun."
Kurt Vonnegut, God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater
"Day by day the money-masters of America become more aware of their danger, they draw
together, they grow more class-conscious, more aggressive. The [first world] war has taught
them the possibilities of propaganda; it has accustomed them to the idea of enormous campaigns
which sway the minds of millions and make them pliable to any purpose.
American political corruption was the buying up of legislatures and assemblies to keep them
from doing the people's will and protecting the people's interests; it was the exploiter
entrenching himself in power, it was financial autocracy undermining and destroying political
democracy. By the blindness and greed of ruling classes the people have been plunged into
infinite misery."
Upton Sinclair, The Brass Check
"Greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the
need without ever reaching satisfaction."
Erich Fromm
"We must alter our lives in order to alter our hearts, for it is impossible to live one way
and pray another.
If you have not chosen the kingdom of God first, it will in the end make no difference what
you have chosen instead."
In another sense, however, the passing of the cold war could not have been more
disorienting. In 1987, Georgi Arbatov, a senior adviser to the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev , had warned:
"We are going to do a terrible thing to you – we are going to deprive you of an
enemy."
...Winning the cold war brought Americans face-to-face with a predicament comparable to that
confronting the lucky person who wins the lottery: hidden within a windfall is the potential
for monumental disaster.
So in retrospect Ike was one of the founding fathers of military industrial complex and the
politics of Full Spectrum Dominance
Notable quotes:
"... Yet on January 17, 1961, Ike said: "Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea." He continued: "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government." ..."
"... In addition, Ike's America maintained substantial garrisons in Western Europe and Japan. At the same time, and more precariously, U.S. troops, advisers, and operatives fanned out across the globe, including to Lebanon, South Vietnam, and Iran. ..."
"... Then came the money sentences: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." ..."
"... In fact, we all need a phrase that captures the immensity of the military establishment. The budget of the Department of Defense (DoD) for fiscal year 2020 will be about $718 billion ; DoD directly employs 1.3 million men and women in active duty, as well as more than 700,000 civilian employees. (Another 800,000 serve in the National Guard and reserves.) ..."
"... Indeed, the huge Pentagon budget doesn't fully capture the true scale of the military-industrial complex. To get a better measure, we should also include portions of other agencies harboring substantial military elements, including the CIA, NASA, and the departments of Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, and Energy (the last of which manages the nuclear stockpile). ..."
"... Six decades later, we must ask ourselves: is the Great Equation still in place? As a nation, are we maintaining all the components of power -- military, economic, and spiritual -- in proper balance? And as we search for the right answer, we might pause over one subtlety in the Eisenhower equation: per the rules of multiplication, if any one of the three components falls to zero, then the product is zero, regardless of the size of the other two components. ..."
"... Many argue that, in fact, U.S. policy has been reduced to just one component -- the military. That is, whom can we threaten, bomb, or occupy? ..."
"... This over-militarization of policy was ably chronicled in Dana Priest's 2003 ..."
"... , The Mission Waging War and Keeping Peace With America's Military ..."
"... . The author describes a Pentagon that had grown so powerful bureaucratically that it had overwhelmed the State Department -- and nowhere more so than in the Middle East. ..."
"... Gosh, but we still have to privatize, several economies (China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, etc.) for the benefit of Wall Street et. comp. How can we do that without DoD...? ..."
January 17 marks the 59th anniversary of President Dwight Eisenhower's farewell speech to
the nation. After eight years in the White House, just three days before John F. Kennedy would
be sworn in as his successor, Ike went on national television and touched on many topics, from
promoting the economy to working with Congress.
Yet the heart of his speech was a finely chiseled critique of what he dubbed the
"military-industrial complex." This criticism was all the more remarkable, of course, because
Eisenhower had been a career military man. Having graduated from West Point in 1915, he had
served in the U.S. Army for more than three decades, through two world wars, ultimately rising
to the rank of five-star general.
Yet on January 17, 1961, Ike said: "Our military organization today bears little
relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of
World War II or Korea." He continued: "This conjunction of an immense military establishment
and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic,
political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the
federal government."
By then 70 years old, Ike was no born-again pacifist. He quickly added of the military's
enlarging, "We recognize the imperative need for this development." That imperative, of course,
was the Cold War, the seemingly permanent eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation of two countries,
the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., each glaring at the other with ideological hostility tipped with
nuclear technology.
In response to the Soviet threat, Ike had maintained the Cold War structures he had
inherited from his predecessor in the Oval Office, Harry Truman. In fact, throughout the 1950s,
defense spending hovered around 10 percent of GDP (by comparison, the current percentage is
less than four).
In addition, Ike's America maintained substantial garrisons in Western Europe and Japan.
At the same time, and more precariously, U.S. troops, advisers, and operatives fanned out
across the globe, including to Lebanon, South Vietnam, and Iran.
In his speech, Eisenhower made no apology for his role in the further freezing of the Cold
War. Yet he still urged caution as to the potential ill effects of cold warring on the home
front: "We must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and
livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society."
Then came the money sentences: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial
complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will
persist."
Those three key words, "military-industrial complex," rocketed through the national
consciousness. Eisenhower had long been a popular figure on the center-right; in addition to
his leadership role in World War II, he had written a best-selling memoir and had won two
national landslides in the 1952 and 1956 presidential elections -- even as the left had
dismissed him. Yet now, with those three words, Eisenhower gained the proverbial "strange new
respect" among intellectuals, who mostly leaned left. Indeed, the phrase "military-industrial
complex" has become a favored catchphrase for leftists, anti-militarists, and anyone else
looking for evocative shorthand.
In fact, we all need a phrase that captures the immensity of the military establishment.
The budget of the Department of Defense (DoD) for fiscal year 2020 will be about $718
billion ; DoD directly employs 1.3 million men and women in active duty, as well as more
than 700,000 civilian employees. (Another 800,000 serve in the National Guard and
reserves.)
In addition, millions more work for the DoD as private-sector vendors, from those who build
ships and airplanes to the contractor who was killed near Kirkuk, Iraq, on December
27.
Indeed, the huge Pentagon budget doesn't fully capture the true scale of the
military-industrial complex. To get a better measure, we should also include portions of other
agencies harboring substantial military elements, including the CIA, NASA, and the departments
of Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, and Energy (the last of which manages the nuclear
stockpile).
As Eisenhower cautioned in his speech, "We must never let the weight of this combination
endanger our liberties or democratic processes." So yes, Eisenhower was a vigorous leader in
the Cold War competition, yet at the same time he was a citizen before he was a soldier,
rightfully concerned with protecting our small-r republican institutions from "unwarranted
influence."
During his time in the White House, the 34th president demonstrated his prudence. As
historian Walter M. Hudson recently noted in The American Interest , after the
Russians launched their Sputnik satellite in 1957 -- thus opening up a newer and higher
frontier to geopolitical competition -- Ike did not respond with a big defense buildup.
He boosted NASA, of course, yet skipping past the Pentagon, he also pushed for a substantial
increase in federal aid to education.
In other words, the old Army man was thinking about the future, when struggles, and perhaps
wars, would be waged with spaceships and computers, as opposed to infantrymen and tanks. Hudson
explains Ike's thoughtful budget priorities as follows: "Ike's decision was consistent with his
'Great Equation' strategy that long predated Sputnik's blips. Running for the presidency in
1952, he set forth the formula to his friend Lucius Clay: 'Spiritual force multiplied by
economic force multiplied by military force is roughly equivalent to security. If any one of
those factors fell to zero, or nearly so, the resulting product does likewise.'"
In Eisenhower's "Great Equation," we can see a strategic mind at work: American strength
must rely on more than just weaponry; the nation needed to maintain as well its economic and
spiritual health. Long before the term was coined, Ike was a believer in "soft power" -- as
well as, of course, the "hard power" of firepower.
Six decades later, we must ask ourselves: is the Great Equation still in place? As a
nation, are we maintaining all the components of power -- military, economic, and spiritual --
in proper balance? And as we search for the right answer, we might pause over one subtlety in
the Eisenhower equation: per the rules of multiplication, if any one of the three components
falls to zero, then the product is zero, regardless of the size of the other two
components.
So today, as we think about the Greater Middle East, where the U.S. is involved in a
half-dozen conflicts, are we satisfied that all of our equation components -- including the
meta-component of wisdom -- are being properly understood and utilized?
Many argue that, in fact, U.S. policy has been reduced to just one component --
the military. That is, whom can we threaten, bomb, or occupy?
This over-militarization of policy was ably chronicled in Dana Priest's 2003 book
, The Mission
Waging War and Keeping Peace With America's Military. The author describes a
Pentagon that had grown so powerful bureaucratically that it had overwhelmed the State
Department -- and nowhere more so than in the Middle East.
This disparity starts with visuals: the generals arrive in style, swooping in on military
aircraft, resplendent in their uniforms, greeted by the pomp and circumstance of salutes and
reviews, bearing PowerPoints of cool new weapons systems to buy and perhaps use. By contrast,
unadorned Foreign Service officers tend to plunk along on civilian flights, typically talking
only of caution and mediation.
As a result, the center of policy gravity for the Middle East has shifted from Foggy Bottom
to the five-sided building across the Potomac, and from there to Central Command
headquarters at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida, and from there to myriad Centcom
outposts 7,000 miles distant. As they say, if you're a hammer, the whole world looks like a
nail -- and the Pentagon is one big hammer.
We can observe that this militarization had been building up long prior to the Afghanistan
and Iraq wars, which began two presidencies ago. Indeed, the militarizing process has been both
deep-rooted and bipartisan. And this, of course, is the sort of long-term transformation that
Eisenhower warned against.
The argument here is not for a cut in the Pentagon's budget or for an increase in the State
Department's budget. Instead, we need something more fundamental -- a national conversation
about true national security. As Ike said in that fabled address, "Only an alert and
knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military
machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may
prosper together."
Assuring that security and liberty "may prosper together" -- Eisenhower's message is as
important today as it was then. about the author
James P. Pinkerton is a contributor to the Fox News Channel and a regular panelist on
the Fox "News Watch" show, the highest-rated media-critique show on television. He is a former
columnist for Newsday, and is the editor of SeriousMedicineStrategy.org. He has written for
publications ranging from The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The
Los Angeles Times, USA Today, National Review, The New Republic, Foreign Affairs, Fortune, The
Huffington Post , and The Jerusalem Post . He is the author of What Comes Next: The End of Big
Government--and the New Paradigm Ahead (Hyperion: 1995). He worked in the White House domestic
policy offices of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and in the 1980, 1984, 1988 and
1992 presidential campaigns. In 2008 he served as a senior adviser to the Mike Huckabee for
President Campaign. Married to the former Elizabeth Dial, he is a graduate of Stanford
University.
Gosh, but we still have to privatize, several economies (China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela,
etc.) for the benefit of Wall Street et. comp. How can we do that without DoD...?
Just to be clear, it's documented that Ike's first draft had
Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex; aides convinced him to cut that out, which is
sad because it's key. Defense contractors always spread out their facilities to different
states and
Congressional districts. Jobs!
Always did, even as I recall when he was in the White House. In his time, the Right
gnashed their teeth at his "liberalism", and the Left gnashed their teeth art his
"conservatism".
His equation anchored on "spiritual". In Ike's view, America was an agency for Good, or
at least aspired to be. Today, all of our "leaders" echo the words of Templeton (the Rat)
in Charlotte's Web -- "What's in it for me?" And goodness is not even given the
homage of hypocrisy.
"... Unfortunately, the book does little more to move into an analysis of US foreign policy decision making beyond the military's impact nor does it make recommendations for changes to better the current situation. The book seemed to be more of a compilation of "reports from the field" than an analysis of foreign policy decision making and the military's role in it. I suppose the author's goals and my expectations were decidedly different but I expected more from this book. ..."
I read David Halberstam's `War in a Time of Peace' and this seemed like a good
continuation. Halbersam covers the Bush 1, Clinton period, in retrospect an idyllic period.
This book transitions through 9/11, but really covers the development of the Combatant
Commander for the US Military in the various areas of the world - Pacific Command, Central
Command etc. It does cover the successful invasion of Afghanistan, it covers conflicts in
Kosova, Columbia and relationships in the Middle East and Asia. It doesn't cover the Iraq
invasion or subsequent failures.
I was particularly struck by the contrast between the resources available for the military
commanders in various countries, and the US ambassadors to the same countries. The commanders
can have transport and material resources which are an order of magnitude away from the
civilians, and therefore the local politicians/dictators get the message that the US
relationship is mainly a military one. Priest gives a good overview, especially in the
Kosovo, of the power and limitations of the military-only relationship. She also concludes
that even the military must take some part in peace-making and low level nation-building, but
the bigger story in that the US, by virtue of its size and power, must take a
nation-development role if it hopes to avoid having a low-level war with the developing world
for generations to come. In fact the situation has probably got clearly since, and the
current debate about leaving Afghanistan and non-intervention in Syria, makes this book
appear prophetic.
Lastly there are remarkable portraits of Generals Zinni and Blair who were combatant
commanders in the Central and Pacific commands during this time period. The contrast between
their power and status when in the military and their post-military career is significant
(though not mentioned in the book), Zinni was messed about when proposed but eventually not
selected as ambassador to Saudia Arabia, Blair was later director of National Intelligence in
the Obama White House, but was could not get along in that particular fishbowl and was fired
in mid 2010.
Overall, this book is a basic overview of the structure and operation of the US armed
forces theater commands in the final days of their power and prestige, before the Bush
administration centralized control, power, prestige, decision- and policy-making to
Washington, DC. It is a view of the last great days of the regional Commanders-in-Chief, the
CINCs, and their geographically-oriented theater commands of immense space, scope, power and
influence.
My criticism of this book is straightforward and simple, yet speaks directly to the
overall character and accuracy of this work: Dana Priest is grossly incorrect in her
statements, and therefore in the conclusions she makes, specifically in Chapter Ten, "The
Indonesian Handshake." I was intimately and directly involved in the entire episode, and it
did not unfold as she describes.
I quote from page 230: "Meanwhile, since January 1998, seven intelligence analysts at the
'Joint Intelligence Center Pacific' (JIC), the world largest military-intelligence center, in
a windowless concrete building near (US Pacific Command CINC, Admiral Dennis) Blair's
headquarters in Hawaii, had tracked the movements of Indonesian military and militia forces
in East Timor and Indonesia. The Indonesia desk in the JIC had grown from one to nine persons
and maintained a round-the-clock 'crisis action' mode. Over the preceding year, the analysts
had received a tenfold increase in imagery and a fivefold increase in electronic collection.
It was actually too much to process."
First of all, Priest blows the name of the institution she's describing. It's the Joint
Intelligence Center Pacific, or JICPAC (now Joint Intelligence Operations Center, Pacific, or
JIOC-PAC). Second, the "Indonesia desk" implies a single person monitoring this country. That
was never the case, as a team of at least five analysts had always been assigned to maritime
Southeast Asia. Suharto's 1998 fall had ramped up both Pacific Command's and JICPAC's
attention to Indonesia, and the scheduled elections of mid-1999 and following East Timor
referendum were anticipated months in advance, with commensurate analytical adjustments and
assignments. Newly assigned to the Pacific Command intelligence directorate, I was detailed
to JICPAC personally by the Pacific Command Director for Intelligence, Rear Admiral Rick
Porterfield to assist in this effort.
I was one of two US Army Foreign Area Officers (FAOs) assigned to this issue. I had just
completed five years of training in Southeast Asia, with an International Studies masters
degree, both Indonesian and Malaysian language training, and attendance at the 1998 class of
the Malaysian Armed Forces Staff College. My partner was an Indonesian staff college
graduate. We two Southeast Asia FAOs, both senior US Army majors, were the officers in
charge. I was the Chief of the East Timor Crisis Cell for the entire period of the East Timor
crisis, and I take immense pride in the work that I and especially my analysts performed
during this period. This was the best analytical team I've ever worked with, experienced,
highly intellectual, eager, motivated, and thoroughly familiar with the issue at hand, as
well as all of the related regional and functional issues. They performed brilliantly in an
extended crisis mode.
At no time was the information we were requesting and receiving "too much to process."
Early on, Admiral Blair and Rear Admiral Porterfield recognized the potential for unrest and
crisis, and supported all command activities to prepare for all possible outcomes, which we
explored and analyzed continuously. I and my people updated both leaders daily with
briefings, papers, and direct consultation, which increased in frequency, intensity and scope
as events unfolded. We aggressively worked with all relevant and engaged national-level
agencies and elements for our intelligence collection requirements, and based upon
national-level reconciliation we were given what was available and appropriate to the
situation. Yes, we were receiving increased collection and reporting, through all
intelligence disciplines and channels, not merely the ones Priest cites. At no time was
anything we were doing or being asked to do too much for us to process. At no time was the
information that we were requesting from national-level intelligence collection too much for
us to process. The support we received from the commanding officer of JICPAC, now Marine
Major General Mike Ennis, was outstanding in every possible way. He supported our needs and
actions personally and fully, a consummate professional and directly engaged commanding
officer. Whatever resources and assets we requested, he personally attended to those needs,
immediately.
I challenge Ms. Priest to name the source(s) who provided such grossly incorrect
information. I was present in Hawaii as she did her research there, and at no time were
either my FAO partner or I contacted to discuss our roles in the crisis.
I offer a highly telling anecdote which illustrates Ms. Priest's qualifications to write
on this specific issue: Upon entering JICPAC for the very first time, Ms. Priest asked
informally and good-naturedly of her escorts, "Why is the Australian flag flying outside?"
Well, yes, both Pacific Command and JICPAC work very closely with our Australian partners,
always have, and enjoy doing so immensely. But JICPAC does not fly a foreign flag from its
quarterdeck. Of course, Ms. Priest had mistaken the Hawaiian flag with its Union Jack in the
upper left corner as the Australian flag, telling the JICPAC intelligence specialists,
researchers, and analysts more than enough about her familiarity with Pacific Command,
showing a small yet true measure of the depth of expertise and background knowledge she
brought to her work in the US Pacific Command theater.
Bottom Line: Take this book as a historical account of the now-gone days of the power and
prestige of the theater commands, a late 90s snapshot. That being said, the book is
fundamentally flawed and factually incorrect, at least as far as Chapter Ten reads. I cannot
speak for the remainder of the work, but my direct and intimate experience with the events
she grossly incorrectly describes here is more than enough for me to dismiss this book in its
entirety.
Eric Johnson December 12, 2003
Mission Accomplished?
Format: Hardcover
Dana Priest is a well-respected journalist with the Washington Post and a frequent guest on NBC's "Meet the Press." She
specializes on military and intelligence topics, so it was with great interest that I read her book "The Mission". Her
thesis, that the US military is playing an ever increasing role in US foreign policy matters and that the nation is becoming
dependent on the military's presence in foreign affairs, could not be more timely.
She presents her argument via a series of vignettes which cover senior military leaders as well as a broad spectrum of recent
military operations. She primarily writes from the military's perspective and its impact on foreign policy. The profiles of
the four, 4-star commanders provide the reader with a sense of the situation each commander faced in 1999 and how their
ideals influenced not only their area of responsibility but also our foreign affairs. Priest chronicles our military
activities with examples that range from major operations in Afghanistan and the Balkans, our covert drug war in South
America, and the relatively unnoticed actions in Nigeria and Indonesia. Her stories capture the military's struggle to
achieve success across the entire spectrum of operations.
She does a good job of stating her argument and offers varied examples of where the military is setting the foreign policy
agenda. Unfortunately, the book does little more to move into an analysis of US foreign policy decision making beyond the
military's impact nor does it make recommendations for changes to better the current situation. The book seemed to be more of
a compilation of "reports from the field" than an analysis of foreign policy decision making and the military's role in it. I
suppose the author's goals and my expectations were decidedly different but I expected more from this book.
I feel her point would have benefited from a comparison of the State Dept's and the DoD's role in US foreign policy
making. She also needed to consider the contributions of non-governmental organizations to the foreign policy equation.
Additionally, if the author thinks we are becoming reliant on the military to conduct foreign policy, she should include
recommendations to counter that reliance. I enjoyed reading the well-written vignettes, thought this is a great introduction
on the topic of political-military relations as it impacts foreign affairs, but would like to see more analysis and less
story-telling.
Everyone keeps dancing around it: Iraqi PM Abdul-Mahdi has reported that Soleimani
was on the way to see him with a reply to a Saudi peace proposal. Who profits from
Peace? Who does not?
The killing of Soleimani, while a tragic even with far reaching consequences, is just
an illustration of the general rule: MIC does not profit from peace. And MIC dominates
any national security state, into which the USA was transformed by the technological
revolution on computers and communications, as well as the events of 9/11.
The USA government can be viewed as just a public relations center for MIC. That's why
Trump/Pompeo/Esper/Pence gang position themselves as rabid neocons, which means MIC
lobbyists in order to hold their respective positions. There is no way out of this
situation. This is a classic Catch 22 trap.
The fact that a couple of them are also "Rapture" obsessed religious bigots means that
the principle of separation of church and state does no matter when MIC interests are
involved.
The health of MIC requires maintaining an inflated defense budget at all costs. Which,
in turn, drives foreign wars and the drive to capture other nations' resources to
compensate for MIC appetite. The drive which is of course closely allied with Wall Street
interests (disaster capitalism.)
In such conditions fake "imminent threat" assassinations necessarily start happening.
Although the personality of Pompeo and the fact that he is a big friend of the current
head of Mossad probably played some role.
It's really funny that Trump (probably with the help of his "reference group," which
includes Adelson and Kushner), managed to appoint as the top US diplomat a person who was
trained as a mechanic engineer and specialized as a tank repair mechanic. And who was a
long-time military contractor. So it is quite natural that he represents interests of
MIC.
IMHO under Trump/Pompeo/Esper trio some kind of additional skirmishes with Iran are a
real possibility: they are necessary to maintain the current inflated level of defense
spending.
State of the US infrastructure, the actual level of unemployment (U6 is ~7% which some
neolibs call full employment ;-), and the level of poverty of the bottom 33% of the USA
population be damned. Essentially the bottom 33% is the third world country within the
USA.
"If you make more than $15,000 (roughly the annual salary of a minimum-wage employee
working 40 hours per week), you earn more than 32.2% of Americans
The 894 people that earn more than $20 million make more than 99.99989% of
Americans, and are compensated a cumulative $37,009,979,568 per year. "
Little u.s. has been preaching human rights while mounting wars and lying. Albright
thought the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children were worth it. !!! it was worth killings and
maiming.
Over $7 trillion spent while homelessness is rampant. Healthcare is unaffordable for
the 99% of the population.
The u.s. will leave Iraq and Syria aka Saigon 1975 or horizontal. It's over.
Searching for friends. Now, after Russiagate here is little pompous: "we want to be
friends with Russia." Sanctions much excepting we need RD180 engines, seizure of diplomatic
properties. Who are you kidding?
"... What i find truly amazing is that American Zionists still believe crushing Iran is easy enough. Israel, with 8 million jews stuffed in a small country, is nothing more than a carrier battle group marooned on land ..."
The tramp & nutNyahoo machismo show continues to be fun to watch. Both
show off their penis worms as they arrogantly claim they can crush iran. Both the usa and
israel keep banging on the doors and walls of their pissed-off neighbors' houses. That
eventually gets you murdered whether in baltimore or baghdad.
A crushable iran is true if and only if they can mount a full-on nuclear war on Iran.
But such horrendous cheating means all bets are off, and iran's allies will provide the
nukes required to melt down the American homeland too. Nobody, not even Russia and china,
can afford to stay in the sidelines in a nuclear war in the 2020s.
What i find truly amazing is that American Zionists still believe crushing Iran is easy
enough. Israel, with 8 million jews stuffed in a small country, is nothing more than a
carrier battle group marooned on land. Sitting ducks, with nice armor, nukes and all, are
... still sitting ducks. nutNyahoo should ask his technical crew just how few megatons are
needed, or just a few thousand modern missiles are required to transform sitting ducks into
nicely roasted peking ducks.
So a conventional war it is. The usa and israel has exactly zero, zilch and nada chances
of winning a war with iran. The usa keeps forgetting that it is a dying empire with dying
funding value and mental resources. Just like israel which oddly thinks dozens of f-35s
will give it immunity through air superiority. Proof of this fact that iran will win comes
from simply asking american and israeli war experts to go on cnn or the washington post on
how they intend to win a war with iran.
Im sure these expert bloviators will say that it is as easy as winning a naval war
against china, which is capable of launching only 3 new warships in a week. Or an even
easier time against russia, which can launch only a few thousand hypersonic nuke missiles
because its GDP is no bigger than that of texas.
The Pentagon is super slow to adapt and learn. If you understand that
bureaucracy is an ancient organizational structure and that the organizational culture of
the Pentagon is pathologically dysfunctional you could have predicted the moral and
financial bankruptcy of America 15-20 years ago. The "Why?", finally made sense when I
discovered what a sociopath was.
It's about time the US practices what it preachs and start behaving like a normal
country instead of a spoiled narcissistic brat. see more
US military & strategic thought became lazy during the
late days of the Cold War. It mirrored the decline & fall of the foundations of its
opponent, USSR. Post-Cold War, US military & strategic thinking flushed into the sewer.
It was all about maintaining the military as some sort of a social policy jobs program,
operating legacy tech as the mission. And then came the "world-improvers" -- beginning w
the Clinton Admin -- who worked to turn the world into a global "urban renewal" project;
meaning to mirror the success US Big Govt showed in the slums of American cities from sea
to sea. The past 30 yrs of US strategic thinking and related governance truly disgusts me.
see more
Soviet union fall had very different reasons and Soviet military thought was
doing quite well then along with military. Current russian military wonders is completion
of what was started then and not finished earlier because of the disintegration of the
Soviet state. The soviet fall however is extremely regrettable because there was a new way how things can
be done that Soviet union was showing to the world. USA fall long term is a very good thing
because USA is a paragon of how things should be done the old way and basically a huge
parasite. Many negative trends that are afflicting the world were started by USA. Unlimited
individualism and consumerism would be a couple of those. see more
Why does almost every person on Earth feel the need to force others to
bend the knee to their beliefs?
Religious beliefs are what one thinks should be done to promote survival in an
afterlife, political beliefs are what one thinks should be done to promote survival in this
world.
The world would be a far better, more civilized, of world if such beliefs were only
shared on a voluntary basis.
As for individualism, I would rather be free than live in a modern day egalitarian
hunter-gatherer tribe run by modern day psychopathic alpha-males.
That is certainly not a recipe for success. see more
It also mirrors the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. It was Emperor
Augustus that decided the costs to further expand the Empire were too great after losing
one (or two?) legions against the Germanic tribes.
The US has reached its greatest extent. We are living through it. The US didn't go forward
into war with Iran twice. The odds of humanity surviving this immense turn of history is
looking better. see more
Frankly, nothing in common. I read this comparison all the
time.
Yes, Augustus decided not to continue along with expansion into Germany after losing 3
Varus legions due to ambush.
But he famously noted that it does not worth to go fishing with golden hook. Basically
speaking, Germany was not worth fighting for. Poor and remote it had nothing to offer. Just
a drain on resources. As long as conquest was moving smoothly it was ok, but after losses
were inflicted Augustus decided it was not worth it.
Roman expansion under augustus was carried mostly to consolidate previous conquests and
create strategical debth along core and strategical provinces also creating linkage.
When enemy far stronger than germans posed resources which made the whole conquest worthy
no amount of resistance saved Dacians and Parthia also almost died under Trajan attack.
Roman policies were adequate and wise. Treaties were respected, allies supported and
benefited. Empire was build around Mediterranean creating good communication and routes
considering obviously limits of that day technology.
Rome did not behave like crazy and did not deliver threats that she could not follow
through. When war was decided upon thorough preparations were taken. Political goals were
achieved. Wars were won. When Adrian considered that empire was overextended in Parthis, he
simply abandoned all conquered territories. Just like that.
Logical calm thinking USA,is not capable of. Rome truly based upon superior military and
diplomacy dominance lasted many centuries. USA few decades. One hit wonder, lucky fool I
would call it. see more
Yes, this is somewhat puzzling. As I said, let's wait and see where it all
develops to, but as Twisted Genius succinctly observed -- Iran now controls tempo because she
has conventional superiority. Anyone who has precision-guided, stand off weaponry in good
numbers will be on top. see more
The old submarine saying is, "There are two kinds of ships; submarines, and
targets." . The new version for land ops is, "There are two kinds of land-based military assets;
precision-guided missiles, and targets." (And per the photos, those Iranian missiles were
quite precise; bulls-eyes.) . Iran and its missiles demonstrated that the entire strategic foundation for US mil presence
in the Middle East is now obsolete. Everything the US would ever want to do there is now
subject to Iran's version of "steel rain." Every runway, hangar, aircraft parking area;
every supply depot or warehouse; every loading pier, fuel site, naval pier. Everything...
is a target. And really... there's no amount of US "airpower" and "tech" than can mitigate
the Iran missile threat. . Meanwhile, related thinking... Iran's true strategic interest is NOT fighting a near-term
war w/ USA. Iran wants US to exit Middle East; and Iran wants to be able to pursue its
nuclear program. Soleimani or no, Iran appears to have its eyeballs fixed on the long-term
goals. see more
The new version for land ops is, "There are two kinds of land-based military assets;
precision-guided missiles, and targets."
Exactly, and Iran has long-range TLAMs in who knows what numbers, That, in its turn,
brings about the next issue of range for Iranian indigenous anti-ship missiles. Not, of
course, to mention the fact of only select people knowing if Russia transferred P-800 Onyx
to Iran She certainly did it for Syria. If that weapon is there--the Persian Gulf and
Hormuz Strait will be shut completely closed and will push out CBGs far into the Indian
Ocean. see more
It is simply pathetic after decades of talking non stop about developments of
anti missiles and huge amounts wasted and nobody is responsible. This is the way capitalism
works.profits is everything and outcomes secondary. Thankfully russia has got soviet
foundation and things so far are working well. I come to think that in our times no serious
industrial processes should be allowed to stay in private hands. Only services and so.e
other simpler stuff under heavy state control to ensure quality. Otherwise profit
orientation will eventually destroy everything like with Boeing.
I know, i already wrote a full scale war scenario in one of
the comments. Iran can destroy all US bases in 2000 km range. But this does not mean that
it can not be bombed back to the stone age, if the US really wishes so. The problem for the
US is the high cost as well as the high debt levels, but it does have the technical
capability to do that after 2 - 3 years of bombing.
Also low yield tactical nukes are designed to lower the treshold of the use of nukes in
otherwise conventional war, producing less international outrage than the megaton city
buster bombs. Why do you think the US is developing them again? Because they would want to
use them in conventional conflicts.
Here btw is Yurasumy, he also says that the US can technically bomb Iran back to the
stone age, but the cost will be too high.
Again--what's the plan and what's the price? Iran HAS Russia's ISR on her side in case
of such SEAD.
Does the United States want to risk lives of thousands of its personnel (not
to speak of expensive equipment) in Qatar, KSA, Iraq. Does Israel want to "get it"?
There
are numbers which describe such an operation (it was. most likely, already planned as
contingency). Immediate question: when was the last time USAF operated in REAL dense ECM
and ECCM environment? I do not count some brushes with minimal EW in Syria.
Russia there
uses only minimally required option, for now. Iran has a truck load EW systems, including
some funny Russian toys which allowed Iran to take control of US UAVs, as an example. As I
say, this is not Iraq and by a gigantic margin. see more
I already said that debt levels do not allow it and the price
would be too high, but yes, the US does have the military capability to destroy Iran. By
conventional means. It is another question that it is not in good fiscal shape. Anyway, US
ballistic missiles (non nuclear armed) will be hard to stop by EW. Even if Iran gets rid of
50 % of incoming TLAMs, the US will keep sending more and more until most infrastructure,
bridges, oil refineries, power plants, factories, ports etc. are destroyed. This is why i
said it would take 2 - 3 years. see more
but yes, the US does have the military capability to destroy Iran. By conventional
means
That is the whole point: NO, it doesn't. Unless US goes into full mobilization mode and
addresses ALL (plus a million more not listed) requirements for such a war which I listed
in the post. Well, that or nukes. see
more
Yurasumy is a pretty good analist and he thinks that they can. I do not
see it for the US being too hard to produce more TLAMS, ICBMs and IRBMs (conventional) to
sustain the effort for 2 years, by that time most iranian infrastructure will be destroyed.
If the fiscal situation allowes it. see more
I don't know who Yarasumy is and what is his background, but unlike him I
actually write books, including on modern warfare. This is not to show off, but I am sure I
can make basic calculations. This is not to mention the fact that even Sivkov agrees with
my points and Sivkov, unlike Yarsumy, graduated Popov's VVMURE, served at subs, then
graduated Kuznetsov Academy, then Academy of the General Staff and served in Main
Operational Directorate (GOU) until retiring in the rank of Captain 1st Rank from the
billet of Combat Planning group. So, I would rather stick to my opinion.
see more
Why do you think that the US can not destroy Iran with IRBMs? Actually this
is their strategy vs China. If they think its viable vs China, then it should be viable vs
Iran too. see more
Because unlike the US, Russia's Air Defenses have a rather
very impressive history of shifting the balance in wars in favor of those who have them,
when used properly. But then I can quote for you a high ranking intelligence officer:
A friend of mine who has expertise in these matters wrote me:
Any air defense engineer with a securityclearance that isn't lying through his teeth
will admit that Russia'sair defense technology surpassed us in the 1950's and we've never
been able to catch up. The systems thy have in place surrounding Moscow make our Patriot
3's look like fucking nerf guns.
Mathematics is NOT there for the United States for a real combined operations war of
scale with Iran. Unless US political class really wants to see people with pitch-forks.
see more
"Mathematics is not there..." . Neither is the industrial base, including supply lines. Not the mines, mills, factories to
produce any significant levels of warfighting materiel such as we're talking about here.
Not the workforce, either. Meanwhile, where are the basic designs for these weps? The years
of lab work, bench tests, pilot specimens & prototypes, the development pipeline? The
contractors to build them? the Tier 2, 3, 4 suppliers? Where are the universities that
train such people as are needed? Where is the political will? Where is the government
coordination? Where is the money? Indeed, every Democrat and probably half the Republicans
who run for office campaign on controlling military spending; not that USA gets all that
much benefit from the current $800 billion per year. see more
You see, here is the difference--I can calculate approximate required force
for that but I don't want to. It is Friday. You can get some basic intro into operational
theory (and even into Salvo Equations) in my latest book. Granted, my publisher fought me
tooth and nail to remove as much match as possible. But I'll give you a hint--appearance of
S-500 on any theater of operations effectively closes it off effectively for any missile or
aircraft operations when deployed in echeloned (multi-layer) AD. see more
"The State Dept alert sends a much different message than this one from the leader of the
State Dept, Secretary Pompeo: 'The world is a much safer place today. I can assure you that
Americans in the region are much safer,'" he writes on Twitter. "Which is it? (Answer: more
dangerous, not less)."
The State Department on Friday advised Americans in Iraq to depart the country immediately,
and even went so far as to suggest they travel to neighboring countries by land if they could
not secure passage out of Iraq through airlines. The State Department also advised Americans in
the country to not approach the American embassy in Iraq.
The State Dept alert below sends a much different message than this one from the leader of
the State Dept, Secretary Pompeo: "The world is a much safer place today. I can assure you
that Americans in the region are much safer."
In 2016 during the election campaign of Donald Trump one of the primary factors of his
popularity among conservatives was that he was one of the first candidates since Ron Paul to
argue for bringing US troops home and ending American involvement in the various elitist
fabricated wars in the Middle East . From Iraq, to Afghanistan, to Syria and Yemen and beyond,
the Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs at the behest of their globalist masters had been waging war oversees
unabated for over 15 years. The time was ripe for a change and people felt certain that if
Hillary Clinton entered the White House, another 4-8 years of war were guaranteed.
There was nothing to be gained from these wars. They were only dragging the US down socially
and economically , and even the idea of "getting the oil" had turned into a farce as the
majority of Iraqi oil has been going to China, not the US. General estimates on the costs of
the wars stand at $5 trillion US tax dollars and over 4500 American dead along with around
40,000 wounded. The only people that were benefiting from the situation were globalists and
banking elites, who had been clamoring to destabilize the Middle East since the day they
launched their "Project For A New American Century" (PNAC). Truly, all wars are banker
wars.
The Obama Administration's attempts to lure Americans into supporting open war with the
Assad regime in Syria had failed. Consistent attempts by George W. Bush and Obama to increase
tensions with Iran had fizzled. Americans were showing signs of fatigue, FINALLY fed up with
the lies being constructed to trick them into being complicit in the banker wars. Trump was a
breath of fresh air...but of course, like all other puppets of the globalists, his promises
were empty.
In my article
'Clinton vs. Trump And The Co-Option Of The Liberty Movement' , published before the 2016
election, I warned that Trump's rhetoric might be a grand show , and that it could be scripted
by the establishment to bring conservatives back into the Republican/Neo-Con fold. At the time,
leftist media outlet Bloomberg
openly reveled in the idea that Trump might absorb and destroy the "Tea Party" and liberty
movement and turn them into something far more manageable. The question was whether or not the
liberty movement would buy into Trump completely, or remain skeptical.
Initially, I do not think the movement held onto its objectivity at all. Far too many people
bought into Trump blindly and immediately based on misguided hopes and a desire to "win"
against the leftists. The insane cultism of the political left didn't help matters much,
either.
When Trump started saturating his cabinet with banking elites and globalists from the CFR
the moment he entered office, I knew without any doubt that he was a fraud. Close associations
with establishment swamp creatures was something he had
consistently criticized Clinton and other politicians for during the campaign, but Trump
was no better or different than Clinton; he was just an errand boy for the elites. The singular
difference was that his rhetoric was designed to appeal directly to liberty minded
conservatives.
This meant that it was only a matter of time before Trump broke most of his campaign
promises, including his assertions that he would bring US troops home. Eventually, the mask had
to come off if Trump was going to continue carrying out the agenda of his masters.
Today, the mask has indeed come off. For the past three years Trump has made announcements
of an imminent pull back of troops in the Middle East, including the recent claim that troops
would be leaving Syria. All of the announcements were followed by an INCREASE in US troop
presence in the region. Consistent attempts have been made to foment renewed strife with Iran.
The build-up to war has been obvious, but some people on the Trump train still didn't get
it.
The most common argument I heard when pointing out all the inconsistencies in Trump's claims
as well as his direct links to globalists was that "He hadn't started any wars, so how could he
be a globalist puppet...?" My response has always been "Give it a little time, and he
will."
One of my readers noted recently that "Trump Derangement Syndrome" (TDS) actually goes both
ways. Leftists double down on their hatred of Trump at every opportunity, but Trump cultists
double down on their support for Trump regardless of how many promises he breaks. This has
always been my biggest concern – That conservatives in the liberty movement would
ultimately abandon their principles of limited government, the end to banking elites in the
White House and ending illegal wars because they had invested themselves so completely in the
Trump farce that they would be too embarrassed to admit they had been conned.
Another concern is that the liberty movement would be infected by an influx of people who
are neo-conservative statists at their core. These people pretend to be liberty minded
conservatives, but when the veil is lifted they show their true colors as the War Pigs they
really are. A distinction has to be made between Bush era Neo-Con control freaks and
constitutional conservatives; there are few if any similarities between the two groups, but the
establishment hopes that the former will devour the latter.
I've noticed that the War Pigs are out in force this past week, beating their chests a
calling for more blood. The US government has assassinated Iranian military commander Qasem
Soleimani, retaliations against US targets have begun, and now the Iraqi government has
demanded that US troops be removed from the region, to which Trump has said "no" and demanded
payment instead. A new troop surge has been initiated and this WILL end in all out war. The
tit-for-tat has just begun.
How do Trump cultists respond? "Kill those terrorists!"
Yes, many of the same people that applauded Trump's supposed opposition to the wars three
years ago are now fanatically cheering for the beginning of perhaps the most destructive war of
all. The rationalizations for this abound. Soleimani was planning attacks on US targets in
Iraq, they say. And, this might be true, though no hard proof has yet been presented.
I'm reminded of the Bush era claims of Iraqi "Weapons of Mass Destruction", the weapons that
were never found and no proof was found that they ever existed. The only weapons Iraq had were
the weapons the US sold to them decades ago. Any government can fabricate an excuse for
assassination or war for public consumption; the Trump Administration is no different.
That said, I think the most important factor in this debate has fallen by the wayside. The
bottom line is, US troops and US bases should NOT be in Iraq in the first place. Trump himself
stated
this time and time again . Even if Soleimani was behind the attacks and riots in Iraq, US
assets cannot be attacked in the region if they are REMOVED from the region as Trump said he
would do.
There is only one reason to keep US assets in Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria at this time, and
that is to create ongoing tensions in the area which can be used by the establishment to
trigger a new war, specifically with Iran.
The War Pigs always have reasons and rationales, though.
They say the Muslim world is a threat to our way of life, and I agree that their ideology is
completely incompatible with Western values. That said, the solution is not sending young
Americans to die overseas in wars based on lies. Again, these wars only benefit the bankers and
globalists; they do not make us safer as a people. The only moral solution is to make sure the
fascist elements of Muslim extremism are not imported to our shores.
The War Pigs say that we deserve payment for our "services rendered" in the region before we
leave, echoing the sentiments of Donald Trump. I ask, what services? Payment for what? The
invasion the Iraqi's didn't want, based on fallacies that have been publicly exposed? The US
bases that should not be there in the first place? The hundreds of thousands dead from a war
that had no purpose except to deliberately destabilize the region?
We will never get "payment" from the Iraqis as compensation for these mad endeavors, and the
War Pigs know this. They want war. They want it to go on forever. They want to attach their
egos to the event. They want to claim glory for themselves vicariously when we win, and they
want to claim victimhood for themselves vicariously when our soldiers or citizens get killed.
They are losers that can only be winners through the sacrifices of others.
The War Pigs defend the notion that the president should be allowed to make war unilaterally
without support from congress. They say that this type of action is legal, and technically they
are right. It is "legal" because the checks and balances of war were removed under the Bush and
Obama Administrations. The passage of the AUMF (Authorization For Use Of Military Force) in
2001 gave the Executive Branch dictatorial powers to initiate war on a whim without oversight.
Just because it is "legal" does not mean it is constitutional, or right.
In the end, the Trump bandwagon is meant to accomplish many things for the globalists; the
main goal though is that it is designed to change liberty conservatives into rabid statists. It
is designed to make anti-war pro-constitution activists into war mongers and supporters of big
government, as long as it is big government under "our control". But it's not under our
control. Trump is NOT our guy. He is an
agent of the establishment and always has been.
For now, the saber rattling is aggressive but the actions have been limited, but this will
not be the case for long. Some may ask why the establishment has not simply launched all out
war now? Why start out small? Firstly, they need conservatives psychologically invested in the
idea. This may require a false flag event or attack on American civilians. Secondly, they need
to execute an extensive troop build-up, which could take a few months. Declarations of a "need
for peace" are always used to stall for time while the elites position for war.
War with Iran is pointless, and frankly, unwinnable, and the elites know this. It's not just
a war with Iran, it is a war with Iran, their allies, and every other nation that reacts
negatively to our actions. And, these nations do not have to react militarily, they can react
economically by dumping US treasuries and the dollar as world reserve.
The establishment wants the US embroiled in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, etc. until we are so
hollowed out from conflict that we collapse.
They also need a considerable distraction to hide their responsibility for the implosion of
the Everything Bubble and the economic pain that will come with it. The end game for the
establishment is for America to self destruct, so that it can be rebuilt into something
unrecognizable and eternally monstrous. They want every vestige of our original principles to
be erased, and to do that, they need us to be complicit in our own destruction.
They need us to participate. Don't participate, and refuse to support new banker wars. Don't
be a War Pig.
* * *
If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on
advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The
Wild Bunch Dispatch . Learn more about it
HERE .
The main problem of the United States in the existing political and economic system, which
began to be intensively created by the American banking layer since 1885 and was fixed in
1913. This became possible only thanks to the Civil War of 1861-1865. I will explain. Before
the Civil War, each state had its own banking structure, its own banknotes (there were not so
many states, there were still territories that did not become states yet). Before the
American Civil War, there was no single banking system. Abraham Linkol was a protege of the
banking houses of the cities of New York and Chicago, they rigged the election (bought the
election). It may sound rude to the Americans, but Lincoln was a rogue in the eyes of some US
citizens of that time. And this became the main reason for the desire of some states (not
only southern, and some northern) to withdraw from the United States. Another good reason for
the exit was the persistent attempts of bankers in New York and Chicago to take control of
the banking system of the South. These are two main reasons, as old as the World, the
struggle for control and money. The war (unfortunately) began the South. Under a federal
treaty, South and North were supposed to jointly contain US forts for protection. The
fighting began on April 12, 1861 with an attack by southerners on such a fort Sumter in
Charleston Bay. These are the beginnings of war.
This is important - I advise everyone to read the memoirs of generals, and especially the
memoirs of Ulysses Grant, the future president of the United States. The war was with varying
success, but the emissaries of the banks of New York and Chicago always followed the army of
the North, who, taking advantage of the disastrous situation in the battlefields, bought up
real estate, land and other assets. They were called the "Carpetbagger". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbagger
They were engaged in the purchase throughout the war and up to 1885.
To make it clear to you, in the history of the USA, the period from 1865 to 1885 is called
the "Great American Depression" (this is the very first great depression and lasted 20
years). During this time, the bankers of New York and Chicago completely subjugated the US
banking system to themselves and their interests, trampled the South (robbed), after which
the submission of the US as a state directly to the banking mafia began. At present (since
1913) in the USA there is not capitalism, but an evil parody of capitalism.
I can call it this: American clan-corporate oligarchic "capitalism" (with the suppression
of free markets, with unfair competition and the creation of barriers to the dissemination of
reliable information). Since such "capitalism" cannot work (like socialism or utopian
communism), constant wars are needed that bring profit to the bankers, owners of the
military-industrial complex, political "service staff", make oligarchs richer, and ordinary
Americans poorer. We are now observing this, since this system has come to its end and
everything has become obvious.
For example, in the early 80s, the middle class of the United States was approximately 70%
of the population employed in production and trade, now it is no more than 15%.
The gap between the oligarchs and ordinary Americans widened. My essay is how I see what
is happening in the USA and why I do not like it. It's my personal opinion. In the end, my
favorite phrase is that Americans are suckers and boobies (but we still love them). Good luck
everyone.
Another concern is that the liberty movement would be infected by an influx of people
who are neo-conservative statists at their core. These people pretend to be liberty minded
conservatives, but when the veil is lifted they show their true colors as the War Pigs they
really are.
What does Frank the Skank (ostensibly an American taxpayer, but more likely an Israeli
dual "loyalty" traitor) have to say about this?
We will never get "payment" from the Iraqis as compensation for these mad endeavors, and
the War Pigs know this. They want war. They want it to go on forever. They want to attach
their egos to the event. They want to claim glory for themselves vicariously when we win,
and they want to claim victimhood for themselves vicariously when our soldiers or citizens
get killed. They are losers that can only be winners through the sacrifices of others.
The War Pigs defend the notion that the president should be allowed to make war
unilaterally without support from congress. They say that this type of action is legal, and
technically they are right. It is "legal" because the checks and balances of war were
removed under the Bush and Obama Administrations. The passage of the AUMF (Authorization
For Use Of Military Force) in 2001 gave the Executive Branch dictatorial powers to initiate
war on a whim without oversight. Just because it is "legal" does not mean it is
constitutional, or right.
The 2016 presidential elections are proving historic, and not just because of the surprising
success of self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders, the lively debate among
feminists over whether to support Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump's unorthodox candidacy.
The elections are also groundbreaking because they're revealing more dramatically than ever
the corrosive effect of big money on our decaying democracy.
Following the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision and related rulings,
corporations and the wealthiest Americans gained the legal right to raise and spend as much
money as they want on political candidates.
The 2012
elections were consequently the most expensive in U.S. history. And this year's races are predicted to cost even
more. With the general election still six months away, donors have already sunk $1 billion into
the presidential race -- with $619 million raised by candidates and another $412 million by
super PACs.
Big money in politics drives grave inequality in our country. It
also drives war.
After all, war is a profitable industry. While millions of people all over the world are
being killed and traumatized by violence, a small few make a killing from the never-ending war
machine.
During the Iraq War, for example, weapons manufacturers and a cadre of other corporations
made billions on federal contracts.
Most notoriously this included Halliburton, a military contractor previously led by Dick
Cheney. The company made huge profits from George W. Bush's decision to wage a costly,
unjustified, and illegal war while Cheney served as his vice president.
Military-industrial corporations spend heavily on political campaigns. They've given
over $1 million to this year's presidential candidates so far -- over $200,000 of which
went to Hillary Clinton, who leads the pack in industry backing.
These corporations target House and Senate members who sit on the Armed Forces and
Appropriations Committees, who control the purse strings for key defense line items. And
cleverly, they've planted
factories in most congressional districts. Even if they provide just a few dozen
constituent jobs per district, that helps curry favor with each member of Congress.
Thanks to aggressive lobbying efforts, weapons manufacturers have secured the
five largest contracts made by the federal government over the last seven years. In 2014,
the U.S. government awarded over $90 billion worth of contracts to Lockheed Martin, Boeing,
General Dynamics, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman.
Military spending has been one of the top three biggest federal programs every year since
2000, and it's far and away the largest discretionary portion. Year after year, elected
officials spend several times
more on the military than on education, energy, and the environment combined.
Lockheed Martin's problematic F-35 jet illustrates this disturbingly disproportionate use of
funds. The same $1.5 trillion Washington will spend on the jet, journalist Tom Cahill
calculates , could have provided tuition-free public higher education for every student in
the U.S. for the next 23 years. Instead, the Pentagon ordered a fighter plane that
can't even fire its own gun yet.
Given all of this, how can anyone justify war spending?
Some folks will say it's to make
us safer . Yet the aggressive U.S. military response following the 9/11 attacks -- the
invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the NATO bombing of Libya, and drone strikes in Pakistan and
Yemen -- has only destabilized the region. "Regime change" foreign policies have collapsed
governments and opened the doors to Islamist terrorist groups like ISIS.
Others may say they support a robust Pentagon budget because of the
jobs the military creates . But dollar for dollar, education spending creates nearly three
times more jobs than military spending.
We need to stop letting politicians and corporations treat violence and death as "business
opportunities." Until politics become about people instead of profits, we'll remain crushed in
the death grip of the war machine.
And that is the real national security threat facing the United States today.
Share this:
"... Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies and co-edits the IPS publication Inequality.org. Follow her at @SarahDAnderson1. ..."
CEOs of major U.S. military contractors stand to reap huge windfalls from the escalation of conflict with Iran.
This was evident in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. assassination of a top Iranian military official last
week. As soon as the news reached financial markets, these companies' share prices spiked, inflating the value of
their executives' stock-based pay.
I took a look at how the CEOs at the top five Pentagon contractors were affected by this surge, using the most
recent SEC information on their stock holdings.
Northrop Grumman executives saw the biggest increase in the value of their stocks after the U.S. airstrike that
killed Qasem Suleimani on January 2. Shares in the B-2 bomber maker rose 5.43 percent by the end of trading the
following day.
Wesley Bush, who turned Northrop Grumman's reins over to Kathy Warden last year, held
251,947 shares
of company stock in various trusts as of his final SEC Form 4 filing in May 2019. (Companies
must submit these reports when top executives and directors buy and sell company stock.) Assuming Bush is still
sitting on that stockpile, he saw the value grow by $4.9 million to a total of $94.5 million last Friday.
New Northrop Grumman CEO Warden saw the
92,894 shares
she'd accumulated as the firm's COO expand in value by more than $2.7 million in just one day of
post-assassination trading.
Lockheed Martin, whose
Hellfire missiles
were reportedly used in the attack at the Baghdad airport, saw a 3.6 percent increase in
price per share on January 3. Marillyn Hewson, CEO of the world's largest weapon maker, may be kicking herself for
selling off a considerable chunk of stock last year when it was trading at around $307. Nevertheless, by the time
Lockheed shares reached $413 at the closing bell, her
remaining stash
had increased in value by about $646,000.
What about the manufacturer of the
MQ-9 Reaper
that carried the Hellfire missiles? That would be General Atomics. Despite raking in
$2.8
billion
in taxpayer-funded contracts in 2018, the drone maker is not required to disclose executive
compensation information because it is a privately held corporation.
We do know General Atomics CEO Neal Blue is worth an estimated
$4.1 billion
-- and he's a
major
investor
in oil production, a sector that
also stands to profit
from conflict with a major oil-producing country like Iran.
*Resigned 12/22/19. **Resigned 1/1/19 while staying on
as chairman until 7/19. New CEO Kathy Warden accumulated 92,894 shares in her previous position as Northrop
Grumman COO.
Suleimani's killing also inflated the value of General Dynamics CEO Phebe Novakovic's fortune. As the weapon
maker's share price rose about 1 percentage point on January 3, the former CIA official saw her
stock holdings
increase by more than $1.2 million.
Raytheon CEO Thomas Kennedy saw a single-day increase in his stock of more than half a million dollars, as the
missile and bomb manufacturer's share price increased nearly 1.5 percent. Boeing stock remained flat on Friday.
But Dennis Muilenberg, recently ousted as CEO over the 737 aircraft scandal, appears to be well-positioned to
benefit from any continued upward drift of the defense sector.
As of his final
Form 4
report, Muilenburg was sitting on stock worth about $47.7 million. In his yet to be finalized exit
package, the disgraced former executive could also pocket huge sums of currently unvested stock grants.
Hopefully sanity will soon prevail and the terrifyingly high tensions between the Trump administration and Iran
will de-escalate. But even if the military stock surge of this past Friday turns out to be a market blip, it's a
sobering reminder of who stands to gain the most from a war that could put millions of lives at risk.
We can put an end to dangerous war profiteering by denying federal contracts to corporations that pay their top
executives excessively. In 2008, John McCain, then a Republican presidential candidate, proposed
capping CEO pay
at companies receiving taxpayer bailouts at no more than $400,000 (the salary of the U.S.
president). That notion should be extended to companies that receive massive taxpayer-funded contracts.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, for instance, has
a plan
to deny federal contracts to companies that pay CEOs more than 150 times what their typical worker
makes.
As long as we allow the top executives of our privatized war economy to reap unlimited rewards, the profit
motive for war in Iran -- or anywhere -- will persist.
Share this:
Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies and co-edits the IPS
publication Inequality.org. Follow her at @SarahDAnderson1.
Critics of the Soleimani assassination point out that it was an action devoid of strategic
purpose. They are correct to do so. Yet let's not blame Donald Trump and his ever-changing cast
of senior advisers for having strayed off the path of good sense. The United States lost its
way decades ago when members of the policy elite succumbed to an infatuation with military
power and thereby lost their strategic bearings.
The current crisis with Iran brings into focus something that ought to have long ago
attracted attention: t his country has a Samson problem. The United States has become a
21st-century equivalent of the tragic figure from the Book of Judges in the Hebrew Bible:
strong, vain, and doomed (although we must hope our nation does not share Samson's ultimate
fate).
Most people are familiar with at least the outlines of the biblical Samson story: a mighty
warrior who slays the enemies of the Israelites in great numbers using the jawbone of an ass
among other weapons. Sadly, after the captivating Delilah seduces Samson into revealing the
secret of his extraordinary strength -- his unshorn hair -- he ends up blind, in chains, and
held captive in the temple of the Philistines. Samson asks the Lord to restore his strength.
The King James Bible explains what happens next: "And he bowed himself with all his might; and
the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he
slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life." It was a huge bloodletting,
and among the victims was the hero himself.
It's a dramatic story, made for the movies. The 1949 Technicolor version, directed by Cecil
B. DeMille and starring Victor Mature and Hedy Lamarr, remains a camp classic of the
sandal-and-togas genre. But whether in the original text or on celluloid, the denouement does
not qualify as a happy one. Samson was a fool and his own worst enemy. Something of the same
can be said of the United States in recent decades.
As the recently concluded war scare with Iran was unfolding, for example, President Trump
took it upon himself to assure his nervous fellow citizens as to the matchless strength of
America's armed forces. "So far, so good!" he tweeted, more than slightly prematurely. "We have
the most powerful and well-equipped military anywhere in the world, by far!"
I confess that it's those exclamation points that leave me most uneasy. They suggest a manic
personality oblivious to the seriousness of the moment. Can you imagine Kennedy in the midst of
the Cuban Missile Crisis releasing a comparable statement?
Although not without his faults, Kennedy understood how quickly a position of apparent
strength can dissipate. Our current commander-in-chief possesses no such appreciation. Trump's
confidence in the U.S. military, expressed with his trademark bluster and bravado, seemingly
knows no bounds. And although on this occasion the president and his counterparts in Tehran
found a way to avoid pulling down the temple on all of us, his performance did not inspire
confidence. We must hope that in the future he's confronted with few comparable crises. There's
no saying when his luck (and ours) might run out.
Yet we should not lose sight of the fact that the assassination of General Soleimani was
only the most recent in a long series of actions in which confidence in America's military has
underwritten rash decisions devoid of strategic common sense. Post-Cold War Washington
specializes in rashness. Indeed, in comparison with George W. Bush, who ordered the invasion of
Iraq in 2003, and Barack Obama, who greenlighted the overthrow of Libya's Moammar Gaddafi in
2011, Trump comes across as a small-stakes gambler.
The larger problem to which Trump calls our attention is the militarism that pervades the
American political class -- the conviction that accumulating and putting to use military power
expresses the essence of so-called American global leadership. That notion is dead wrong and
has been the source of endless mischief.
Congress is considering measures that will constrain Trump from any further use of force
targeting Iran, hoping thereby to avoid an all-out war. This is all to the good. But the larger
requirement is for our political establishment generally to wean itself off of its infatuation
with military power. Only then can we restore a measure of self-restraint to America's national
security policy.
Andrew Bacevich is president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. His new
book, The Age of Illusions: How America Squandered Its Cold War Victory , is just
out.
We start in a considerable hole. Last year (September 12) Forbes reported a survey of
60,000 Europeans in 14 countries and found only 4% trust Trump. "Our polling confirms that
Trump is toxic in Europe, and that this is feeding into distrust of the U.S. Security
Guarantee,"
https://www.forbes.com/site...
Apparently they aren't so impressed by our massive military might . . . or at least they
are not impressed by those who wield our massive military might.
The US military isn't solving world problems, it's CAUSING world problems, primarily for
Israel's Balkanizing Oded Yinon Plan and for the neoconJew's PNAC global agenda.
The Full Spectrum Dominance policy posits that America can never be secure until all
potential rivals are made subservient. What is the character of a nation that demands
submission from the entire world, that all are to be vassals and satrapies?
If Trump really did think that there was some Art of the Deal logic in this, kill
Soleimani, let Iran have a symbolic retaliation, then back down and deal, I can respect
that, but I want to see a deal. Obama got a deal, not a perfect one, but respectable
considering we don't have long term interests in the Middle East anyways. Without a deal he
just furthered the risk of neocons getting to push the fire button and commit us
unprofitably once more, and pushed Iran further into the arms of China.
On the other hand his threatening to attack Iranian cultural sites was inappropriate and
unwise and creating long term problems with no short term gain. It rhymes with some of his
domestic issues too - tribalizing people does not make for a deal-making environment.
Shades of the 1993 Essay in Parameters "The Origins of the Military Coup of 2012.
When the only tool in in your kitbag that works at all is a hammer, every problem is a
nail. That might be okay if we had a small tack hammer, but for some reason all we have is
a 700 Billion Dollar 20 lb sledge. https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=586
the assassination of General Soleimani was only the most recent in a long series of
actions in which confidence in America's military has underwritten rash decisions devoid of
strategic common sense
Ah, strategic common sense.
So Bacevich doesn't need to bother with tactical common sense.
Got it.
As a respected authority on both strategy and tactics once suggested: "strategy without
tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before
defeat." Strategy is fundamentally more important than tactics. Perhaps we could be a bit
less dismissive?
"Congress is considering measures that will constrain Trump from any further use of force
targeting Iran, hoping thereby to avoid an all-out war."
I'm always baffled when I hear about new attempts by Congress to limit the president's
unilateral use of force, as if they have chosen to ignore that the Constitution itself
already explicitly forbids it.
Is "national security" really the goal of the US military, or is "multinational corporation
security" the real reason the US has thousands of military bases around the world? The US
taxpayer foots the security bill for the same corporations that buy all of our national
elections. But you have to admit, it's a well-played scam: the CIA stirs up internal chaos
in a country, and the US military then completes the destabilization program by bombing it
into submission or terminal chaos.
"... The 1933 Marx brothers film Duck Soup was meant to be a satirical look at Benito Mussolini, ruler of Italy. In the film the mythical country of Freedonia , ruled by the effervescent Rufus T. Firefly ( played by Groucho), due to an insult by the ambassador of rival nation Sylvania, declares war. Laughs abound. Well, in our own nation of ' Free markets', ' Free enterprise' and ' Free use of war' whenever it pleases us, we are led by another Firefly, who is as comedic as he is dangerous to peace. ..."
"... Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, World News Trust and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 300 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ' It's the Empire Stupid ' radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected] ..."
The 1933 Marx brothers film Duck Soup was meant to be a satirical look at Benito
Mussolini, ruler of Italy. In the film the mythical country of Freedonia , ruled by the
effervescent Rufus T. Firefly ( played by Groucho), due to an insult by the ambassador of rival
nation Sylvania, declares war. Laughs abound. Well, in our own nation of ' Free markets', '
Free enterprise' and ' Free use of war' whenever it pleases us, we are led by another Firefly,
who is as comedic as he is dangerous to peace.
Of course, the major difference with movie's Freedonia and our own is like night and day. In
the film the leader, Firefly, had full control of every decision needed to be made. In our
Freemerika , Mr. Trump, regardless of the image he portrays as an absolute ruler, has to
dance to the tune of the Military Industrial Empire, just like ALL our previous
presidents. Folks, sorry to say, but presidents are not so much harnessed by our Constitution
or Congress ( or even the Supreme Court) but by the wizards who the empire picks to
advise him. They decide the ' when and if' of such dramatic actions like the other day's
drone missile murder in Iraq of the Iranian general. Unlike when Groucho decides he was
insulted by Trentino, the Sylvanian ambassador, and declares ' This means war!', Mr. Trump gave
the order for the assassination but ONLY after those behind the curtain advised
him.
To believe that our presidents have carte blanche to do the heinous deeds is foolish at best
. LBJ's use of the Gulf of Tonkin phony incident to gung ho in Vietnam was not just one man
making that call.
Or Nixon's Christmas carpet bombing of Hanoi, Bush Sr.'s attack on Iraq in 1991 , his son's
ditto against Iraq in 2003, Obama's use of NATO to destroy Libya in 2011, or this latest
arrogance by Trump, were all machinations by this empire's wizards who advised them.
When the late Senator Robert Byrd stood before a near empty Senate chamber in 2003 to warn of
this craziness, that told it all! We are not led by Rufus T. Firefly, rather a
Cabal that most in this government do not even realize who in the hell these people
are!
Of course, the embedded mainstream media does the usual job of demonizing who the
empire chooses to be our enemies. As with this recent illegal act by our government of
crossing into another nation's sovereignty to do the deed, now they all tell us how deadly this
Iranian general was. Yet, how many of the news outlets ever mentioned this guy for what they
now tell us he was, for all these years? Well, here is the kicker. I do not know what this man
was responsible for , regarding acts of insurgency against US forces in Iraq. Maybe he did aid
in the attacks on US personnel. Maybe he also was there to neutralize the fanatical ISIS
terrorists who were killing US and Iraqi personnel in Iraq and Syria. What I do know is that,
in the first place, we had no business ever invading and occupying Iraq period! Thus,
the rest of this Duck Soup becomes postscript.
Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also
frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, World News Trust and Off Guardian
sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn
College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 300 columns on
the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also
host of the ' It's the Empire Stupid ' radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be
reached at [email protected]
@Authenticjazzman
The US could afford lots of things if we cut the military budget by 99%, as we should have
done after WWII.
The military works for the plutocrats, stealing money from the taxpayers. The ruling class
turned Vietnam from an agricultural nation into a low paid factory nation which took
thousands of textile jobs from Americans – i.e winning the Vietnam war. The problem
lies in the taxpayers not understanding what winning means. Manufacturing havens with super
low wages and homeless veterans begging at every intersection. West Point teaches people they
have the right to drop bombs on civilians and torture them in Guantanamo. Of course these
folks think of themselves as the smartest people who ever lived.
"Isolationist" is a imperialist label put on someone against war. And the U.S. has always
been an imperialist nation. There's no such thing as a limited era of imperialism for the
U.S.
Below are some idea from Below are some idea from
OffGuardian that
clrify TT post...
The Saker took a look yesterday at The Soleimani murder – what
could happen next . He thinks, as he has said before, that Trump is regarded as a disposable
asset by his Deep State handlers and is being used as a front man for risky policy actions that
he can be scapegoated for if/when they go wrong.
war with Iran has been the auto-erotic fixation for the hardcore war nuts in Washington for
years, and imminent confrontation has been predicted regularly since at least 2005
Trump administration from the very beginning has been ramping up the tensions (Adelson money
at work): Trump teared up the nuclear deal, re-imposed sanctions, making provocations, making
threats. But this has all been within the familiar framework that always just stops short of
actual conflict. The murder of Soleimani is orders of magnitude beyond anything they have ever
risked before. the US and Israel now have carte blanche to stage as much false flag 'terrorism'
as they want and blame it on Iranian 'revenge'. Whatever else happens, we can almost certainly
look forward to some of that. The murder of Soleimani is orders of magnitude beyond anything they
have ever risked before. the US and Israel now have carte blanche to stage as much false flag
'terrorism' as they want and blame it on Iranian 'revenge'. Whatever else happens, we can almost
certainly look forward to some of that. The murder of Soleimani is orders of magnitude beyond
anything they have ever risked before. the US and Israel now have carte blanche to stage as much
false flag 'terrorism' as they want and blame it on Iranian 'revenge'. Whatever else happens, we
can almost certainly look forward to some of that.
The major question really though is – will this backtracking and odd claims of wanting
de-escalation actually do anything to de-escalate? Will it persuade Iran not to seek retaliation,
supposing this is now what Pompeo et al want?
It's become a commonplace to describe Trump foreign policy as 'insane', and it's an apposite
description. But the murder of Soleimani takes the evident insanity to new and self-defeating
levels.
Notable quotes:
"... Eric, the embassy attack hurt little more than our pride. Yes, an entrance lobby and it's contents were burned and destroyed but no American was injured or even roughed up. It was the Iraqi government that let the demonstrators approach the embassy walls, not Soleimani. The unarmed PMU soldiers dispersed as soon as the Iraqi government said their point was made. If we are so thin skinned that rude graffiti and gestures induce us to committing assassinations, we deserve to be labeled as international pariahs. ..."
"... Yes, I see Soleimani as a threat, but he was a threat to the jihadis and the continued US dreams of regional hegemony. ..."
"... According to published pictures of the rockets recovered after the K-1 attack, they were the same powerful new weapons that Turkish troops recovered from a YPG ammo depot in Afrin last year: 'Iranian' 107mm rockets Manufactured 2016 Lot 570. I know matching lots isn't proof of anything, but what are the chances? ..."
"... This "imminent" threat of Gen. Soleimani attacking US forces seems eerily reminiscent of the "mushroom cloud" imminent threat that Bush, Cheney and Blair peddled. Now we even have Pence claiming that Soleimani provided support to the Saudi 9/11 terrorists. Laughable if it wasn't so tragic. But of course at one time the talking point was Saddam orchestrated 9/11 and was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden. ..."
"... After the Iraq WMD, Gadhaffi threat and Assad the butcher and the incorrigible terrorist loving Taliban posing such imminent threats that we must use our awesome military to bomb, invade, occupy, while spending trillions of dollars borrowed from future generations, and our soldiers on the ground serving multiple tours, and our fellow citizens buy into the latest rationale for killing an Iranian & Iraqi general, without an ounce of skepticism, says a lot! ..."
"... IMO, Craig Murray is pointing in the right direction around the word 'immanent,' by pointing out that it is referring to the legally dubious Bethlehem Doctrine of Self Defense, the Israeli, UK and US standard for assassination, in which immanent is defined as widely as, 'we think they were thinking about it.' The USG managed to run afoul of even these overly permissive guidelines, which are meant only against non-state actors. ..."
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States had "clear, unambiguous" intelligence that a top
Iranian general was planning a significant campaign of violence against the United States when
it decided to strike him, the top U.S. general said on Friday, warning Soleimani's plots "might
still happen."
Army General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a small group
of reporters "we fully comprehend the strategic consequences" associated with the strike
against Qassem Soleimani, Tehran's most prominent military commander.
But he said the risk of inaction exceeded the risk that killing him might dramatically
escalate tensions with Tehran. "Is there risk? Damn right, there's risk. But we're working to
mitigate it," Milley said from his Pentagon office. (Reuters)
-- -- -- -- --
This is pretty much in line with Trump's pronouncement that our assassination of Soleimani
along with Iraqi General Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis was carried out to prevent a war not start one.
Whatever information was presented to Trump painted a picture of imminent danger in his mind.
What did the Pentagon see that was so imminent?
Well first let's look at the mindset of the Pentagon concerning our presence in Iraq and
Syria. These two recent quotes from Brett McGurk sums up that mindset.
"If we leave Iraq, that will just increase further the running room for Iran and Shia
militia groups and also the vacuum that will see groups like ISIS fill and we'll be right
back to where we were. So that would be a disaster."
"It's always been Soleimani's strategic game... to get us out of the Middle East. He wants
to see us leave Syria, he wants to see us leave Iraq... I think if we leave Iraq after this,
that would just be a real disastrous outcome..."
McGurk played a visible role in US policy in Iraq and Syria under Bush, Obama and Trump. Now
he's an NBC talking head and a lecturer at Stanford. He could be the poster boy for what many
see as a neocon deep state. He's definitely not alone in thinking this way.
So back to the question of what was the imminent threat. Reuters offers an elaborate story
of a secret meeting of PMU commanders with Soleimani on a rooftop terrace on the Tigris with a
grand view of the US Embassy on the far side of the river.
-- -- -- -- --
"In mid-October, Iranian Major-General Qassem Soleimani met with his Iraqi Shi'ite
militia allies at a villa on the banks of the Tigris River, looking across at the U.S. embassy
complex in Baghdad, and instructed them to step up attacks on U.S. targets in the
country"
"Two militia commanders and two security sources briefed on the gathering told Reuters
that Soleimani instructed his top ally in Iraq, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and other powerful
militia leaders to step up attacks on US targets using sophisticated new weapons provided by
Iran."
"Soleimani's plans to attack US forces aimed to provoke a military response that would
redirect Iraqis' anger towards Iran to the US, according to the sources briefed on the
gathering, Iraqi Shi'ite politicians and government officials close to Iraq PM Adel Abdul
Mahdi."
"At the Baghdad villa, Soleimani told the assembled commanders to form a new militia
group of low-profile paramilitaries - unknown to the United States - who could carry out rocket
attacks on Americans housed at Iraqi military bases." (Reuters)
-- -- -- -- --
And what were those sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran? They were 1960s Chinese
designed 107mm multiple rocket launcher technology. These simple but effective rocket launchers
were mass produced by the Soviet Union, Iran, Turkey and Sudan in addition to China. They've
been used in every conflict since then. The one captured outside of the K1 military base seems
to be locally fabricated, but used Iranian manufactured rockets.
Since when does the PMU have to form another low profile militia unit? The PMU is already
composed of so many militia units it's difficult to keep track of them. There's also nothing
low profile about the Kata'ib Hizbollah, the rumored perpetrators of the K1 rocket attack.
They're as high profile as they come.
Perhaps there's something to this Reuters story, but to me it sounds like another shithouse
rumor. It would make a great scene in a James Bond movie, but it still sounds like a rumor.
There's another story put out by The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Although it also
sounds like a scene form a James Bond movie, I think it sounds more convincing than the Reuters
story.
-- -- -- -- --
Delegation of Arab tribes met with "Soleimani" at the invitation of "Tehran" to carry out
attacks against U.S. Forces east Euphrates
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights learned that a delegation of the Arab tribes met
on the 26th of December 2019, with the goal of directing and uniting forces against U.S.
Forces, and according to the Syrian Observatory's sources, that meeting took place with the
commander of the al-Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Qassim Soleimani, who was
assassinated this morning in a U.S. raid on his convoy in Iraq. the sources reported that: "the
invitation came at the official invitation of Tehran, where Iran invited Faisal al-al-Aazil,
one of the elders of al-Ma'amra clan, in addition to the representative of al-Bo Asi clan the
commander of NDF headquarters in Qamishli Khatib al-Tieb, and the Sheikh of al-Sharayin, Nawaf
al-Bashar, the Sheikh of Harb clan, Mahmoud Mansour al-Akoub, " adding that: "the meeting
discussed carrying out attacks against the American forces and the Syria Democratic
Forces."
Earlier, the head of the Syrian National Security Bureau, Ali Mamlouk, met with the
security committee and about 20 Arab tribal elders and Sheikhs in al-Hasakah, at Qamishli
Airport Hall on the 5th of December 2019, where he demanded the Arab tribes to withdraw their
sons from the ranks of the Syria Democratic Forces. (SOHR)
-- -- -- -- --
I certainly don't automatically give credence to anything Rami sends out of his house in
Coventry. I give this story more credibility only because that is exactly what I would do if
Syria east of the the Euphrates was my UWOA (unconventional warfare operational area). This is
exactly how I would go about ridding the area of the "Great Satan" invaders and making Syria
whole again. The story also includes a lot of named individuals. This can be checked. This
morning Colonel Lang told me some tribes in that region have a Shia history. Perhaps he can
elaborate on that. I've read in several places that Qassim Soleimani knew the tribes in Syria
and Iraq like the back of his hand. This SOHR story makes sense. If Soleimani was working with
the tribes of eastern Syria like he worked with the tribes and militias of Iraq to create the
al-Ḥashd ash-Shaʿbi, it no doubt scared the bejeezus out of the Pentagon and
endangered their designs for Iraq and Syria.
So, Qassim Soleimani, the Iranian soldier, the competent and patient Iranian soldier, was a
threat to the Pentagon's designs a serious threat. But he was a long term threat, not an
imminent threat. And he was just one soldier.The threat is systemic and remains. The question
of why, in the minds of Trump and his generals, Soleimani had to die this week is something I
will leave for my next post.
A side note on Milley: Whenever I see a photo of him, I am reminded of my old Brigade
Commander in the 25th Infantry Division, Colonel Nathan Vail. They both have the countenance of
a snapping turtle. One of the rehab transfers in my rifle platoon once referred to him as "that
J. Edgar Hoover looking mutha fuka." I had to bite my tongue to keep from breaking out in
laughter. It would have been unseemly for a second lieutenant to openly enjoy such disrespect
by a PV2 and a troublemaking PV2 at that. God bless PV2 Webster, where ever you are.
Eric, the embassy attack hurt little more than our pride. Yes, an entrance lobby and it's
contents were burned and destroyed but no American was injured or even roughed up. It was the
Iraqi government that let the demonstrators approach the embassy walls, not Soleimani. The
unarmed PMU soldiers dispersed as soon as the Iraqi government said their point was made. If we
are so thin skinned that rude graffiti and gestures induce us to committing assassinations, we
deserve to be labeled as international pariahs.
Yes, I see Soleimani as a threat, but he was a threat to the jihadis and the continued US
dreams of regional hegemony. I was glad we went back into Iraq to take on the threat of IS and
cheered our initial move into Syria to do the same. That was the Sunni-Shia war you worry
about. More accurately, it was a Salafist jihadist-all others war. Unfortunately, we overstayed
the need and our welcome. It's a character flaw that we cannot loosen our grasp on empire no
matter how much it costs us.
Thanks for your post. What it says I buy. We are in the Middle East and have been for a
while to impose regional hegemony. What that has bought us is nebulous at best. Clearly we have
spent trillions and destabilized the region. Millions have been displaced and hundreds of
thousands have been killed and maimed, including thousands of our soldiers. Are we better off
from our invasion of Iraq, toppling Ghaddafi, and attempting to topple Assad using jihadists?
Guys like McGurk, Bolton, Pompeo will say yes. Others like me will say no.
The oil is a canard. We produce more oil than we ever have and it is a fungible commodity.
Will it impact Israel if we pull out our forces? Sure. But it may have a salutary effect that
it may force them to sue for peace. Will the Al Sauds continue to fund jihadi mayhem? Likely
yes, but they'll have to come to some accommodation with the Iranian Shia and recognize their
regional strength.
Our choice is straightforward. Continue down the path of more conflict sinking ever more
trillions that we don't have expecting a different outcome or cut our losses and get out and
let the natural forces of the region assert themselves. I know which path I'll take.
With all due respect, I think you are wrong. I think the protesters swarming the embassy was
exactly the same kind of tactic that US backed protesters used in Ukraine (and are currently
using in Hong Kong) to great effect. The Persians are unique in that they are capable of
studying our methodologies and tactics and appropriating them.
When the US backed protesters took over Maidan square and started taking over various
government building in Kiev, Viktor Yanukovych had two choices - either start shooting
protesters or watch while his authority collapsed. It was and is a difficult choice.
In my
humble opinion, there are few things the stewards of US hegemony fear more than the IRGC
becoming the worlds number one disciple of Gene Sharp.
TTG - "And what were those sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran?"
According to published pictures of the rockets recovered after the K-1 attack, they were the
same powerful new weapons that Turkish troops recovered from a YPG ammo depot in Afrin last
year: 'Iranian' 107mm rockets Manufactured 2016 Lot 570. I know matching lots isn't proof of
anything, but what are the chances?
If the U.S. only had a Dilyana Gaytandzhieva to bird-dog out the rat line. Wait... the MSM
would have fired her by now for weaponizing journalism against the neocons [sigh].
If a goal is to get the heck out of the Middle East since it is an intractable cess pit and
stat protecting our own borders and internal security, will we be better off with Soleimani out
of the picture or left in place.
Knowing of course, more just like him will sprout quickly, like dragon's teeth, in the sands
of the desert.ME is a tar baby. Fracking our own tar sands is the preferable alternative.
Real war war would be a direct attack on Israel. Then they get our full frontal assault. But
this pissy stuff around the edges is an exercise in futility. 2020 was Trump's to
lose.Incapacity to handle asymmetirc warfare is ours to lose.
There is no necessary link between the Iranian support for the Assad regime, to include its
operations in tribal areas of Syria. The Iranian-backed militias and Iranian government
officials have been operating in that area for a long time, supporting the efforts of
Security/Intel Ali Mamlouk. That Suleimani knew the tribes so well is a mark of his
professional competence. Everyone is courting the Syrian tribes, some sides more adeptly than
others. It is also worth noting that in putting together manpower for their various locally
formed Syrian militias, the Iranians took on unemployed Sunnis.
That said, there are small Ismaili communities in Syria and there are apparently a couple of
villages in Deir ez Zor that did convert to Shiism, but no mass religious change. The Iranians
are sensitive to the fact that they could cause a backlash if they tried hard to promote "an
alien culture."
Well, The Donald has turned to Twitter menacing iran with wiping out all of its World Heritage
Sites....which is declared intention to commit a war crime...
For what it seems Iran must sawllow the assasination of its beloved and highjly regarded
general...or else...
Do you really think there is any explanation for this, whatever Soleimani´s history (
he was doing his duty in his country and neighboring zone...you are...well...everywhere...) or
that we can follow this way with you escalating your threats and crimes ever and that everybody
must leave it at that without response or you menace coming with more ?
That somebody or some news agency has any explanation for this is precisely the sign of our
times and our disgrace. That there is a bunch of greedy people who is willing to do whatever is
needed to prevail and keep being obscenely rich...
BTW, would be interesting to know who are the main holders of shares at Reuters...
The same monopolizing almost each and every MSM and news agency at every palce in the world,
big bank, big pharma, big business, big capital ( insurances companies nad hedge funds ) big
real state, and US think tanks...
In Elora´s opinion, Bret MacGurk is making revanche from Soleimani for the predictable
fact that a humble and pious man bred in the region, who worked as bricklayer to help pay his
father´s debt during his youth, and moreover has an innate irresistible charisma, managed
to connect better with the savage tribes of the ME than such exceptionalist posh theoric bred
at such an exceptionalist as well as far away country like the US.
But...what did you expect, that MacGurk would become Lawrence of Arabia versus Soleimani in
his simpleness?
May be because of that that he deserved being dismembered by a misile...
As Pence blamed shamefully and stonefacelly Soleimani for 9/11, MacGurk blames him too for
having fallen from the heights he was...
It seems that Pence was in the team of four who assesed Trump on this hit...along with
Pompeo...
A good response would be that someone would leak the real truth on 9/11 so as to debunk
Pence´s mega-lie...
Two years ago, the public protest theme for Basel's winter carnival Fashnach was the imminent
threat nuclear war as NK and US were sabre rattling, and NK was lobbing missles across Japan
with sights on West Coast US cities.
Then almost the following week, NK and US planned to meet F2F in Singapore. And we could all
breathe again. In the very early spring of 2018.
This "imminent" threat of Gen. Soleimani attacking US forces seems eerily reminiscent of the
"mushroom cloud" imminent threat that Bush, Cheney and Blair peddled. Now we even have Pence
claiming that Soleimani provided support to the Saudi 9/11 terrorists. Laughable if it wasn't
so tragic. But of course at one time the talking point was Saddam orchestrated 9/11 and was in
cahoots with Osama bin Laden.
I find it fascinating watching the media spin and how easily so many Americans buy into the
spin du jour.
After the Iraq WMD, Gadhaffi threat and Assad the butcher and the incorrigible terrorist
loving Taliban posing such imminent threats that we must use our awesome military to bomb,
invade, occupy, while spending trillions of dollars borrowed from future generations, and our
soldiers on the ground serving multiple tours, and our fellow citizens buy into the latest
rationale for killing an Iranian & Iraqi general, without an ounce of skepticism, says a
lot!
Yeah, it will be interesting to see how Trump's re-election will go when we are engaged in a
full scale military conflagration in the Middle East? It sure will give Tulsi & Bernie an
excellent environment to promote their anti-neocon message. You can see it in Trump's
ambivalent tweets. On the one hand, I ordered the assassination of Soleimani to prevent a war
(like we needed to burn the village to save it), while on the other hand, we have 52 sites
locked & loaded if you retaliate. Hmmm!! IMO, he has seriously jeapordized his re-election
by falling into the neocon Deep State trap. They never liked him. The coup by law enforcement
& CIA & DNI failed. The impeachment is on its last legs. Voila! Incite him into another
Middle Eastern quagmire against what he campaigned on and won an election.
I would think that Khamanei has no choice but to retaliate. How is anyone's guess? I doubt
he'll order the sinking of a naval vessel patrolling the Gulf or fire missiles into the US base
in Qatar. But assassination....especially in some far off location in Europe or South America?
A targeted bombing here or there? A cyber attack at a critical point. I mean not indiscriminate
acts like the jihadists but highly calculated targets. All seem extremely feasible in our
highly vulnerable and relatively open societies. And they have both the experience and skills
to accomplish them.
If ever you have the inclination, a speculative post on how the escalation ladder could
potentially be climbed would be a fascinating read.
"I find it fascinating watching the media spin and how easily so many Americans buy into the
spin du jour."
BP,
Yes, indeed. It is a testament to our susceptibility that there is such limited scepticism
by so many people on the pronouncements of our government. Especially considering the decades
long continuous streams of lies and propaganda. The extent and brazenness of the lies have just
gotten worse through my lifetime.
I feel for my grand-children and great-grand children as they now live in society that has
no value for honor. It's all expedience in the search for immediate personal gain.
I am and have been in the minority for decades now. I've always opposed our military
adventurism overseas from Korea to today. I never bought into the domino theory even at the
heights of the Cold War. And I don't buy into the current global hegemony destiny to bring
light to the savages. I've also opposed the build up of the national security surveillance
state as the antithesis of our founding. I am also opposed to the increasing concentration of
market power across every major market segment. It will be the destruction of our
entrepreneurial economy. The partisan duopoly is well past it's sell date. But right now the
majority are still caught up in rancorous battles on the side of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle
Dum.
A question to the committee: what is the source for the claim that Soleimani bears direct
responsibility for the death of over 600 US military personnel?
If that is the case (and it appears to be) then the US govt's claim is nonsense, as it
clearly says " 'During Operation Iraqi Freedom, DoD assessed that at least 603 U.S. personnel
deaths in Iraq were the result of Iran-backed militants,' Navy Cmdr. Sean Robertson, a Pentagon
spokesman, said in an email."
So those figures represent casualties suffered during the US-led military invasion of Iraq
i.e. casualties suffered during a shooting-war.
If Soleimani is a legitimate target for assassination because of the success of his forces
on the battlefield then wouldn't that make Tommy Franks an equally-legitimate target?
Pulitzer Prize winning author of Caliphate, Romanian-American, Rukmini Callimachi, on the
intelligence on Soleimani "imminent threat" being razor-thin.
You just beat me to her thread, Jack. For the Twitter shy, this is the first of a series of 17
tweets as a teaser:
1. I've had a chance to check in with sources, including two US officials who had
intelligence briefings after the strike on Suleimani. Here is what I've learned. According to
them, the evidence suggesting there was to be an imminent attack on American targets is
"razor thin".
IMO, Craig Murray is pointing in the right direction around the word 'immanent,' by pointing
out that it is referring to the legally dubious Bethlehem Doctrine of Self Defense, the
Israeli, UK and US standard for assassination, in which immanent is defined as widely as, 'we
think they were thinking about it.' The USG managed to run afoul of even these overly
permissive guidelines, which are meant only against non-state actors.
Manipulation of the language is one of the most powerful Propaganda tool. See the original Orwell essay at George Orwell Politics
and the English Language. among other things he stated "But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought."
Notable quotes:
"... we were set a writing task as a follow-up, reporting on the same story using the same facts, from completely opposing points of view, using euphemism and mind-numbing cliches. Teach children to do this themselves and they can see how language can be skewed and facts distorted and misrepresented without technically lying. ..."
"... It might be taught in Media Studies, I suppose - but gosh, don't the right really hate that particular subject! Critical thinking is anathema to them. ..."
I remember at school we read Orwell's essay Politics and the English Language in an English class and then we were set
a writing task as a follow-up, reporting on the same story using the same facts, from completely opposing points of view, using
euphemism and mind-numbing cliches. Teach children to do this themselves and they can see how language can be skewed and facts
distorted and misrepresented without technically lying.
How many children in schools are taught such critical thinking these days, I wonder? It might be taught in Media Studies,
I suppose - but gosh, don't the right really hate that particular subject! Critical thinking is anathema to them.
"... What Clapper chokes on -- and avoids saying -- is that U.S. intelligence had no evidence of WMD either. Indeed, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had put him in charge of the agency responsible for analyzing imagery of all kinds -- photographic, radar, infrared, and multispectral -- precisely so that the absence of evidence from our multi-billion-dollar intelligence collection satellites could be hidden, in order not to impede the planned attack on Iraq. That's why, as Clapper now admits, he had to find "what wasn't really there." ..."
Former DNI James Clapper had his own words read back to him by Ray McGovern, exposing his
role in justifying the Iraq invasion based on fraudulent intelligence.
... ... ...
Clapper was appointed Director of National Intelligence by President Barack Obama in June
2010, almost certainly at the prompting of Obama's intelligence confidant and Clapper friend
John Brennan, later director of the CIA. Despite Clapper's performance on Iraq, he was
confirmed unanimously by the Senate. Obama even allowed Clapper to keep his job for three and a
half more years after he admitted that he had lied under oath to that same Senate about the
extent of eavesdropping on Americans by the National Security Agency (NSA). He is now a
security analyst for CNN.
In his book, Clapper finally places the blame for the consequential fraud (he calls it "the
failure") to find the (non-existent) WMD "where it belongs -- squarely on the shoulders of the
administration members who were pushing a narrative of a rogue WMD program in Iraq and on
the intelligence officers, including me, who were so eager to help that we found what wasn't
really there." (emphasis added ) .
So at the event on Tuesday I stood up and asked him about that. It was easy, given the
background Clapper himself provides in his book, such as:
"The White House aimed to justify why an invasion of and regime change in Iraq were
necessary, with a public narrative that condemned its continued development of weapons of
mass destruction [and] its support to al-Qaida (for which the Intelligence Community had no
evidence)."
What Clapper chokes on -- and avoids saying -- is that U.S. intelligence had no evidence of
WMD either. Indeed, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had put him in charge of the agency
responsible for analyzing imagery of all kinds -- photographic, radar, infrared, and
multispectral -- precisely so that the absence of evidence from our multi-billion-dollar
intelligence collection satellites could be hidden, in order not to impede the planned attack
on Iraq. That's why, as Clapper now admits, he had to find "what wasn't really there."
Members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) who have employed Clapper
under contract, or otherwise known his work, caution that he is not the sharpest knife in the
drawer. So, to be fair, there is an outside chance that Rumsfeld persuaded him to be guided by
the (in)famous Rumsfeld dictum: "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
But the consequences are the same: a war of aggression with millions dead and wounded;
continuing bedlam in the area; and no one -- high or low -- held accountable. Hold your breath
and add Joe Biden awarding the "Liberty Medal" to George W. Bush on Veteran's Day.
' Shocked'
Protection Racquet , November 17, 2018 at 02:46
When did this perjurer before Congress have any credibility? The guys a professional
liar.
Mild -ly Facetious , November 18, 2018 at 17:27
The guy is a professional liar,and
a member of The Establishment
"The Anglo-American Establishment"
Copyright 1981/ Books in Focus, Inc,
Vallejo D , November 19, 2018 at 21:15
No shit. I saw the video of Clapper perjuring himself to the US Congress on national
television, bald-face lying about the NSA clocking our emails.
I wouldn't believe Clapper if he the sky is blue and grass is green. EPIC liar.
PS: Erstwhile national security state "friend" actually had the nerve to claim that
"Clapper lied to protect you." As if. My bet is that ONLY people on the planet who didn't
know about the NSA's grotesque criminal were the American taxpayers.
Mild -ly Facetious , November 20, 2018 at 12:38
RECALL THIS EXTRAORDINARY STATEMENT -- from the GW Bush administration
There was, however, one valuable insight. In a soon-to-be-infamous passage, the writer,
Ron Suskind, recounted a conversation between himself and an unnamed senior adviser to the
president:
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which
he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of
discernable reality."
I nodded and murmured something about Enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me
off.
"That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now,
and when we act, we create reality. And while you are studying that reality –
judiciously, as you will – we'll act again creating other new realities, which you can
study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you,
will be left to just study what we do."
Anonymot , November 16, 2018 at 20:56
Mild -ly - Facetious , November 18, 2018 at 19:33
Anonymot , Yes!
Here Is A Sequence of books for those who reside in chosen darkness:
"The Lessons of History" by Will & Edith Durant – c. 1968
"The Anglo-American Establishment" by Carroll Quigley – c. 1981
"Understanding Special Operations" by David T. Ratcliffe – c. 1989 / 99
" The Secret War Against The Jews" by John Loftus and Mark Aarons c. 1994
Douglas Baker , November 16, 2018 at 19:42
Thanks Ray. The clap merry-go-round in Washington, D.C., with V.D. assaulting brain
integrity has been long playing there with James Clapper another hand in, in favor of the
continuation of those that direct the United States' war on world from Afghanistan to Syria,
staying the course of firing up the world as though Northern California's Camp fire sooting up
much of the state with air borne particulate matter and leaving death and destruction in its
wake.
JRGJRG , November 16, 2018 at 19:29
All this is fine, except it dares not touch the still taboo subject among these
"professionals" of how all of this started getting justified in the first place when America
attacked itself on September 11, 2001 in New York City and Washington in the most sophisticated
and flawed false flag attack in history, murdering thousands of its own citizens Operation
Northwoods style, blaming it on 19 Saudi hijackers with box cutters, the most grandiose of all
conspiracy theory, the official 911 story.
The incriminating evidence of what happened that day in 2001 is now absolutely overwhelming,
but still too incredible and controversial for even these esteemed folks to come to grips with.
If we're going to take a shower and clean all this excrement off ourselves, let's do it
thoroughly.
JRGJRG , November 16, 2018 at 19:46
In fact, wait! Let's ask the really important question of Clapper.
What was he doing and where was he on 9/11, the "New Pearl Harbor," and what was his role in
the coverup and transformation of the CIA in the ensuing years?
Why doesn't Ray ask him about that?
GKJames , November 16, 2018 at 06:46
(1) One needn't be a Clapper fan to say that he was merely a cog in a body politic that (a)
lives and breathes using military force to "solve" geopolitical problems; and (b) has always
been driven by the national myth of American exceptionalism and the American love of war. The
only issue ever is the story Americans tell themselves as to why a particular assault on some
benighted country that can't meaningfully shoot back is justified. But for that, there are
countless clever people in the corridors of power and the Infotainment Complex always eager to
spread mendacity for fun and profit. Sure, hang Clapper, but if justice is what you're after,
you'd quickly run out of rope and wood.
(2) What doesn't compute: Clapper is quoted as saying that he and cohort "were so eager to
help that [they] found what wasn't really there". That's followed by: "Rumsfeld put him in
charge so that the absence of evidence could be hidden . Clapper now admits [that] he had to
find 'what wasn't really there'". While Rumsfeld's intent was exactly that, i.e., to prevent a
narrative that he and Cheney had contrived, that's not the same as Rumsfeld's explicitly
instructing Clapper et al to do that. Further, it mischaracterizes Clapper's admission. He
doesn't admit that "he had to find" what wasn't there (which would suggest prior intent). What
he does admit is that the eagerness to please the chain of command resulted in "finding" what
didn't exist. One is fraud, the other group-think; two very different propositions. The latter,
of course, has been the hallmark of US foreign policy for decades, though the polite (but
accurate) word for it is "consensus". Everybody's in on it: the public, Congress, the press,
and even the judiciary. By and large, it's who Americans are.
(3) Does this really equate the WMD fiasco with the alleged "desperate [attempt] to blame
Trump's victory on Russian interference"? Yes, Clapper was present in 2003 and 2016. But that's
a thin reed. First, no reasonable person says that Russian interference was the only reason
that Clinton lost. Second, to focus on what was said in January 2017 ignores the US
government's notifying various state officials DURING THE CAMPAIGN in 2016, of Russian hacking
attempts. If, as is commonly said, the Administration was convinced that Clinton would win, how
could hacking alerts to the states have been part of an effort to explain away an election
defeat that hadn't happened yet, and which wasn't ever expected to happen? And, third, as with
WMDs, Clapper wasn't out there on his own. While there were, unsurprisingly, different views
among intelligence officials as to the extent of the Russian role, there was broad agreement
that there had been one. Once again, fraud vs. group-think.
Skip Scott , November 16, 2018 at 13:46
I think there is a big difference between "group think" and inventing and cherry picking
intelligence to fit policy objectives. I believe there is ample evidence of fraud. The "dodgy
dossier" and the yellow cake uranium that led to Plame being exposed as a CIA operative are two
examples that come immediately to mind. "Sexed up" intelligence is beyond groupthink. It is the
promoting of lies and the deliberate elimination of any counter narrative in order to justify
an unjust war.
The same could be said of the "all 17 intelligence agencies" statement about RussiaGate that
was completely debunked but remained the propaganda line. It was way more than "groupthink". It
was a lie. It is part of "full spectrum dominance".
I do agree that "Clapper wasn't out there on his own". He is part of a team with an agenda,
and in a just world they'd all be in prison.
It wasn't "mistaken" intelligence, or "groupthink". You are trying to put lipstick on a
pig.
GKJames , November 17, 2018 at 07:21
Fraud is easy to allege, hard to prove. In the case of Iraq, it's important to accept that
virtually everyone -- the Administration, the press, the public, security agencies in multiple
countries, and even UN inspectors (before the inspections, obviously) -- ASSUMED that Saddam
had WMDs. That assumption wasn't irrational; it was based on Saddam's prior behavior. No
question, the Administration wanted to invade Iraq and the presumed-to-exist WMDs were the
rationale. It was only when evidence appeared that the case for it wasn't rock-solid that
Cheney et al went to work. (The open question is whether they began to have their own doubts or
whether it never occurred to them, given their obsession.) But there is zero evidence that
anyone was asked to conclude that Saddam had WMDs even though the Americans KNEW that there
weren't any. That's where the group-think and weak-kneed obeisance to political brawlers like
Cheney come in. All he had to do was bark, and everyone fell in line, not because they knew
there were no WMDs, but because they weren't sure but the boss certainly was.
In that environment, what we saw from Clapper and his analysts wasn't fraud but weakness of
character, not to mention poor-quality analysis. And maybe that gets to the bigger question to
which there appears to be an allergy: Shouting Fraud! effectively shuts down the conversation.
After all, once you've done that, there's not much else to say; these guys all lied and death
and destruction followed. But what if the answer is just as likely that the national security
state created by Truman has grown into something uncontrollable, beyond legitimate oversight by
the people it's supposed to serve? What if the people in that business aren't all that clever,
let alone principled? After all, the CIA is headed by a torture aficionada and we haven't heard
peep from the employee base, let alone the Congress that confirmed her. That entire ecosystem
has been permitted to flourish without adult supervision for decades. Whenever someone asks,
"that's classified". What do you do when Americans as a whole are perfectly fine with that?
Sam F , November 18, 2018 at 08:17
But fraud from the top was shown very well by Bamford in his book Pretext For War. Where
discredited evidence was retained by intel agencies, as in the Iraq War II case, traitors like
the zionist Wolfowitz simply installed known zionist warmongers Perl, Feith, and Wurmser into
"stovepipe" offices at CIA, DIA, NSA to send the known-bad "evidence" to Rumsfeld &
Cheney.
Skip Scott , November 18, 2018 at 09:27
They seem to conveniently classify anything that could prove illegality such as fraud, or in
the case of the JFK assassination, something much worse. They use tools such as redaction and
classification not only to protect "national security", but to cover up their crimes.
"But what if the answer is just as likely that the national security state created by Truman
has grown into something uncontrollable, beyond legitimate oversight by the people it's
supposed to serve?"
I believe this is very much the case, but that doesn't preclude fraud as part of their
toolkit. The people at the top of the illegalities are clever enough to use those less sharp
(like Clapper) for their evil purposes, and if necessary, to play the fall guy. And although
the Intelligence Agencies are supposed to serve "We the People", they are actually serving
unfettered Global Capitalism and the .1% that are trying to rule the world. This has been the
case from its onset.
Furthermore, I am an American, and I am definitely NOT FINE with the misuse of
classification and redaction to cover up crimes. The way to fix the "entire ecosystem" is to
start to demand it by prosecuting known liars like James Clapper, and to break up the MSM
monopoly so people get REAL news again, and wake people up until they refuse to support the two
party system.
GKJames , November 19, 2018 at 10:20
(1) Assuming you could find a DOJ willing to prosecute and a specific statute on which to
bring charges, the chance of conviction is zero because the required fraudulent intent can't be
proved beyond reasonable doubt. All the defendant would have to say is, We thought WMDs were
there but it turned out we were wrong. Besides, the lawyers said it's all legal. And if you
went after Clapper only, he'd argue (successfully) that it was a highly selective prosecution.
(2) If you're going to create a whole new category of criminal liability for incompetence
and/or toadyism and careerism, Langley corridors would quickly empty. It's certainly one way to
reduce the federal workforce. (3) The intelligence agencies ARE serving "We the People". There
isn't anything they do that doesn't have the blessing of duly elected representatives in
Congress. (4) That you, yourself, are "NOT FINE" overlooks the reality that your perspective
gets routinely outvoted, though not because of "evil" or "fraud". A Clapper behind bars would
do zero to change that. Why? Because most Americans ARE fine with the status quo. That's not a
function of news (fake or real); Americans are drowning in information. Like all good service
providers, the media are giving their customers exactly what they want to hear.
Skip Scott , November 19, 2018 at 11:25
GK-
(1) It is you who is "assuming" that fraud could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
What if evidence was presented that showed that they didn't really think there were WMD's, but
were consciously lying to justify an invasion. I agree that it would be nearly impossible to
find a DOJ willing to prosecute within our corrupted government, but if we could get a 3rd
party president to sign on to the ICC, we could ship a bunch of evil warmongers off to the
Hague. (2) As already discussed, I don't buy the representation of their actions as mere
"toadyism". (3) As shown by many studies, our duly elected representatives serve lobbyists and
the .1%, not "We the People". Here's one from Princeton: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig
(4) From your earlier post: "What do you do when Americans as a whole are perfectly fine with
that?" Since I am part of the "whole", your statement is obviously false. And Americans are
drowning in MISinformation from our MSM, and that is a big part of the problem. And please
provide evidence that most Americans are fine with the status quo. Stating that I get routinely
outvoted when many Americans see their choice as between a lesser of two evils, and our MSM
keeps exposure of third party viewpoints to a minimum, is an obvious obfuscation.
Sam F , November 16, 2018 at 21:01
I will second Skip on that.
The groupthink of careerists is not "who Americans are."
"Broad agreement" on an obvious fraud is a group lie.
What Clapper did was fraud. What went on in his head was group-think. The two are by no
means incompatible. The man admits to outright fabrication-
"my team also produced computer-generated images of trucks fitted out as 'mobile production
facilities used to make biological agents.' Those images, possibly more than any other
substantiation he presented, carried the day with the international community and Americans
alike."
He knew exactly what he was doing.
wootendw , November 15, 2018 at 22:41
"Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency,
said vehicle traffic photographed by U.S. spy satellites indicated that material and documents
related to the arms programs were shipped to Syria "
Syria and Iraq became bitter enemies in 1982 when Syria backed Iran during the Iran-Iraq
War. Syria even sent troops to fight AGAINST Saddam during the first Iraq War. Syria and Iraq
did not restore diplomatic relations until after Saddam was captured. The idea that Saddam
would send WMDs (if he had them) to Syria is ludicrous.
Zhu , November 15, 2018 at 20:54
Cheney wanted to steal the oil. Bush wanted to fulfill prophecy & make Jesus Rapture him
away from his problems. Neither plan worked.
Zhu , November 15, 2018 at 20:50
Our big shots never suffer for their crimes against humanity. Occasionally a Lt. Calley will
get a year in jail for a massacre, but that's it.
bostonblackie , November 16, 2018 at 13:54
Calley was placed under house arrest at Fort Benning, where he served three and a half
years.
JRGJRG , November 16, 2018 at 19:16
That's like less than 2.5 days served per each defenseless My Lai villager slaughtered,
massacred, in cold blood.
What kind of justice is that? Who gets away with murder that way?
Helen Marshall , November 15, 2018 at 17:41
While serving in an embassy in 2003, the junior officer in my office was chatting with the
long-time local employee, after viewing the Powell Shuck and Jive. One said to the other, "the
US calls North Korea part of the 'Axis of Evil' but doesn't attack it because there is clear
evidence that it has WMD including nukes." And the other said "yes, and that's why the US is
going to invade Iraq because we know they don't." QED
John Flanagan , November 16, 2018 at 22:25
Love this comment!
Taras 77 , November 15, 2018 at 16:36
Thanks, Ray, for an excellent article!
You are one of few who are calling out these treasonous bastards. I am still .waiting for at
least some of them to do the perp walk, maybe in the presence of war widows, their children,
and maimed war veterans.
Clapper played the central role in deceiving America into abandoning the republic and
becoming the genocidal empire now terrorizing Planet Earth. If it is too late; if the criminals
have permanent control of our government, there won't be a cleansing Nuremberg Tribunal, and
our once-great USA will continue along its course of death and destruction until it destroys
itself.
Where are our patriots? If any exist, now is the time for a new Nuremberg.
Zhu , November 15, 2018 at 20:56
The genocidal empire goes back to 1950 the Korean War.
bostonblackie , November 16, 2018 at 13:58
How about 1945 and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
JRGJRG , November 16, 2018 at 19:08
Keep going. Further back than that.
How about the Spanish American War, justified by the false flag blowing up of the Maine in
Havana Harbor, which led to the four-year genocidal war against Filipino rebels and the war
against the Cubans?
How about the 19th Century genocide of Native Americans? What was that justified by, except for
lust for conquest of territory and racism?
How about America's role with other western colonial powers in the 1900 Boxer Rebellion in
China.
The list of American violations of international law is too long to restate here, in the
hundreds.
The only way out of this moral dilemma is to turn a new page in history in a new
administration, hold our war criminals in the dock, and make amends under international law,
and keep them, somehow without sacrificing national jurisdiction or security. America has to be
reformed as an honest broker of peace instead of the world's leading pariah terrorist
state.
bostonblackie , November 17, 2018 at 16:29
How about slavery? America was founded on genocide and slavery!
Skip Scott , November 15, 2018 at 09:44
I think Ray is being a little overly optimistic about Clapper being travel restricted.
Universal Jurisdiction is for the small fry. Even with Bush and Rumsfeld, their changing travel
plans was probably more about possible "bad press" than actual prosecution. Maybe down the
road, when the USA collapse is more obvious to our "vassals" and they start to go their own
way, such a thing could happen. Even then, we've got tons of armaments, and a notoriously itchy
trigger finger.
My hope is that the two party system collapses and a Green Party candidate gets elected
president. He or she could then sign us on to the ICC, and let the prosecutions begin. I know
it's delusional, but a guy's gotta dream.
Robert Emmett , November 15, 2018 at 08:52
It occurs to me that even given Cheney's infamous 1% doctrine, these no-goodniks couldn't
even scratch together enough of a true story to pass that low bar. So they invented, to put it
mildly, plausible scenarios, cranked-up the catapults of propaganda and flung them in our faces
via the self-absorbed, self-induced, money grubbing fake patriots of mass media.
But, geez, Ray, it's not as if we didn't already know about fixing facts around the policy,
resignations of career operatives because of politicizing intelligence, reports of Scott
Ritter, plus the smarmy lying faces & voices of all the main actors in the Cheney-Rumsfeld
generated mass hysteria. I doubt these types of reveals, though appreciatively confirming what
we already know, will change very many minds now. After all, the most effective war this cabal
has managed to wage has been against their own people.
Perhaps when these highfalutin traitors, treasonous to their oaths to protect the founding
principles they swore to preserve, at last shuffle off their mortal coils, future generations
will gain the necessary perspective to dismiss these infamous liars with the contempt they
deserve. But that's just wishful thinking because by then the incidents that cranked-up this
never-ending war likely will be the least of their worries.
In the meantime, the fact that this boiled egghead continues to spew his Claptrap on a major
media channel tells you all you need to know about how deeply the poison of the Bush-Cheney era
has seeped into the body politic and continues to eat away at what remains of the foundations
while the military-media-government-corporate complex metastasizes.
Sam F , November 15, 2018 at 21:03
Ray knows that the well-informed know much of the story, and likely writes to bring us the
Clapper memoir confession and summarize for the less informed.
I am always glad to see confirmation in such matters, however, for people who work to inform
themselves and think critically, there are no real surprises to be discovered about the
invasion of Iraq.
It could be clearly seen as a fraud at the time because there were a number of experts,
experts not working for the American government, who in effect told us then that it was a
fraud.
What the whole experience with Iraq reveals is a couple of profound truths about imperial
America, truths that are quite unpleasant and yet seem to remain lost to the general
public.
One, lying and manipulation are virtually work-a-day activities in Washington. They go on at
all levels of the government, from the President through all of the various experts and agency
heads who in theory hold their jobs to inform the President and others of the truth in making
decisions.
Indeed, these experts and agency heads actually work more like party members from George
Orwell's Oceania in 1984, party members whose job it is to constantly rewrite history, making
adjustments in the words and pictures of old periodicals and books to conform with the Big
Brother's latest pronouncements and turns in policy.
America has an entire industry devoted to manufacturing truth, something the rather feeble
term "fake news" weakly tries to capture.
The public's reaction to officials and agencies in Washington ought to be quite different
than it generally is. It should be a presumption that they are not telling the truth, that they
are tailoring a story to fit a policy. It sounds extreme to say so, but it truly is not in view
of recent history.
We are all watching actors in a costly play used to support already-determined destructive
policies.
Two, the press lies, and it lies almost constantly in support of government's decided
policies. You simply cannot trust the American press on such matters, and the biggest names in
the press – the New York Times or Washington Post or CBS or NBC – are the biggest
liars because they put the weight of their general prestige into the balance to tip it.
Their fortunes and interests are too closely bound to government to be in the least trusted
for objective journalism. Journalism just does not exist in America on the big stuff.
This support is not just done on special occasions like the run-up to the illegal invasion
of Iraq but consistently in the affairs of state. We see it today in everything from
"Russia-gate" to the Western-induced horrors of Syria. Russia-gate is almost laughable,
although few Americans laugh, but a matter like Syria, with more than half a million dead and
terrible privations, isn't laughable, yet no effort is made to explain the truth and bring this
monstrous project – the work equally of Republicans and Democrats – to an end.
Three, while virtually all informed people know that Israel's influence in Washington is
inordinate and inappropriate, many still do not realize that the entire horror of Iraq, just
like the horror today of Syria, reflects the interests and demands of Israel.
George Bush made a rarely-noticed, when Ariel Sharon was lobbying him to attack other Middle
Eastern countries following the Iraq invasion, along the lines of, "Geez, what does the guy
want? I invaded Iraq for him, didn't I?"
Well, today, pretty much all of the countries that Sharon thought should be attacked have
indeed been attacked by the United States and its associates in one fashion or another –
covertly, as in Syria, or overtly, as in Libya. And we are all witnessing the ground being
prepared for Iran.
It has been a genuinely terrifying period, the last decade and a half or so. War after war
with huge numbers of innocents killed, vast damages inflicted, and armies of unfortunate
refugees created. All of it completely unnecessary. All of it devoid of ethics or principles
beyond the principle of "might makes right."
It simply cannot be distinguished, except by order of magnitude, from the grisly work of
Europe's fascist governments of the 1930s and '40s.
All the discussions we read or see from America about truth in journalism, about truth in
government, and about founding principles are pretty much distraction and noise, meaningless
noise. The realities of what America is doing in the world make it so.
Sam F , November 15, 2018 at 20:56
Very true.
tpmco , November 16, 2018 at 02:48
Great comment.
john Wilson , November 15, 2018 at 04:47
It seems to me that showing up the blatant lies of the Iraq affair, while laudable, doesn't
really get us anywhere. The guilty are never and will never be brought to account for their
heinous crimes and some of the past villains are still lying, scheming, and brining about war,
terror and horror today.
If the white helmets in Syria, the lies about Libya, the West engineered coupé in The
Ukraine, Yemen, etc, aren't all tactics from the same play book used by the criminal cabals of
the Iraq time, then we are blind. These days, the liars in the deep state, an expression which
encapsulates everything from Intel to think tanks, don't even try to tell plausible lies, they
just say anything and MSM cheers them on. Anyone challenging the MSM/government/deep state etc
are just ridiculed and called conspiracy theorists, no matter how obvious and ludicrous the
lies are.
Sam F , November 15, 2018 at 06:26
In fact "showing up the blatant lies of the Iraq affair" informs others, to whom the MSM can
no longer cheer on liars, nor ridicule truth. Truth telling, like contemplation, is essential
before the point of action.
Randal , November 15, 2018 at 02:38
I remember a woman reporter saying the reason we invaded Iraq was because Sadam Husien had
put a bounty on the Bush family for running him out of qwait. This was a personal revenge to
take out Husien before he had a chance at the Bush's. Any way the reporter was silenced very
quickly. I personally believe the allegation.
You have my complete and total respect Mr. McGovern. That was beautiful! Thank you.
F. G. Sanford , November 15, 2018 at 01:33
"We drew on all of NIMA's skill sets and it was all wrong."
Every time I hear the term, "skill sets", I recall a military colleague who observed, "We
say skill sets so we don't have to say morons." They used to say, "The military doesn't pay you
to think." Now they say, "We have skill sets." It's a euphemism for robotized automatons who
perform specific standardized tasks based on idealized training requirements which evolve from
whatever the latest abstract military doctrine happens to be. And, they come up with new ones
all the time.
"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." This is a phrase Rumsfeld borrowed
directly – and I'm not making this up – from the UFO community. It was apparently
first uttered by Carl Sagan, and then co-opted by people like Stanton Friedman. He's the guy
who claims we recovered alien bodies from flying saucers at Roswell, New Mexico. The scientific
antidote to the "absence of evidence" argument is, of course, "Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proof." Simply put, absence of evidence really just means "no evidence". A
hypothesis based on "no evidence" constitutes magical thinking.
It's probably worth going to Youtube and looking up a clip called "Stephen Gets a Straight
Answer Out of Donald Rumsfeld". He admits to Colbert that, "If it was true, we wouldn't call it
intelligence." Frankly, Clapper's gravest sin is heading up a science-based agency like NIMA,
but failing to come to the same conclusion as General Albert Stubblebine. People who analyze
reconnaissance imagery are supposed to be able to distinguish explosive ordnance damage from
other factors. But, I guess Newtonian Physics is "old school" to this new generation of magical
thinkers and avant-garde intelligence analysts.
Sam F , November 16, 2018 at 10:44
Part of the problem of "intelligence" is its reliance upon images that show a lot of detail
but without any definite meaning, and upon guesses to keep managers and politicians happy. So
"expert assessments" that milk trucks in aerial photos might be WMD labs became agency
"confidence" and then politician certainties, never verified.
When suspect evidence was retained by intel agencies, as in the Iraq War II case, traitors
like the zionist Wolfowitz simply installed known zionist warmongers Perl, Feith, and Wurmser
into "stovepipe" offices at CIA, DIA, NSA to send the non-evidence to Rumsfeld. See Bamford's
Pretext For War.
Gen Dau , November 14, 2018 at 22:20
Thank you, Ray, for a very good article that treats Clapper objectively and not as a
demi-god, as most of the MSM and the Democratic establishment does. It is totally unacceptable
for a government official, current or former, to answer "I don't know." That is the hideout of
irresponsible scoundrels. Questioners should be allowed to ask follow-up questions such as, "If
you didn't know, did you try to think about why the President's opinion on this very important
question was different from yours? Is simply not knowing acceptable for an intel officer,
especially one in a leadership position?" I look forward to your further reports and
analyses.
Thanks also to the editors for returning at least the main text to a readable font. But why
not go whole hog and make reading everything a pleasure again? Putting the headlines in a
hard-to-read and distracting font is especially unfortunate, since some casual visitors to
Consortium News may be turned off by the headlines and skip reading the very important articles
attached to the headlines.
According to my calculations (admittedly simplistic), the world has past the point of peak
oil and in aggregate cannot produce enogh oil to meet present and future demand and that may
very well be why the US is doing its best to destroy or damage as many economies in the world
as it can even if it has to go to war to do it. Once it becomes well established that we are
past peak oil no telling what our financial markets will look like. Would appreciate hearing
from someone who has more expertise than I have. https://www.gpln.com
anon4d2s , November 14, 2018 at 22:23
Why are you trying to change the subject? Please desist.
I'm offering you the, or a, motive of why the deep state is pursuing the agendas we see
unfolding, which is to say, the crimes, the lies, the treason that the likes of Clapper, Bush,
Obama, Clinton and others are pursuing to cover up their reaction to their own fears. Of course
9/11, the false flag coup and smoking gun that proves my point is still the big elephant in the
room and will eventually bring us down if the truth is never released from its chains.
I didn't change the subject. I'm offering you an answer as to the motive of why so many
officials are willing to trash the Constitution in order to accomplish their insane agendas.
It's all about money and power and the terrified Deep State fear of facing the blowback from
the lies that have been propagated by the government and media regarding just about everything.
Here's another place you might want to look in addition to my website: https://youtu.be/CDpE-30ilBY It's not just about oil. But
this is where the rubber's going to meet the road. This is about what's going to hit the fan at
any moment and in the absence of the Truth, we are all going to face this unprepared. 9/11 is
still the smoking gun. It not just a few liars and cheats we're talking about.
I didn't change the subject. The purpose of the search for WMD was to misdirect the public's
attention away from the real purpose of the invasion which was to gain control of Iraq's oil
reserves primarily. Misdirection is primary skill used by those in power and very
effectively.
Thanks, as always, go out to Ray for his continued bravery in speaking truth to power. I
remember years ago when David McMichaels, Ex-CIA, gave a talk at Ft Lewis College in Durango,
CO, about Ronnie Reagan's corruption in what the US was doing to the elected government in
Nicaragua. Thanks to both of these men for trying to inform us all about the corruption so
rampant in our government. This is further proof that Trump is only a small pimple on top of
the infectous boil that is our government.
Sam F , November 14, 2018 at 21:52
Hurray for Ray McGovern! A beautiful and superbly-planned confrontation. We are lucky that
Clapper admitted these things in his memoir, but we needed you to bring that out in public with
full and well-selected information. You are truly a gem, whom I hope someday to meet.
Sam F , November 14, 2018 at 22:19
An astounding revelation of systematic delusion in secret agencies.
But until now my best source on the Iraq fake WMD has been Bamford's Pretext For War, in
which he establishes that zionist DefSec Wolfowitz appointed three known zionist operatives
Perl, Wurmser, and Feith to "stovepipe" known-bad info to Rumsfeld et al. Does the memoir shed
any light there, and does your information agree?
mike k , November 14, 2018 at 19:58
Spies lie constantly, they have no respect for the truth. To trust a spy is a sign of
dangerous gullibility. Spies are simply criminals for hire.
Gen Dau , November 14, 2018 at 22:30
Yes, I also hope our replies will be in a more civil and less reader-hostile font. The same
font as the article text would be fine.
dfnslblty , November 15, 2018 at 09:59
I would offer that spies do not lie ~ they gather information.
Spy masters do lie ~ they prevaricate to fit the needs of their masters.
Tomonthebeach , November 15, 2018 at 23:48
To paraphrase in a way that emphasizes the deja vu. Trump lies constantly, he has no respect
for the truth. To trust Trump is a sign of dangerous gullibility. Trump is simply a crook for
hire, and it would seem that Putin writes the checks.
anon4d2s , November 16, 2018 at 10:48
Gosh, you fooled everyone so easily with standard Dem zionist drivel!
Why not admit that every US politician is bought, including Dems?
Don't forget to supply your unique evidence of Russian tampering.
Mild-ly - Facetious , November 18, 2018 at 16:44
"Clapper's Credibility Collapses"
as does Colin Powell's U.N.BULL Spit Yellow Cake propaganda/
all that's required is a Sales Pitch to everyday striving citizens into
how a brutal strain of aristocrat have come to rule america
and how you must delve into the Back-Stories of, for example,
GHW Bush CIA connection and his presents in Dallas, 1963
credibility collapses abound under weight of 'what really happened'
after Chaney convened summit of oil executives just PRIOR to 9/11?
It has been pointed out to me that until his retirement in October 2019, JCS Chairman Joe
Dunford was a factor in tempering neocon fervor for war. The same was true for his
predecessor Martin Dempsey. Now we have a self-described "West Point Mafia" class of 1986 and
a JCS Chairman far more politically motivated than Dunford and Dempsey. This looks to be to
be more dangerous than when Bolton the chicken hawk was running around the West Wing. This is
a recent Politico profile of the new Defense team, including Pompeo, Esper and other key
national security advisors to Trump.
Rand Paul opposing the nomination of Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State, March 2018: "I'm
perplexed by the nomination of people who love the Iraq War so much that they would advocate
for a war with Iran next. It goes against most of the things President Trump campaigned
on."
Thanks for the link. The Trump triumvirate of class of '86 advisors did the minimum time
on active duty and left service for greener pastures. The move to politics is reminiscent of
the neocons decameron mentioned on the prior thread. It looks like the move to war which only
the neocons want is coming on in full force.
After around 25 people were killed by a U.S. attack over the weekend, and subsequently the
damage was being done to the "embassy" in Iraq, it looked like a real problem was developing.
But it seemed as if Iraqi security people had let the demonstrators and attackers into the
area where the U.S. embassy is, and then the following day were not letting them in, and so
the embassy cleanup would begin. At that time I felt better about the situation. In other
words, the Iraqi government, such that it is, allowed the protest and damage at the embassy
to occur, and then was stopping it after making the point of a protest.
However, that defusing of the situation by the Iraqi government by shutting down the
embassy protest was for naught when the ignorant people in the U.S. government carried out
the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and several others inside Iraq
itself. Now there is a real problem.
"... He fired missiles into Syria on the basis of false propaganda and while he's ostensibly ordered troops out of Syria, it's like the Pentagon is thumbing their nose at him, while he tweets ..."
"... In many ways Trump seems like Governor William J. Le Petomane, in Blazing Saddles. ..."
"... Bush & Cheney supported by both parties invaded Iraq and created the ascendancy of Iran. Then Obama comes along and aids & abets Al Qaeda to head-chop Christians in Syria, once again with support from both our political parties. ..."
"... Trump comes along as the "no more wasting money in the Middle East" guy. But surrounds himself with all neocons including his daughter & son-in-law. And he has shown to be generally clueless on anything beyond one slide on a Powerpoint. He thinks he's still on the set of The Apprentice. ..."
"... I'd like to say that the US is no longer a Constitutional Republic. We have law enforcement & intelligence who ran a coup attempt and half the country thinks that was a good thing. We have coteries that lie and propagandize us into war that has cost the American people several trillion that they've had to borrow from future generations. With the Patriot Act, FISA and all kinds of other "anti-terrorist laws", we essentially have a lawless national security surveillance state. ..."
"... the reason for Suleimani to be in Iraq early on Friday morning: to attend the funeral of the Iraqi soldiers who died during those strikes neal al-Qaim. ..."
Trump is weak, stupid, reckless and easily manipulated. This has long been obvious.
That is not an argument in favor of Team D, the Resistance, the Deep State, the Blob or
whatever (if anything it is an argument against their conspiracy theories), but Trump is what
he is.
I don't believe Trump ordered this attack. I believe that the neocons/neolibs are afraid they
would lose power when the coup plot is revealed. So, this is a pre-emptive action against
Trump winning re-election. It seems Nancy Pelosi was consulted by Secretary of Defense Esper
first, although she denies she was briefed about the asassination. Well, we all know where to
stick her denials, don't we?
https://www.enmnews.com/2020/01/03/pelosi-briefed-thursday-night-after-strike-killing-soleimani/
"Trump inherited the mess. Perhaps he is trying to salvage something out of it."
Admittedly he did inherit this mess. However, IMO, he's done nothing to salvage it. He
fired missiles into Syria on the basis of false propaganda and while he's ostensibly ordered
troops out of Syria, it's like the Pentagon is thumbing their nose at him, while he tweets.
And rather than putting in place a plan and executing on getting out of the wars that have
cost us trillions of dollars and destabilized the entire Middle East he's just aggravated it
further by blowing up people on the Iraqi/Syrian border. And now he's escalated it further.
The bodybags still keep coming home from Afghanistan, where we know with certainty that we'll
have to exit and that it will revert back to its natural state. I'm afraid he just went along
to get along with the neocon warmongers that he's ensconced in all the top places in his
administration.
In many ways Trump seems like Governor William J. Le Petomane, in Blazing Saddles.
Yours is precisely the point. Iraq was a secular country under the "tyrannical" Saddam's
Baathist regime. So is Syria a secular country under Assad. Saddam had nothing to do with
9/11. The Saudis did. He would have been a natural counter-weight to Iran. Of course he may
have kicked out the Al Sauds soon enough to hang out in London, New York and Paris after he
consolidated Kuwait. That may have been a good thing in hindsight.
Bush & Cheney supported by both parties invaded Iraq and created the ascendancy of
Iran. Then Obama comes along and aids & abets Al Qaeda to head-chop Christians in Syria,
once again with support from both our political parties.
Trump comes along as the "no more wasting money in the Middle East" guy. But surrounds
himself with all neocons including his daughter & son-in-law. And he has shown to be
generally clueless on anything beyond one slide on a Powerpoint. He thinks he's still on the
set of The Apprentice.
I'd like to say that the US is no longer a Constitutional Republic. We have law
enforcement & intelligence who ran a coup attempt and half the country thinks that was a
good thing. We have coteries that lie and propagandize us into war that has cost the American
people several trillion that they've had to borrow from future generations. With the Patriot
Act, FISA and all kinds of other "anti-terrorist laws", we essentially have a lawless
national security surveillance state.
We are fucked because so many of our fellow citizens fall for the black & white Rambo
movie plot, while their ass is being taken to the cleaners.
Amen! Most Americans are ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL. They don't know which way is UP! They haven't a
clue. They are easy prey to the progandists in the US government (dominated by
Zionists/Israel-Firsters) and in the US media (also dominated by the Zionist narrative).
In addition Eric forgot what happened on December 29th and the reason for Suleimani to be
in Iraq early on Friday morning: to attend the funeral of the Iraqi soldiers who died during
those strikes neal al-Qaim.
Do other countries have any right to self determination?
How would Americans react to foreign powers controlling our country and killing our
citizens at will?
When we instilled a democracy in Shiite majority Iraq who would get voted into power? What
was the result of disbanding the Arab baathist Iraqi army?
There is a reason civilized nations do not do assassinations, but then you may have forgotten
how WW1 started.
I shudder at the world you plan to leave our children, but empires do not last forever (or
much longer with an easily manipulated moron in charge) and you may live to see
assassinations of Americans on US soil as common "geopolitics."
No but he could well have gone to the top in their politics as his next career move. With a
satisfaction rating over 80% he was a probable future President.
Unintended consequences of a high level assassination.
No good pathway to de-escalate for any side once open hostilities start.
Block heads running things (President f---ing moron - quote Tillerson), born again
fundamentalists believing in the second coming calling the shots on one side and the Mahdi on
the other.
But if you want to focus on a title, I guess nothing to see.
EN: So you, like many here, are fine with people that organize attacks on our
embassies?
I fully agree, outrageous! Simply outragepus! Now of course I have to reflect in what ways
those men could have joined Americans in celebration of the dead of their comrades.
ISL: There is a reason civilized nations do not do assassinations
didn't Trump suggest somewhere that the Geneva Convention is obsolete anyway? Not that it
matters anyway anymore, other then to US soldiers maybe? Some of them? ... The US writes the
rules for to its own convience anyway?
Please don't laugh or pooh-pooh if I introduce Christian preacher - activist Rick Wiles'
assessment of the penetration and protests at the US embassy in Baghdad: Wiles, whose
colleague spent time in Iraq w/ US military, asked how it was that "Iraqi" protesters could
get inside the Green Zone, apparently protected by a 10 mile perimeter, and also inside the
building itself, to cause damage.
How is it Reuters was on the scene to photograph the protests and the damage?
How is it the protesters were so quickly called off by a word from the PM?
US military guards the embassy, right?
If one argued that Iraqi soldiers permitted Iraqi protesters to gain access, that could
make sense: didn't Russian soldiers refuse to fire upon citizens who stormed the Czar's
palace?
But that is apparently not what happened.
So Wiles conjectures that US military allowed the penetration and destruction of US
embassy, in order to blame it on _____ . Callers to C Span Washington Journal this morning
raised the issue of "Iranians took our embassy in 1979." Do tell.
Eric, you make many assertions, but provide no facts to support them. For example, you claim
Soleimani was planning attacks on both US troops and our embassy. You also claim Iran took
over our embassy. However, you provide no facts supporting those assertions and I am not
aware of any. So tell us, what evidence or facts do you have proving your claims?
Additionally, you seem to have skipped over the part where Bush agreed all US troops would
withdraw from Iraq and Obama was unwilling to agree to have US troops remain if they would be
subject to the Iraqi justice system. So all of them left, only for some to be allowed back
when ISIS threatened.
Obviously, when all US troops left Iran did not take over Iraq. When all US troops leave
again, which Trump just about insured will happen very soon, Iran will again not take over
Iraq. They will remain allies, but one will not rule the other.
"I'm a 100% isolationist personally, but if you're not, you have to do something to keep Iran
in its place. I recognize that there's a lot I don't understand about reasons to not be an
isolationist and maybe there are good reasons."
Tell me, if you are a "100% isolationist" why must Iran be kept "in its place"? Then, tell
me how many countries Iran has invaded in the last 100 years? (The answer is - ZERO!)
It's good that you recognize that there are things that you don't know or understand.
Blindly following Trump will not lead you to greater understanding. Nor will making excuses
for people when they betray you.
"Soleimani was in Iraq architecting attacks on the US embassy and on Americans."
Wrong, actually, but don't let facts get in the way.
Soleimani was in Iraq to attend the funeral of Iraqi soldiers killed by US airstrikes.
That is a fact.
So the US took the opportunity to kill him. Via airstrike. That is also a fact.
Perhaps you should take off those blinkers for once and consider this possibility: most of
what you think you understand about this has been brought to your attention by people who
have made a career out of lying to you.
When anti-Syria propaganda was running strongest, "Assad must go" I always asked "Then what?
What comes next?"
We have a big stick but we need more than running around clubbing others. We never should
have abandoned the international law we helped to create.
We can create fear, most people fear a powerful bully but they don't respect them and will
work to undermine them. It is a weak form of power and sooner or later you end up
isolated.
All stick and no carrot, hard power and no soft power just isn't a vision you can build
on. So, Now what? What comes next? What comes after a war with Iran?
O/T, perhaps: Machiavelli wrote in The Prince that the effective leader must be feared AND
loved: were he only feared, the people would turn against him as quickly as an opportunity
emerged.
I donated a significant sum (all things being relative) to my local library and requested
that it be used to teach the mostly-Black and impoverished young people who frequent that
library, about Machiavelli: I'd just read about a very wealthy community in my state where
high school students participated in an essay contest on Machiavelli. They will be the next
generation's leaders. I though the poor kids in my neighborhood should have the same
opportunity.
Library administrators all the way up and down the line resisted my proposal: "Our kids
are not capable of such a project."
Instead, the library system is proliferating Drag Queen Story Hours.
They want me to put my gift in the hands of the local librarians who introduced this
program to the library system.
"So, Now what? What comes next?"
Drag Queen Story Hours for your 1 yr to 5th grade children and grandchildren.
Your son - grandson dressed in high heels, chiffon, and a wig.
Your little girl telling you she needs drugs and surgery because she "feels like a boy."
When I had to move out of a large house into a small apartment recently, I donated over 900
books from my personal library to the local university library. My books reflected my major
and minor areas of study: Literature from all periods of English and American authors, many
books on the theories and research about linguistic theory and often brain research in regard
to linguistics. I also had many books from my minor in German.
I was an avid user of libraries from the time I was quite young. My mother dropped me and
my siblings off at the local library while she did the Saturday shopping and bill paying. The
librarians never directed us in regard to what we should study. They helped us to find
resources on each of our varied interests. My brother and two sisters had quite different
interests from mine. I was then studying all I could in Greek and Roman mythology and in the
Acient history of Greece and Rome.
It's the old, You can take the horse to the water, but...." Expose children to the rewards
they get from reading and studying, but let their own personal interests determine what they
read.
Our problem is not that our students now "should" be reading ......(fill in the space. Our
problem is currently that our children are now totally unacquainted with reading much in
depth. They want sound bites and quick Google searches.
As for the topic of Larry's post, I'm convinced that few Americans are even aware of the
event or have any idea of why it happened and no opinion about whether it should have
happened.
I hold my breath every day, hoping that we don't become involved in another big mess that
will cause the life and maiming of our young people in the military and of the people on the
ground in the places they are sent to.
But I have no opinion of why or whether Trump's decision was right or wrong. All I can do
is pray fervently that really God is ultimately in charge and God will control it for His
purposes. I never assume that God is always on "our side." I just put my faith that it is all
in God's hands, no matter what the personal price I or anyone else will have to pay for His
decisions.
I also pray that Trump will always make his deicisions based on good and sound advice and
on his own sense of right and wrong. It must be hard picking and choosing from the many
people who surround him and from their various ideas of what is right or what is wrong to
do.
I certainly did not want the previous Middle East War and do not want another.
If it makes you feel better, the only thing that Machiavelli will do for the more clued-in
sort of mostly Black poor people is put in words what they already know deep down.
The Prince caused such an outrage because Machiavelli merely described how rulers actually
behave.
prawnik, In my Machiavelli proposal to the library I urged that the works of Machiavelli
scholar Maurizio Viroli be offered to the young people. Viroli maintains that the key chapter
in The Prince is the final chapter -- classical rhetoricians know that the most powerful
theme must come last, as that is what the audience will remember. Chapter 26 is nearly a
prayer (Machiavelli was deeply Christian, tho he hated the Roman Catholic papacy), a prayer
for a courageous leader - redeemer, like Moses, Cyrus, Theseus, who would deliver Florence,
which he loved "greater than my soul," from "barbarous cruelties and oppressions" to a life
of republican self-government.
The critical concept is his deep love for Florence.
I hoped that the young people could be moved beyond the CliffNotes version of The Prince to
an understanding that would arouse passion, pride and patriotism.
We did not ask the Iraqi government for permission and we are obligated to do so, yes? Is it
possible the Iraqi government will tell us to pick up our personnel and all our stuff and
leave -- and never come back?
If the USA refuses to go then... what happens next?
I assume it is not under dispute that if those US forces refuse to go then the Iraqis have
a right under international law to attempt to eject them. After all, it is their
territory.
This isn't 2003 and the US forces inside Iraq do not number in the hundreds of thousands.
Something in the region of 5,000 is my understanding, with another 4,000 on standby. Is that
enough?
Thank you, Mr. Johnson, for your always pointed and concise analysis. If I understand
correctly, the US/Israel bloc believes it has Iran in checkmate. If Iran retaliates (or if
some provocation is arranged that can plausibly be blamed on Iran), then the Empire launches
a full-on attack. If Iran doesn't retaliate (or a provocation doesn't arise), Iran looks weak
and unable to defend itself and limps to the negotiating table, where its carcass will be
picked apart.
The only way this makes sense is if the Empire is convinced it can flatten Iran and pick
apart its carcass without taking significant losses. Is that delusional and, possibly,
"terminally stupid?"
I wouldn't use the term checkmate but I do agree that the situation is precarious for
Iran...this was a pointed provocation and they are forced to respond. But that response has
got to be well-calibrated to not bite off more than it can chew in terms of escalation. They
need a spectacle more than anything.
When James Woolsey was Trump's spokesthingie during the 2016 election, I placed multiple bets
that "Trump attacks Iran to be a 'war-time president' for 2020 election."
I've endured mocking phonecalls as Trump wildly vacillated but his NSC choices (all 4 or 5
of them...) were all NeoCons. And if you bed with the NeoCons, you catch their disease.
I haven't watched the news in the last 3 years but the phone-calls are starting again, but
the attitude is all different.
If thing keep going this way, I guess this hippie socialist is about his win bet with a
bunch of pollyanna veterans and bubble-headed conservatives who could not face reality.
I can't imagine a war scenario that is positive for the US, except for the neo-con fantasy
that the oppressed Iranian people will rise up and overthrow the wicked mullahs when things
get bad enough. I don't know anything about the internal politics of Iran, but I'm not so
sure how well America holds up after gas prices triple at the pump. Of course by that time
they'll be a draft and rationing. The only way to avoid that outcome would be to nuke 'em,
which is something I wouldn't put pass the Israelis or Trump.
I don't believe our leaders are thinking long-term, but acting out of a combination of
financial self interest for war spending in general and contracts within Iraq in particular;
and emotional self satisfaction: for powerful Boomers this kind of belligerance somehow makes
them feel like worthy sucessors to their dead "Greatest Generation" parents.
except for the neo-con fantasy that the oppressed Iranian people will rise up and overthrow
the wicked mullahs when things get bad enough
In the last around 20 years or so this was a foundation for operational planning in the
US. This is not to mention a key fact of neocons being utterly incompetent in warfare with
results of this lunacy being in the open for everyone to see.
Please add to your list the assassination of US high level personnel (diplomat or
military) in Europe by sleeper cells.
Interestingly (as in stupidly), the US also arrested the head of the Iraqiya MP who heads
the largest block in the Iraqi parliament - apparently he had the audacity to appear at a
protest of the US bombing without authorization Iraqi citizens. One suspects that Iran will
have full Iraq support in retaliation. The big question is whether Turkey makes a play and
bans flights from Incirlik. Note US carrier groups are not in the gulf or even nearby to fly
support missions...
If we are that vulnerable to iranian retaliation on so many levels as you just set out, best
we start dealing with this extortion threat right here now. Lance the festering boil and
build t a new line of defenses.
No matter what the triggering incident, we might as well accept we needed a reality check
regarding this level of global threat. Not pretty, but apparently necessary if the Iranians
are as capable of global disruption as you just present.
It did not take an assassination in Sarajevo to set of WWI, it was festering well before
and was an inevitable march off the cliff regardless. If we are that vulnerable to cyber
terrorism and infrastructure terrorism, does it matter what finally lights the match?
If the world powers are gunning for an all out war, it will happen regardless. Mind your
narratives. They are far scarier than the facts on the ground. Was this bad guy
"assassinated", or taken out by a good guy with a gun as he was poised to strike.
Why have Democrats spent the past three years saber-rattling over Russia, Russia, Russia,
as if any hint of favor or benign contact was high treason. C'mon people, what is really
going on in this world today. Who has really created this current scenario of being a nation
in imminent peril from nefarious foreign threachery by even the flimsiest of
implications.
Just a few days ago our entire national security was predicated on Trump delaying arms to
Ukraine by a few weeks. Ukraine, fer crisssakes which few can even find on a map. Isn't that
the jingoist frothing we were just asked to believe by our loyal opposition party to the
point of initiating impeachment proceedings due to Trump's alleged risking of our entire
nation's place of honor on this entire planet?
We suffer from internal hyperbole, as much as outside bad actors. A world who wants war,
will get it. A world who wants peace will get that too. Running off to the corner pouting and
hand-wringing brings neither.
I will take the other side of the Russians will help coin, if anything I would suggest the
Russians may have even provided intel to the Americans on Qasem Soleimani location and
movements, Putin was recently in the news thanking Trump for providing intel stopping a
Terrorist attack in St Petersburg recently, I still think the Russians provided intel on the
whereabouts of the head of the head of the Islamic state Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to the
Americans and Putin did nothing about the deaths of the 20 Russian airmen or the cruise
missile attacks on Syria, as bad a Ally as the USA is the Russian Federation is clearly
worse, the Russians clearly can't be trusted.
why do you think the US could not have this intel on its own? A high level visit to a
friendly nation by a top military and you have to posit Russians? You insult US Intel.
The Russians aren't going to do anything, Putin does whats best for Russia, he is clearly not
interested in confronting the Americans and if anything would probably like to see Iranian
influence in Syria diminished. 20 dead airmen, cruise missile attacks in Syria and he didn't
do anything. If anything my money is on the Russians providing intel to the US on Qasem
Soleiman's location and movements. I still think they provided intel on the location of the
Islamic state leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and last week Putin was thanking Trump for intel
that stopped an attack in St Petersburg, so perhaps rolling over on Soleiman was his way of
saying thanks to Trump. I don't think the Russians intentions are as pure as people think. As
untrustworthy as the USA is the Russians are worse.
I still think they provided intel on the location of the Islamic state leader Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi, and last week Putin was thanking Trump for intel that stopped an attack in St
Petersburg,
What a fantastically convoluted scenario. Russia and the US are cooperating on terrorism
threats for years now, and the latest on St. Petersburg was not the first one issued by the
US. Russia wouldn't mind some limits to Iranian influence in Syria but not at the price of
surrendering a man who was to a large degree responsible for getting Russia into Syria and
cooperating with her there, which was a crucial factor in success of the campaign. I also do
not see problems with US "developing" own targeting on Baghdadi w/o any Russia's help.
Rand Paul opposing the nomination of Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State, March 2018: "I'm
perplexed by the nomination of people who love the Iraq War so much that they would advocate
for a war with Iran next. It goes against most of the things President Trump campaigned
on."
It has been pointed out to me that until his retirement in October 2019, JCS Chairman Joe
Dunford was a factor in tempering neocon fervor for war. The same was true for his
predecessor Martin Dempsey. Now we have a self-described "West Point Mafia" class of 1986 and
a JCS Chairman far more politically motivated than Dunford and Dempsey. This looks to be to
be more dangerous than when Bolton the chicken hawk was running around the West Wing. This is
a recent Politico profile of the new Defense team, including Pompeo, Esper and other key
national security advisors to Trump.
Thanks for the link. The Trump triumvirate of class of '86 advisors did the minimum time
on active duty and left service for greener pastures. The move to politics is reminiscent of
the neocons decameron mentioned on the prior thread. It looks like the move to war which only
the neocons want is coming on in full force.
It must be late in Spain. The trio left active duty in the early 90s; that's almost 3 decades
ago and plenty of time to "earn their own merits" but not necessarily enough to earn
wisdom.
After around 25 people were killed by a U.S. attack over the weekend, and subsequently the
damage was being done to the "embassy" in Iraq, it looked like a real problem was developing.
But it seemed as if Iraqi security people had let the demonstrators and attackers into the
area where the U.S. embassy is, and then the following day were not letting them in, and so
the embassy cleanup would begin. At that time I felt better about the situation. In other
words, the Iraqi government, such that it is, allowed the protest and damage at the embassy
to occur, and then was stopping it after making the point of a protest.
However, that defusing of the situation by the Iraqi government by shutting down the
embassy protest was for naught when the ignorant people in the U.S. government carried out
the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and several others inside Iraq
itself. Now there is a real problem.
I am curious LJ. Some lateral drift on my part.
Been reading that much of the funding for these proxies are from coming Iran. According to
the Treasury. So the following is BS from State?
(Nov 2019)
"The State Department's most recent Country Reports on Terrorism, released Friday, stated
that Iran is still the "world's worst state sponsor of terrorism," spending nearly $1 billion
per year to support terror groups including Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic
Jihad."
There is much nashing of proverbial teeth in our media. Peeps like Sen Graham saying "the
Iraqi's need to choose between us or Iran."
(That choice is a Sunni sandwich with Kurdish Bread and Shia Mayo)
There critical mass in 72 hours and the straight of Hormuz will be closing soon.
LJ are you stating that there was no Intel on emerging threats from Iran? Or the strike
Saudi oil plant was not via Iran?
Seems to me China and Russia have to much $$$ invested in Iran to see it go up in smoke.
Given the real masters of the universe are the very rich, would the Iranians see them as
logical targets?
Sheldon Adelson comes to mind, as he is a primary backer of both Trump and Netanyahu. As well
as likely not known, or appealing to Trump's base, so avenging his death wouldn't appeal in
the same way as soldiers or diplomats. Especially leading up to the election. Not only that,
but if the very rich were to sense their Gulfstreams are somewhat vulnerable to someone with
a Stinger at the end of the runway in quite a few tourist destinations, Davos, etc, the
pressure from the People Who Really Matter might be against further conflict.
The rule of law has its uses and destroying the structure on which their world rests does
have consequences.
"... That is if the MSM get their way! Maybe I am being overoptimistic, but Russia - as a permanent member of the UNSC and a member of the OPCW - will do everything in it's powers to pursue this matter, and it seems quite possible they will be able to force it onto the main agenda within 2020. If that happens it will be impossible for the MSM to push it under the rug. ..."
"... The other aspect it is that the MSM ability to suppress this news is dependent on behaviour of the MSM community in its totality, and the relationship to reader plausibility ..."
"... What determines whether one MSM decides to break the pack and publish news on OPCW? Well, for one thing, MoA articles can influence individual journalists and individual editors! ..."
B, under the "major stories covered" title you should include Skripal, about which you wrote
many important articles; I believe ultimately - like OPCW and Russiagate - it will prove to
be history-making event in terms of impact on public perceptions of media and the ability of
the media to control public opinion. Probably eventually whistleblowers will come forward
like the OPCW, and only thin will it have it's maximum impact.
(Well, the original event was 2018 not 2019, but some of the reports were in 2019
anyway)
My predictions on these issue for next year are:
...
Mainstream media have suppressed all news about the OPCW scandal. This will only change if
major new evidence comes to light.
That is if the MSM get their way! Maybe I am being overoptimistic, but Russia - as a
permanent member of the UNSC and a member of the OPCW - will do everything in it's powers to
pursue this matter, and it seems quite possible they will be able to force it onto the main
agenda within 2020. If that happens it will be impossible for the MSM to push it under the
rug.
The other aspect it is that the MSM ability to suppress this news is dependent on
behaviour of the MSM community in its totality, and the relationship to reader plausibility.
There are a few factors that could influence this independently of major new evidence, such
as the behaviour of a few outlier MSM's that decide to release information (and whether or
not that information then takes off in the public consciousness); pressure that could build
up in social media calling for the MSM to respond and attacking MSM credibility; or other
forms of pressure from the public calling on the MSM to respond. It is therefore a dynamic
that is not entirely predictable.
Both of the above are distinct from the emergence of new major evidence, although both
cases would seem likely to provoke new revelations in turn.
What determines whether one MSM decides to break the pack and publish news on OPCW? Well,
for one thing, MoA articles can influence individual journalists and individual editors!
Intelligence agencies recruit pornographers to lead their disinformation operations,
apparently because porn purveyors are so lacking in ethics they will tell public lies about
anything
The alleged 'founder' of Wikipedia ... Wales was 'selected' for this role after being in
the pornography-selling business
EU police agencies and the European Commission, have a detailed report on how Wikipedia is
a criminally-involved tool for intelligence agencies, using 'Twenty major techniques of CIA
– Wikipedia deception'
Another famous ex-pornographer recruited as a CIA propagandist is Glenn Greenwald. When
the intel agencies began running the hoax of 'Edward Snowden', he first 'leaked' to the
biographer of Bush Vice President Dick Cheney at the CIA's Washington Post
After realising this was too stupid to hold up, the intel agencies switched the front-man
role to Rothschild employee & gay ex-pornography-seller Glenn Greenwald of 'hairystuds',
Greenwald now funded by CIA billionaire Pierre Omidyar
For those who don't know, even Putin in Russia has hinted out loud he knows Snowden is
fake, Putin just playing along in the long string of mutual Russia-USA back-door favours to
each other
"... Bellingcat is an alleged group of amateur on-line researchers who have spent years shilling for the U.S. instigated war against the Syrian government, blaming the Douma chemical attack and others on the Assad government, and for the anti-Russian propaganda connected to, among other things, the Skripal poisoning case in England, and the downing of flight MH17 plane in Ukraine. ..."
"... The Intercept , along with its parent company First Look Media, recently hosted a workshop for pro-war, Google-funded organization Bellingcat in New York. The workshop, which cost $2,500 per person to attend and lasted five days, aimed to instruct participants in how to perform investigations using "open source" tools -- with Bellingcat's past, controversial investigations for use as case studies Thus, while The Intercept has long publicly promoted itself as an anti-interventionist and progressive media outlet, it is becoming clearer that – largely thanks to its ties to Omidyar – it is increasingly an organization that has more in common with Bellingcat, a group that launders NATO and U.S. propaganda and disguises it as "independent" and "investigative journalism." ..."
In the 1920s, the influential American intellectual Walter Lippman argued that the average
person was incapable of seeing or understanding the world clearly and needed to be guided by
experts behind the social curtain. In a number of books he laid out the theoretical foundations
for the practical work of Edward Bernays , who developed "public relations" (aka propaganda) to
carry out this task for the ruling elites. Bernays had honed his skills while working as a
propagandist for the United States during World War I, and after the war he set himself up as a
public relations counselor in New York City.
There is a fascinating exchange at the beginning of Adam Curtis's documentary, The
Century of Self , where Bernays, then nearly 100 years old but still very sharp, reveals
his manipulative mindset and that of so many of those who have followed in his wake. He says
the reason he couldn't call his new business "propaganda" was because the Germans had given
propaganda a "bad name," and so he came up with the euphemism "public relations." He then adds
that "if you could use it [i.e. propaganda] for war, you certainly could use it for peace." Of
course, he never used PR for peace but just to manipulate public opinion (he helped engineer
the CIA coup against the democratically elected Arbenz government in Guatemala in 1954 with
fake news broadcasts). He says "the Germans gave propaganda a bad name," not Bernays and the
United States with their vast campaign of lies, mainly aimed at the American people to get
their support for going to a war they opposed (think weapons of mass destruction). He sounds
proud of his war propaganda work that resounded to his credit since it led to support for the
"war to end all wars" and subsequently to a hit movie about WWI , Yankee Doodle Dandy
, made in 1942 to promote another war, since the first one somehow didn't achieve its lofty
goal.
As Bernays has said in his book Propaganda ,
The American motion picture is the greatest unconscious carrier of propaganda in the world
today.
He was a propagandist to the end. I suspect most viewers of the film are taken in by these
softly spoken words of an old man sipping a glass of wine at a dinner table with a woman who is
asking him questions. I have shown this film to hundreds of students and none has noticed his
legerdemain. It is an example of the sort of hocus-pocus I will be getting to shortly, the sly
insertion into seemingly liberal or matter-of-fact commentary of statements that imply a
different story. The placement of convincing or confusing disingenuous ingredients into a truth
sandwich – for Bernays knew that the bread of truth is essential to conceal untruth.
In the following years, Bernays, Lippman, and their ilk were joined by social "scientists,"
psychologists, and sundry others intent on making a sham out of the idea of democracy by
developing strategies and techniques for the engineering of social consensus consonant with the
wishes of the ruling classes. Their techniques of propaganda developed exponentially with the
development of technology, the creation of the CIA, its infiltration of all the major media,
and that agency's courting of what the CIA official Cord Meyer called in the 1950s "the
compatible left," having already had the right in its pocket. Today most people are, as is
said, "wired," and they get their information from the electronic media that is mostly
controlled by giant corporations in cahoots with government propagandists. Ask yourself: Has
the power of the oligarchic, permanent warfare state with its propaganda and spy networks
increased or decreased over your lifetime. The answer is obvious: the average people that
Lippman and Bernays trashed are losing and the ruling elites are winning.
This is not just because powerful propagandists are good at controlling so-called "average"
people's thinking, but, perhaps more importantly, because they are also adept – probably
more so – at confusing or directing the thinking of those who consider themselves above
average, those who still might read a book or two or have the concentration to read multiple
articles that offer different perspectives on a topic. This is what some call the professional
and intellectual classes, perhaps 15-20 % of the population, most of whom are not the ruling
elites but their employees and sometimes their mouthpieces. It is this segment of the
population that considers itself "informed," but the information they imbibe is often sprinkled
with bits of misdirection, both intentional and not, that beclouds their understanding of
important public matters but leaves them with the false impression that they are in the
know.
Recently I have noticed a group of interconnected examples of how this group of the
population that exerts influence incommensurate with their numbers has contributed to the
blurring of lines between fact and fiction. Within this group there are opinion makers who are
often journalists, writers, and cultural producers of some sort or other, and then the larger
number of the intellectual or schooled class who follow their opinions. This second group then
passes on their received opinions to those who look up to them.
There is a notorious propaganda outfit called Bellingcat , started by an unemployed
Englishman named Eliot Higgins, that has been funded by The Atlantic Council, a think-tank with
deep ties to the U.S. government, NATO, war manufacturers, and their allies, and the National
Endowment for Democracy (NED), another infamous U.S. front organization heavily involved in
so-called color revolution regime change operations all around the world, that has just won the
International Emmy Award for best documentary. The film with the Orwellian title, Bellingcat: Truth in a Post-Truth World, received its Emmy at a recent ceremony in New
York City.
Bellingcat is an alleged group of amateur on-line researchers who have spent years
shilling for the U.S. instigated war against the Syrian government, blaming the Douma chemical
attack and others on the Assad government, and for the anti-Russian propaganda connected to,
among other things, the Skripal poisoning case in England, and the downing of flight MH17 plane
in Ukraine.
It has been lauded by the corporate mainstream media in the west. Its support for
the equally fraudulent White Helmets (also funded by the US and the UK) in Syria has also been
praised by the western corporate media while being dissected as propaganda by many excellent
independent journalists such as Eva Bartlett, Vanessa Beeley, Catte Black, among others. It's
had its work skewered by the likes of Seymour Hersh and MIT professor Theodore Postol, and its
US government connections pointed out by many others, including Ben Norton and Max Blumenthal
at The Gray Zone. And now we have the mainstream media's wall of silence on the leaks from the
Organization for the Prohibition on Chemical Weapons (OPCW) concerning the Douma chemical
attack and the doctoring of their report that led to the illegal U.S. bombing of Syria in the
spring of 2018. Bellingcat was at the forefront of providing justification for such bombing,
and now the journalists Peter Hitchens, Tareq Harrad (who recently resigned from Newsweek after accusing the publication of suppressing his revelations about the OPCW
scandal) and others are fighting an uphill battle to get the truth out.
Yet Bellingcat: Truth in a Post-Truth World won the Emmy , fulfilling Bernays'
point about films being the greatest unconscious carriers of propaganda in the world today.
Who presented the Emmy Award to the film makers, but none other than the rebel journalist
Chris Hedges . Why he did so, I don't know. But that he did so clearly sends a message to those
who follow his work and trust him that it's okay to give a major cultural award to a propaganda
outfit. But then, perhaps he doesn't consider Bellingcat to be that.
Nor, one presumes, does The Intercept , the billionaire Pierre Omidyar owned
publication associated with Glen Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill, and also read by many
progressive-minded people. The Intercept that earlier this year disbanded the small
team that was tasked with reviewing and releasing more of the massive trove of documents they
received from Edward Snowden six years ago, a minute number of which have ever been released or
probably ever will be. As
Whitney Webb pointed out , last year The Intercept hosted a workshop for
Bellingcat. She wrote:
The Intercept , along with its parent company First Look Media, recently
hosted a workshop for pro-war, Google-funded organization Bellingcat in New York. The
workshop, which
cost $2,500 per person to attend and lasted five days, aimed to instruct participants in
how to perform investigations using "open source" tools -- with Bellingcat's past, controversial
investigations for use as case studies Thus, while The Intercept has long
publicly promoted itself as an anti-interventionist and progressive media outlet, it is
becoming clearer that – largely thanks to its ties to Omidyar – it is
increasingly an organization that has more in common with Bellingcat, a group that launders
NATO and U.S. propaganda and disguises it as "independent" and "investigative
journalism."
Then we have Jefferson Morley , the editor of The Deep State, former Washington
Post journalist, and JFK assassination researcher, who has written a praiseworthy review of the
Bellingcat film and who supports Bellingcat. "In my experience, Bellingcat is credible," he
writes in an Alternet article, "Bellingcat
documentary has the pace and plot of a thriller."
Morley has also just written an article for Counterpunch –
"Why the Douma Chemical Attack Wasn't a 'Managed Massacre'" – in which he disputes
the claim that the April 7, 2018 attack in the Damascus suburb was a false flag operation
carried out by Assad's opponents. "I do not see any evidence proving that Douma was a false
flag incident," he writes in this article that is written in a style that leaves one guessing
as to what exactly he is saying. It sounds convincing unless one concentrates, and then his
double messages emerge. Yet it is the kind of article that certain "sophisticated" left-wing
readers might read and feel is insightful. But then Morley, who has written considerably about
the CIA, edits a website that advertises itself as "the thinking person's portal to the world
of secret government," and recently had an exchange with former CIA Director John Brennan where
"Brennan put a friendly finger on my chest," said in February 2017, less than a month after
Trump was sworn in as president, that:
With a docile Republican majority in Congress and a demoralized Democratic Party in
opposition, the leaders of the Deep State are the most -- perhaps the only -- credible check
in Washington on what Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) calls Trump's "
wrecking ball presidency ."
Is it any wonder that some people might be a bit confused?
"I know what you're thinking about," said Tweedledum; "but it isn't so, nohow."
"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it
would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."
As a final case in point, there is a recent book by Stephen Kinzer , Poisoner in Chief:
Sidney Gottlieb And The CIA Search For Mind Control, t he story of the chemist known as
Dr. Death who ran the CIA's MK-ULTRA mind control project, using LSD, torture, electric shock
therapy, hypnosis, etc.; developed sadistic methods of torture still used in black sites around
the world; and invented various ingenious techniques for assassination, many of which were
aimed at Fidel Castro. Gottlieb was responsible for brutal prison and hospital experiments and
untold death and suffering inflicted on all sorts of innocent people. His work was depraved in
the deepest sense; he worked with Nazis who experimented on Jews despite being Jewish
himself.
Kinzer writes in depth about this man who considered himself a patriot and a spiritual
person – a humane torturer and killer. It is an eye-opening book for anyone who does not
know about Gottlieb, who gave the CIA the essential tools they use in their "organized crime"
activities around the world – in the words of Douglass Valentine, the author of The
CIA as Organized Crime and The Phoenix Program . Kinzer's book is good history on
Gottlieb; however, he doesn't venture into the present activities of the CIA and Gottlieb's
patriotic followers, who no doubt exist and go about their business in secret.
After recounting in detail the sordid history of Gottlieb's secret work that is nauseating
to read about, Kinzer leaves the reader with these strange words:
Gottlieb was not a sadist, but he might well have been . Above all he was an instrument of
history. Understanding him is a deeply disturbing way of understanding ourselves.
What possibly could this mean? Not a sadist? An instrument of history? Understanding
ourselves? These few sentences, dropped out of nowhere, pull the rug out from under what is
generally an illuminating history and what seems like a moral indictment. This language is pure
mystification.
Kinzer also concludes that because Gottlieb said so, the CIA failed in their efforts to
develop methods of mind control and ended MK-ULTRA's experiments long ago. Why would he believe
the word of a man who personified the agency he worked for: a secret liar? He writes,
When Sydney Gottlieb brough MK-ULTRA to its end in the early 1960s, he told his CIA
superiors that he had found no reliable way to wipe away memory, make people abandon their
consciences, or commit crimes and then forget them.
As for those who might think otherwise, Kinzer suggests they have vivid imaginations and are
caught up in conspiracy thinking: "This [convincing others that the CIA had developed methods
of mind control when they hadn't] is Sydney Gottlieb's most unexpected legacy," he asserts. He
says this although Richard Helms, the CIA Director, destroyed all MK-Ultra records. He says
that Allen Dulles, Gottlieb, and Helms themselves were caught up in a complete fantasy about
mind control because they had seen too many movies and read too many books; mind control was
impossible, a failure, a myth, he maintains. It is the stuff of popular culture, entertainment.
In an interview with Chris Hedges, interestingly posted by Jefferson Morley at his website, The Deep State , Hedges agrees with Kinzer. Gottlieb, Dulles, et al. were all deluded.
Mind control was impossible. You couldn't create a Manchurian Candidate; by implication,
someone like Sirhan Sirhan could not have been programmed to be a fake Manchurian Candidate and
to have no memory of what he did, as he claims. He could not have been mind-controlled by the
CIA to perform his part as the seeming assassin of Senator Robert Kennedy while the real killer
shot RFK from behind. People who think like this should get real.
Furthermore, as is so common in books such as Kinzer's, he repeats the canard that JFK and
RFK knew about and pressured the CIA to assassinate Fidel Castro. This is demonstrably false,
as shown by the Church Committee and the Assassinations Record Review Board, among many others.
That Kinzer takes the word of notorious liars like Richard Helms and the top-level CIA
operative Samuel Halpern is simple incredible, something that is hard to consider a mistake.
Slipped into a truth sandwich, it is devoured and passed on. But it is false. Bullshit meant to
deceive.
But this is how these games are played. If you look carefully, you will see them widely.
Inform, enlighten, while throwing in doubletalk and untruths. The small number of people who
read such books and articles will come away knowing some history that has no current relevance
and being misinformed on other history that does. They will then be in the know, ready to pass
their "wisdom" on to those who care to listen. They will not think they are average.
But they will be mind controlled, and the killer cat will roam freely without a bell, ready
to devour the unsuspecting mice.
Edward Curtin is a writer whose work has appeared widely. He teaches sociology at
Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. His website is http://edwardcurtin.com/
A very disappointing interview. I person that has no doubts about 9/11 doers not reserve our respect. He also might be a
fake defector much like Oswald was. As simple as that. Snowden version of history is deeply wrong. He actually talk as a
second rate journalist, not as a security specialist. If he thinks that bashing Russia and Putin will save him from being
framed as a Russian agent, he is an idiot. It he things that 9/11 official story holds and can't be questioned he is iether a
naive idiot or a Deep State stooge.
And repeating banalities about security risks in modern society do not bring you too far iether. That a very short summary of
this two and a half hour narcissistic monolog, which for some reason is called interview.
In his interview Snowden mainly repeat things that became banalities and that you can learn for any other book on total
surveillance.
What if this was yet another false flag operation? It looks like he was just certified Microsoft engineer, he was not Unix guy.
He views 9/11 disqualify his from providing the explanation of how the USA was converted into national security state.
His view of Putin are probably result of indoctrination in CIA and NSA, but that also means that he is not a deep thinker.
Also it is strange after spending in the country several years and did not lean more about Russia and did not even try to learn the
language.
BTW while his escape from the USA and attempt to provide materials did managed to focus attention of the
public on total severance regime, almost nothing of Snowden materials were published. Almost everything died in the hand of selected
journalists... Guardian published small fragments of one PRISM document. That's it. He is no Manning.
Snowden puts too much efforts in trying to justify his actions and at the end that became annoying and suspicious in its own
right.
Notable quotes:
"... "patriotism isn't about the loyalty to government. Patriotism isn't a loyalty to anything. Patriotism is constant effort to do good for the people of your country" ..."
"... "I'd be working on umm economic takeover of Guatemala for example" Lol CIA's bread and butter ..."
"... While I'm not saying Snowden is wrong, it's important to realize that this is "his side of the story." ..."
"... Honestly don't know how so many can be shocked by these claims. Did you really think that your government sweetheart is trying to protect you? They collectively have an agenda to keep people asleep. ..."
"... Snowden is a D.S. Cutout. Period. Disinfo Personified. He didn't get out of Hong Kong W/O HELP ..."
"... Is anybody else kinda thrown off by how condescending and patronizing Snowden is towards Joe? ..."
"... I can't believe NSA and CIA hired someone that talks that much... ..."
"... So every politician I disagree with is a dictator or fascist. Seems someone hasn't learned much ..."
"... It was the Russian government that took him in, the alternative would be rotting in a dark off shore CIA prison. I would not bite the hand that saved me. Snowden is a good guy but i think he needs to learn gratitude. ..."
"... If this video is trending, this mean Snowden is a puppet to the NWO. NO WAY THEY WILL ALLOW A VIDEO LIKE THIS TO EVER TREND IN YOUTUBE OR ANY WHERE. ..."
"... there were numerous people warned not to fly/go to wtc on 911. Willie Brown, Salmon Rushdie, Israeli citizens, apparently the French knew as well... But Snowden says they didn't know ..."
"... With all do respect to snowden , 9 11 was an inside job The whole event was controlled. Controlled demolition , controlled airlines to launch them in to the towers. All orchestrated by elements of the CIA , FBI , and NSA ..."
"patriotism isn't about the loyalty to government. Patriotism isn't a loyalty to anything.
Patriotism is constant effort to do good for the people of your country"
"People talk about the deep state like it's a conspiracy theory of lizard people, it's
not, its something much simpler, the deep state is the career government." - Edward
Snowden
1:57:00 Snowden talks about how
the Intelligence agencies can stonewall you and sabotage your presidency... Exactly what
President Trump has been saying for years.
What I really got out of this episode is
realization that companies and the government can now track where I have been on a particular
date at a particular time forever. Its crazy what a time we live in.
Imagine kids born in
2006 or so until they expire. They government or companies can pull up data of their entire
life timeline at any point in their lives. Example where were they on 2/15/2010 at 2:15 PM.
Someone born in 1965 can only recall memories of their pass experiences that only they know
or the people around can remember whereas now days and beyond, they can pull that information
out depending on how specific the query you want to obtain. This is not including all the
other data such as relationship they have had, where they had lived, where they had eaten,
what they had buy, etc...
38:00 . CIA and FBI competing
for clout . I'm sorry I know this is serious but just imagined them as
annoying social media acc trying to get the most likes. But seriously, thanks Joe, you let
your guest talk and it was so incredibly insightful!!
When this Edward Snowden thing first happened, the first thing I
thought was wow this is a very very smart man but not smart enough to realize how stupid
people are and how powerful mainstream media is when it comes to the general public's
perception.
The general public doesn't realize that the mainstream news has nowhere near
5million views in 3 days but if it's not talked about on main stream news for a week or if
the president does not acknowledge something then it does not exist. That's the truth.
Snowden tries to advertise his book the whole time Rogan asks him a simple question..
Okay, I get it you go into details in the book... Just answer the question. "Oh yeah, let me
give you a fast version....". 1 hr later - He still hasn't answered.
Joe Rogan is one patient
ass man. Thanks for having such interesting and awesome content on your podcast! :)
"> My obsevation is that if I was in charge of keeping our "They Live" clandestine
alien government's secret, then I wouldn't allow that information wrote down on paper in a
room with a computer even in it , let alone have it in a computer document.
Not many people
should even be aware of the information and When they are they stick to analogue pens and
paper other than when they are reverse engineering anything, When specialist use
hardware/software it is in TOTAL contained environment .
And that dudes is how ya keeps a
secret . Oh and the moon he is wrong with that and you can use the same reasoning, what did
they do for example with all of the film tape recordings of all the footage of Apollo
landing. Yes they taped over it, all of it. If you have ever seen moon landing footage it's a
recording of a recording to hide multitudes of oversights. x
09:45
Sounds more like escalating the surveillance of the general population was the main goal from
the start. A slow subversion made palatable by a perceived threat.
We need to stand up to this somehow. Just think of the chilling effect on anyone who might
want to do a public service but fears exposure of some detail in their private life or their
explorations or communications which could be used to silence or embarrass them.
Bastards!
I can barely keep my eyes open with Snowden. You'd think to yourself, how come such a
sleepy personality individual be so dangerous to the government elite?
Well, the proof is in
what he's saying and it is the truth that 9/11 was a mass conspiracy aimed to change America
and ruin The Will of The American people. I was his age when all this crap went down and I
believed all of it like he and many of my generation did because we didn't have the Alex
Jones of the world waking us up to this sick reality which is our government is treasonous
against its own people.
He was given the same speech training as Obama. Same cadence, same pauses, same use of
"uhh", "right" and "Look...". The repeating of certain words quickly before finishing the
main point is particularly noticeable, i.e. "th- the.." "th- that", "whe- when..."
I feel like lack of communication is so the reason for a lot occupational struggles as
well as in the government structures. It makes me sad to see that sharing and informing is
just so hard for some people. And that negative energy rubs of on everyone else and I feel
like it's a huge spiraling butterfly affect.
But I'm glad to see someone talking about the
issues with our society so intensely and so carefully and so factually and I honestly love
it. I feel included because of this video and for that, I am great full!
While I'm not saying Snowden is wrong, it's important to realize that this is "his side of
the story." This is why fair trials are important.. He complains about the D.C. circuit and
perhaps for good reason; I say fine, bring him to the 8th circuit and let's put all the cards
on the table.
Honestly don't know how so many can be shocked by these claims. Did you really think that
your government sweetheart is trying to protect you? They collectively have an agenda to keep
people asleep.
To keep them in their routines so that they don't ask questions. Also throw
them a bone every now and then so that they feel as if they are getting rewarded while we
extort them, spy on them and use them and then throw them away.
"The public is not partnered with government. The public does not hold the leash to
government. We are subject to them. Subordinate to government" " National security does not
equal to public safety. National security is the safety of the state"
Is anybody else kinda thrown off by how condescending and patronizing Snowden is
towards Joe? He seems to be throwing low key shade/jabs about his preconceived notions about
Joe based off his avatar.
I mean he could have spoken on his initial impression as a little
anecdotal segway into how this interview came to fruition, but he seems arrogant to me. Like
he feels the average layman is beneath him or of lessor intellectualism. Great interview
nonetheless, but I just think Snowden comes off a little uppity (for lack of a better
term)😒
It was the Russian government that took him in, the alternative would be rotting in a dark
off shore CIA prison. I would not bite the hand that saved me. Snowden is a good guy but i
think he needs to learn gratitude.
Ed, you made one mistake: Americans are not "afraid"! US citizens did NOT vote for DT out
of fear. They voted out of CONCERN. The average American? Goes to McD's once a month (they're
lovin' it), buys their daughter an ice cream at Dairy Queen (or equivalent ice cream place in
town), anticipates when is the most convenient day to schedule an oil change, etc. "Fear",
"scared", "fearmonger"?
These are nonsensical words the other side likes to spew. Americans
are c-o-n-c-e-r-n-e-d about their country. The British (and I speak on behalf of all
Americans, British, and so forth - thank you, thank you) opted out of the EU because of
CONCERN for their future. Not fear. You're a smart guy Ed, and this interview is very
telling, (and we the people think you're gonna get your ass assassinated for speaking so
freely like this), and although I only had the patience to sit through the first hour, this
is a good video, and a memorable interview.
But just understand -- aside from North Koreans and
maybe a Syrian here and there, citizens are not afraid. We are instead courageous. We CARE
about the now. We care about the future. We support those that care as well. We're concerned,
kiddo. Not fearful. Boris, Donald, Orban, that green-faced Putin opponent Alexei Navalny guy,
Nigel, Milo, Geert, PJW, Brigitte Bardot, August Sabbe, Romas Kalanta, Joan of Arc (and
countless others) - at risk of their safety / public standing / status quo / whatever - CARE.
Those are the leaders (ASS KICKERS) that we support and vote for. We are members of the human
race. We are not afraid.
#1 if people didn't realize this was going on before 2013, then I don't know where your
brain was. #2 this guy may correct, but he's an opportunist.
He's spent a lot of time putting
this story together. How can he say there are no bodies laying around when Obama was sending
up drones that fired missles at cell phones? I worked in the telecom industry starting in the
90s... I was tracking calls on 9/11. I knew who was calling who, and the FBI didn't ask
permission to see where the calls were going or coming from.
He's had John McAfee, Rhonda Patrick, Mike Tyson, Graham Hancock, Neil Degrasse Tyson,
Lance Armstrong, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Jay Leno, Anthony Bourdain, David Goggins, Ron
White, Jordan Peterson, Everlast, Immortal Technique, Bernie Sanders, Ben Shapiro, George
St.Pierre, Elon Musk, Alex Jones, and now Edward Snowden. Just to name a few.
But there were numerous people warned not to fly/go to wtc on 911. Willie Brown, Salmon
Rushdie, Israeli citizens, apparently the French knew as well... But Snowden says they didn't
know
"Give me one good reason the government would have committed 9/11." - steel beams don't melt jet fuel, also watch this
podcast and you'll wish you still lived in the matrix
Right now, Chile, my home country, is going through a very difficult and delicate
process of civil unrest that has been met with relentless repression at the hands of a
government that works in favor of private interests and has been confirmed to commit several
and systematic human rights violations, including torture, murder, rape, state terrorism, and
the list goes on. Listening to this podcast right now really puts in perspective the extent
to wich a State can manipulate, hide and forge information in order to limit civil rights
with the excuse of protecting the people.
We NEED guys like Snowden to come forth and show
governments around the world that any measures taken to protect order and national interests
should always be second to the well-being, civil and human rights of the people that
constitute the very foundation of what a country is.
People from the US are lucky to have
true patriots like Snowden, willing to go against the rotten systems so deeply ingrained in
their institutional complexes in order to uphold the ideals that gave birth to their country
in the first place. We need help, and we need clarity. If y'all can, please get informed and
divulge what you learn about our situation right now. Get people talking and get people
acting.
No government that - literally- fires against its people should be left unchecked.
Information is a tool, the greatest one we've got in this day and age, and we the people are
more capable than ever of using it in our advantage.
At 14:15 , he says he went to
journalists with the information and gave them conditions on how that information could be
published. Was this a trust or legal based transaction? If it was trust, would Snowden still
be as confident in doing it that way in today's media climate?
So James Clapper just straight-up lied to Congress under oath and there were no
repercussions, yet they did their best to hunt down Ed Snowden and treat him like a dirty
dog? What is wrong with this picture? Besides everything, I mean.
The scary thing is, is that while Snowden is telling us what happened in the past, the
government is actively abusing powers while looking for new ways to violate our rights. We
need to really look at ourselves as citizens and make sure the people we vote for are
actually serving the public no matter what party or tak they're on.
With all do respect to snowden , 9 11 was an inside job The whole event was controlled.
Controlled demolition , controlled airlines to launch them in to the towers. All orchestrated
by elements of the CIA , FBI , and NSA
EB's second paragraph @18 is very clear, I think, about the stakes for one of the more
important issues facing liberals / Democrats in the US. Is the party organized around
protecting women, LBGT individuals, and religious and ethnic minorities from theocrats who
want to tear down Constitutional and statutory civil rights, or is it organized around
working people who may have a stake in a less secular, less socially progressive future, but
will support a strong government if it supports ordinary working families who belong to the
dominant culture?
The "liberalism is fascism; only anarchism is properly socialist" faction seems as strong
as ever, though these days, it seems possible to add a third clause, "big government is
good," to the list, to listen to some people.
It's almost as if what they really mean is "all governments are the same, but don't boss
*me* around."
JQ is right to emphasize the similarities and continuities
between the identity politics of the liberal and rightist varieties. They exist along a
continuum and easily located within the ideological cultural and civilizational symbolic of
Western capitalist polities. Understood as a power-elite *ruling ideology*, this is what is
properly described as "Liberalism". (In contrast, superficial electoral politics and journalism
are merely epiphenomenal when they seek to pigeon-hole parties, politicians and policies into
granular categories of "left", "center", "right".)
For reasons similar to those outlined above, Corey Robin and Slavoj Zizek have rejected
labelling Trump a "fascist", especially when this label comes from political centrists –
DNC Democrats; "bourgeois liberals" etc. Robin and Zizek emphasize the manner in which Trump is
simply capitalist business as usual. And since the start of the Trump admin., Robin also has
noted the many political weaknesses of Trump and the GOP, over and above Trump's neophyte
incompetence and vainglorious stupidity.
See here, for example
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/02/american-institutions-wont-keep-you-safe-trumps-excesses
The problem with Robin's and Zizek's positions though, Fascism is just as much capitalist
business as usual. Capitalist economic activity can operate effectively under both centrist and
hard-right ideologies, the relation of Liberalism (including "conservatism") and Fascism is
along a continuum and the first can readily morph into the second.
Two recent books describe the inter-relationship between Liberalism and Fascism as capitalist
ruling ideologies.
Domenico Losurdo – Liberalism: A Counter-History.
Ishay Landa – The Apprentice's Sorcerer: Liberal Tradition and Fascism
A review of Losurdo's book on Amazon provides a good summary of its thesis.
"1. Liberalism does not expand the boundaries of freedom in an organic dialectical
process. Liberalism has undergone profound changes in its history, but not because of any
sort of internal tendency towards progress. The expanders of liberty have been rebellious
slaves, socialists, organized workers, anti-colonial nationalists, and other forces outside
of the Community of the Free. Generally, the Community of the Free only grants accessions
when faced with powerful opposition from outside its walls.
2. Ideologies such as white supremacy, social Darwinism, and colonialism were created by
liberals as a means of defending the liberty of the Community of the Free. When the American
Founding Fathers rebelled against Britain, one of their most commonly stated reasons for
doing so was that the British government didn't respect the freedom Americans had imbibed
through their Northern European blood. The Framers saw themselves as the preservers of the
freedoms of the Glorious Revolution, a revolution based on the right of freedom-worthy
peoples to dominate the supposedly insipid masses. They were explicit in this respect, and
the later history of liberalism continued to attest to this tendency.
3. Liberalism contains within itself the semi-hidden corollary that human behavior must be
strictly regulated in order for freedom to be maintained. In liberalism, individuals have the
freedom to compete with one another and rise to the top based on merit. Liberal elites have
often interpreted this as proof that those at the top of the social ladder deserve their
place. The other conclusion that stems from this is that criminals, the uneducated, the poor,
and non-Western cultures fully deserve their servile status. If nature wanted them to be part
of the Community of the Free, so goes the logic, then it would allow them to participate in
liberty. Therefore, the dominated peoples of the world must hold their position due to their
own internal defects. For Losurdo, this belief is what defines liberalism and separates it
from radicalism.
4. In liberalism, liberty has historically been seen as a trait that people possess, one
granted by nature. Thus, liberalism easily justifies its tendencies towards inequality by
devising various ways of explaining why nature simply doesn't grant some people the liberty
it grants others. Meanwhile, radicalism sees the establishment of liberty as an active
process. Interestingly, this indicates that negative liberty possesses a magnetism towards
authoritarianism. Losrudo points out that during the early days of Fascism, many liberals in
the U.S. and Western Europe such as von Mises, Croce, and the Italian liberal establishment
saw Mussolini's regime as a possible defender of classical liberalism and liberty as it was
understood by the Anglo-Saxon theorists of liberalism.
This book is as disturbing as it is insightful. I personally see it as self-evident that
many of the authoritarian tendencies that Losurdo identifies have made a comeback with a
vengeance in the neo-liberal era, and have strengthened since the start of the Great
Financial Crisis. Modern liberals, especially in American academia, often assure themselves
that liberalism will not tolerate any serious regresses into authoritarianism, because of the
myth of the dialectical process I described at the beginning of this review. I even believed
in this to some extent, and if I remember correctly, I recall Slavoj Zizek of all people
praising liberalism for this reason. Fortunately, Losurdo has seriously damaged my faith in
this tendency in liberalism. Again, I don't even consider myself to be a liberal, I identify
as a Leftist (one of the radicals Losurdo describes). Perhaps it speaks to the pervasiveness
of the comforting nature of liberalism's self image that even its critics unknowingly take
refuge in it."
This is an excerpt of a review of Landa's book from Goodreads:
"The last 2 chapters are dedicated to attacking 4 liberal myths about fascism. 1) that it
was "the tyranny of the majority" 2) that it was "collectivist" as compared to
"individualist" liberalism 3) that the "big lie", the use of propaganda etc to cover the
"truth", was unique to fascism/"totalitarianism" or started there 4) that fascism was an
ultra-nationalist attack on liberal cosmopolitanism.
For 1, he focuses not so much on attacking the idea that fascists were a majority (he does
do this, but the book isn't focused on this sort of thing which has been gone over before
many times) but instead how many liberals believed in the tyranny of the majority *against
property owners* and were perfectly willing to accept dictatorship to protect the elite
minority from the dangers of a majority attacking their elite position – and that
liberals were in fact key ideological supporters of the fascist dictatorship to protect the
market against the attacks of socialism.
For 2, he points out first "it should be realized that terms such as "individualism" or
"collectivism" are, in and of themselves, devoid of political meaning, whether radical or
conservative, left or right, socialist or capitalist. It is only the historical content
poured into such signifiers, that lends them their concrete ideological import." These terms
aren't helpful or meaningful as ideals. Nevertheless, he points out how liberal defences of
the individual actually often took place from the standpoint of a greater community or goal
– he points out how Edmund Burke called society a "family" simply to defend that the
elite patriarchs should be able to do whatever they want yet without any responsibility in
return. The collective standpoint acts as a justification for inequalities – that
allowing the elite to do what they want advances greater goals, like culture, the health of
the race, the nation etc. Individualism was actually often a way of advancing socialist goals
by pointing out that every human being deserves a certain quality of life and the elite don't
deserve more.
For 3, he quotes liberal philosophers who believed in the dangers of democracy so talked
about the need for elites to work behind the scenes so the masses believe they're in charge
while really a small elite do everything. He quotes Leo Strauss extensively, which is kind of
weird as he's "post-fascism", but it's valuable as a more developed example of exactly what
other liberal philosophers wanted. It shows that "totalitarianism" isn't so obviously
confined to non-liberal ideologies.
For 4, he points out how common ideas of the nation were for liberals – similar to 2
– as a justification for inequality, as a basis for wealth (Wealth of Nations for
example), as a myth to rally the masses. Again, he's clear that nationalism isn't inherently
"good" or "bad" – pointing to the way nowadays third world nationalism is a valuable
force for liberation while liberal countries at capitalism's centre are stressing the
opposite. He's saying that nationalism isn't a unique quality of fascism at all. He also
quotes Hitler suggesting that if Germany isn't good enough to win its place at the forefront
of countries, he doesn't care for it. He doesn't present it as if it counters the idea of
nationalism in fascism but he points out that it suggests alternative priorities.
The epilogue focuses on one specific historian's (Michael Mann) ideas about how fascism
wasn't able to take hold in north-west Europe because of their "strong liberal traditions".
He points out first that there were serious differences in material conditions but also that
British politicians, for example, were closely tied to fascism, regularly expressing
admiration for it and supporting fascists abroad, while implementing "crypto-fascist" ideas
at home. Fascism was also impossible without ideas from the UK and the US – eugenics
ideas from there especially were very popular among fascists. The idea that it was "liberal
traditions" that stopped it spreading is shown as, at best, incredibly naive."
I agree with '3': I also think that thinking about dictatorship makes us think that the
threat is coming from a certain direction, which makes us unprepared if the threat comes from
a completely different direction (think of this as being like an intellectual Maginot Line if
you want). Things may change in 100 years time (they normally do!).
But it's clear that for the immediate future (by which I mean, roughly up until about 2050
or thereabouts) 'Old Skool' fascist dictatorships are simply a busted flush. Modi might
praise Hitler and Bolsanaro might speak approvingly of the previous military dictatorships
but even they (more or less) stick to democratic norms (elections etc.) although of course
they try and undermine what one might term the 'true' spirit of democracy at every turn (the
only place on Planet Earth which still habitually uses the 'dictatorship' mode of governance
is the area round the Gulf, for very specific socio-cultural reasons).
If you are looking for previous analogues for what we are looking at in the future you
might look at South Africa (which had elections but only for 'whites'), Mexico under the PRI,
Japan under the LDP, etc. Even in the UK, which is nominally a 'real' democracy you have a
situation (and have had since about 1950) in which, while elections are 'real' the Tories
almost always win them, and after 1979, even when the opposition does win the election, it
does not engage in any serious ideological opposition to the political philosophy of the
Tories (the US is like this too, since roughly 1981).
At the moment at least, the Republicans in the US and the Tories in the UK are simply
doubling down on gerrymandering, voter suppression, 'let them eat racism' type crackdowns on
'immigrants' to disguise (and create a 'reason' for) rising inequality, the blizzard of
propaganda we call 'fake news' (which mainly, contrary to popular belief, comes from
'mainstream' media sources): and so far these techniques seem to be working. Outright
dictatorship would create foreign policy problems (e.g. with the UN, the EU etc.) and there
is little sign at the moment that the Right wants to go down that route, at least in the
short term.
"Trump and his allies repeatedly promoted conspiracy theories asserting that the Crossfire
Hurricane investigation was opened on false pretenses for political purposes." that is a
quote from propaganda site wikipedia.. it amazes me how wikipedia is able to print this type
of stuff based off a link to a politico.com article! i got to looking at this thanks ew's
latest article -
"Fact Witness:" How Rod Rosenstein Got DOJ IG To Land a Plane on Bruce Ohr
it continues to amaze me how in lock step these folks are with the basic story line they
have been given - trump is in putins back pocket and drivel like that... one can say what
they want about trump, but does it always have to blur every other aspect of reality once you
have gone bonkers from him?? it appears that way.. i guess that is why they call it tds...
oh, and i am using that term, not as a trump supporter, but a reality supporter, lol..
"... Imagine millions of government employees paid for by America's tax payer class, involved in covert operations undermining nation states for the benefit of war mongering shadow overlords counting on more never ending chaos feeding their hunger for power. ..."
"... This isn't Orwell's 1984, this Team America on opioids. ..."
"... Senior OPCW official had orders from US/ the Donald. Remember that the Donald bombed Syria based on this fake report , after a false flag done by Al Qaeda's artistic branch, the White Helmets. ..."
"... Pray, do tell where are the consequences for these literal demons that engaged in war crimes? It is quite clear: as long as you are a member of the establishment, you can do whatever the f*ck you want. ..."
"... Third rate script, third rate actors and crooked investigators. TPTB seem to have a plan worked out. Their problem now is that we, the hoi-polloi, have seen it all before, many times, and we can now recognise ******** when it's used to try to influence us. ..."
"... If this is not lamentable enough, the OPCW – whose final report came to more than a hundred pages and which even issued an easy-to-read precis version for journalists – now slams shut its steel doors in the hope of preventing even more information reaching the press. ..."
"... Instead of these pieces concentrating on the whistleblower how about putting a little heat on the 50 lying bastards who initiated the coverup? ..."
"... The destruction of the countries of the Middle East for the sake of a dwarf with giant ambitions is the most stupid thing the United States has done over the past 30 years in its foreign policy. And yes, all the wars in the Middle East were grounded in lies. And the Americans paid for it all from start to finish. When Americans realize that they need to defend their national interests, and not other people's national interests, maybe something in the Middle East will change for the better. True, I am afraid that with the hight level of stupidity and shortsightedness that is common among Americans, the United States is more likely to be destroyed faster. No offense. ..."
"... And I propose to remember the Syrian Christians who were destroyed by the Saudi Wahhabis, hired by the CIA with the money of American taxpayers and at the request of Israel. Until the Americans begin to investigate the activities of the CIA (and this activity causes the United States only harm), the responsibility for this genocide (you heard right) will be on the American nation. It turns out that in the Middle East you are primarily destroying Christians. How interesting, why such zeal. ..."
"... According to whistleblower testimony and leaked documents, OPCW officials raised alarm about the suppression of critical findings that undermine the allegation that the Syrian government committed a chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. Haddad's editors at Newsweek rejected his attempts to cover the story. "If I don't find another position in journalism because of this, I'm perfectly happy to accept that consequence," Haddad says. "It's not desirable. But there is no way I could have continued in that job knowing that I couldn't report something like this." ..."
"... New leaks continue to expose a cover-up by the OPCW – the world's top chemical weapons watchdog – over a critical event in Syria. Documents, emails, and testimony from OPCW officials have raised major doubts about the allegation that the Syrian government committed a chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. The leaked OPCW information has been released in pieces by Wikileaks. The latest documents contain a number of significant revelations – including that that about 20 OPCW officials voiced concerns that their scientific findings and on-the-ground evidence was suppressed and excluded. ..."
Wikileaks has released their fourth set of leaks from the OPCW's Douma investigation,
revealing new details about the alleged deletion of important information regarding the
fact-finding mission.
RELEASE: OPCW-Douma Docs 4. Four leaked documents from the OPCW reveal that toxicologists
ruled out deaths from chlorine exposure and a senior official ordered the deletion of the
dissenting engineering report from OPCW's internal repository of documents. https://t.co/ndK4sRikNk
"One of the documents is an e-mail exchange dated 27 and 28 February between members of the
fact finding mission (FFM) deployed to Douma and the senior officials of the OPCW. It includes
an e-mail from Sebastien Braha, Chief of Cabinet at the OPCW , where he instructs that an
engineering report from Ian Henderson should be removed from the secure registry of the
organisation," WikiLeaks writes. Included in the email is the following directive:
" Please get this document out of DRA [Documents Registry Archive] And please remove all
traces, if any, of its delivery/storage/whatever in DRA.'"
According to Wikileaks, the main finding of Henderson, who inspected the sites in Douma, was
that two of the cylinders were most likely manually placed at the site, rather than
dropped.
"The main finding of Henderson, who inspected the sites in Douma and two cylinders that were
found on the site of the alleged attack, was that they were more likely manually placed there
than dropped from a plane or helicopter from considerable heights. His findings were omitted
from the official final OPCW report on the Douma incident," the Wikileaks report said.
It must be remembered that the U.S. launched an attack on Damascus, Syria on April 14, 2018
over alleged chemical weapons usage by pro-Assad forces at Douma.
Another document released Friday is minutes from a meeting on 6 June 2018 where four staff
members of the OPCW had discussions with "three Toxicologists/Clinical pharmacologists, one
bioanalytical and toxicological chemist" (all specialists in chemical weapons, according to the
minutes).
Minutes from an OPCW meeting with toxicologists specialized in chemical weapons: "the
experts were conclusive in their statements that there was
no correlation between symptoms and chlorine exposure". https://t.co/j5Jgjiz8UY pic.twitter.com/vgPaTtsdQN
The purpose of this meeting was two-fold. The first objective was "to solicit expert advice
on the value of exhuming suspected victims of the alleged chemical attack in Douma on 7 April
2018". According to the minutes, the OPCW team was advised by the experts that there would be
little use in conducting exhumations. The second point was "To elicit expert opinions from the
forensic toxicologists regarding the observed and reported symptoms of the alleged
victims."
More specifically, " whether the symptoms observed in victims were consistent with exposure
to chlorine or other reactive chlorine gas."
According to the minutes leaked Friday: "With respect to the consistency of the observed and
reported symptoms of the alleged victims with possible exposure to chlorine gas or similar, the
experts were conclusive in their statements that there was no correlation between symptoms and
chlorine exposure ."
The OPCW team members wrote that the key "take-away message" from the meeting was "that the
symptoms observed were inconsistent with exposure to chlorine and no other obvious candidate
chemical causing the symptoms could be identified".
The isisrahell have such long hand to pull the plug any stories implicating their crime in
progress otherwise they can put out some bs spins as bombshell reporting about US lies in
Afghanistan war on their wapo for public for those who read it was nothing important revealed
except being a misdirected na
If you want to pay off that student loan you're going to print what they tell you to
print. You're going to inject kids with what they tell you to inject them with. You're going
to think what they tell you to think or you're going to spend your days in a Prole bar
drinking Blatz.
yes, an attack was launched, 50 missiles I believe, after loud warnings that it was
coming, and none of them actually hit anything significant ... this is the way the game is
played .... the good news is that the missiles cost $50 million, and now they will have to be
replaced, by the Pentagon, first borrowing the money through the US Treasury offerings, and
then paying for them from new money printed by the Federal Reserve. capische?
That`s the way it`s always been, it`s the eternal war of good against evil.
And when one evil enemy is defeated, it`s necessary to create a new evil enemy, how else
can the Establishment Elite make money from war, death and destruction.
It's really very awkward & telling how ***** these bunch of western nations are
looking tough on taking out poor defenceless country like Syria on ******** & at the
satried to ease real kickass Russian as you described when they launch the attacks
I kind wish the US & their Zionist clown launch such huge attacks on Iran based on
false flag
I really wanted these evil aggressive powers to taste what it is like to get bombed back
even one they used to throw on multiple weaker nations freely with nothing to fear as
retribution etc
This organisations are all set up in Europe and US run by the filthiest filth on earth who
still think they have God given right to imperial rule over the world.
Your military-industrial-intelligence complex at work, creating justification for more
funding, like always - and who cares if people die as a result? Like Soros said, if they
didn't do it, someone else would. (do I need /sarc?).
They don't like to be shown to be in charge, just to be in charge. And if you think this
is a function of the current admin, you've been slow in the head and deaf and blind for quite
some time.
I've watched since Eisenhower, and "it's always something". Doesn't matter what color the
clown in chief's tie is.
Imagine millions of government employees paid for by America's tax payer class, involved
in covert operations undermining nation states for the benefit of war mongering shadow
overlords counting on more never ending chaos feeding their hunger for power.
This isn't Orwell's 1984, this Team America on opioids.
Senior OPCW official had orders from US/ the Donald. Remember that the Donald bombed Syria based on this fake report , after a false flag done
by Al Qaeda's artistic branch, the White Helmets.
Pray, do tell where are the consequences for these literal demons that engaged in war
crimes? It is quite clear: as long as you are a member of the establishment, you can do
whatever the f*ck you want. Why do we even follow the law, then? Given the precedent that is
being set, we might as well not have any.
Well, they are looking forward to using all those Israeli weapons, er, uh, products, that
local law enforcement has purchased...so watch out for Co-Intel Pro elicitation going
forward....?
Everybody knows the Golem (USA) does Isn'treal's bidding in Syria and elsewhere in the
Near East. Hopefully they keep hammering in the fact that this "gas attack" was an obvious
set-up to use as a pretext (flimsy itself on the face of it) to brutalize Assad and Syria on
behalf of Isn'treal.
The whole thing is built on ******* lies. Worst part about it is, nothing will happen.
Only official news is to believed. You see it and it is a lie. they tell you to believe
it. A lot of people casually believe whatever is spoken on TV. They become teachers and are
taught in college what is right and wrong. We only have a few years before all the brain dead
are in charge and robotically following the message like zombies with no brain
Third rate script, third rate actors and crooked investigators. TPTB seem to have a plan worked out. Their problem now is that we, the hoi-polloi, have
seen it all before, many times, and we can now recognise ******** when it's used to try to
influence us.
It is difficult to underestimate the seriousness of this manipulative act by the OPCW.
In a response to the conservative author Peter Hitchens, who also writes for the Mail on
Sunday – he is of course the brother of the late Christopher Hitchens – the
OPCW admits that its so-called technical secretariat "is conducting an internal
investigation about the unauthorised [sic] release of the document".
Then it adds: "At this time, there is no further public information on this matter and
the OPCW is unable to accommodate [sic] requests for interviews". It's a tactic that until
now seems to have worked: not a single news media which reported the OPCW's official
conclusions has followed up the story of the report which the OPCW suppressed.
And you bet the OPCW is not going to "accommodate" interviews. For here is an
institution investigating a war crime in a conflict which has cost hundreds of thousands of
lives – yet its only response to an enquiry about the engineers' "secret" assessment
is to concentrate on its own witch-hunt for the source of the document it wished to keep
secret from the world.
If this is not lamentable enough, the OPCW – whose final report came to more than
a hundred pages and which even issued an easy-to-read precis version for journalists
– now slams shut its steel doors in the hope of preventing even more information
reaching the press.
The destruction of the countries of the Middle East for the sake of a dwarf with giant
ambitions is the most stupid thing the United States has done over the past 30 years in its
foreign policy. And yes, all the wars in the Middle East were grounded in lies. And the
Americans paid for it all from start to finish. When Americans realize that they need to
defend their national interests, and not other people's national interests, maybe something
in the Middle East will change for the better. True, I am afraid that with the hight level of
stupidity and shortsightedness that is common among Americans, the United States is more
likely to be destroyed faster. No offense.
And I propose to remember the Syrian Christians who were destroyed by the Saudi Wahhabis,
hired by the CIA with the money of American taxpayers and at the request of Israel. Until the
Americans begin to investigate the activities of the CIA (and this activity causes the United
States only harm), the responsibility for this genocide (you heard right) will be on the
American nation. It turns out that in the Middle East you are primarily destroying
Christians. How interesting, why such zeal.
According to whistleblower testimony and leaked documents, OPCW officials raised alarm
about the suppression of critical findings that undermine the allegation that the Syrian
government committed a chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. Haddad's
editors at Newsweek rejected his attempts to cover the story. "If I don't find another
position in journalism because of this, I'm perfectly happy to accept that consequence,"
Haddad says. "It's not desirable. But there is no way I could have continued in that job
knowing that I couldn't report something like this."
New leaks continue to expose a cover-up by the OPCW – the world's top chemical
weapons watchdog – over a critical event in Syria. Documents, emails, and testimony
from OPCW officials have raised major doubts about the allegation that the Syrian government
committed a chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. The leaked OPCW
information has been released in pieces by Wikileaks. The latest documents contain a number
of significant revelations – including that that about 20 OPCW officials
voiced concerns that their scientific findings and on-the-ground evidence was suppressed and
excluded.
This is, without a doubt, a major global scandal: the OPCW, under reported US pressure,
suppressing vital evidence about allegations of chemical weapons. But that very fact exposes
another global scandal: with the exception of small outlets like The Grayzone, the mass media
has widely ignored or whitewashed this story. And this widespread censorship of the OPCW
scandal has just led one journalist to resign. Up until recently, Tareq Haddad was a reporter
at Newsweek. But in early December, Tareq announced that he had quit his position after
Newsweek refused to publish his story about the OPCW cover up over Syria.
I suspected that Deep State has at least two opposing factions. The Realistists want him to
break up the empire, turn back into a republic; the Delusionals want to extend the empire,
continue to exploit and destroy the world. If so, the contradictions, reversals, incoherence
make sense. IMO as I said.
Gary Weglarz ,
I predict that all Western MSM will begin to accurately and vocally cover Mr. Binney's
findings about this odious and treasonous U.S. government psyop at just about the exact time
that -- "hell freezes over" -- as they say.
Jen ,
They don't need to, they have Tony Blair's fellow Brit psycho Boris Johnson to go on
autopilot and blame the Russians the moment something happens and just before London Met
start their investigations.
Gossufer2.0 and CrowdStrike are the weakest links in this sordid story. CrowdStrike was nothing but FBI/CIA contractor.
So the hypothesis that CrowdStrike employees implanted malware to implicate Russians and created fake Gussifer 2.0 personality
is pretty logical.
Notable quotes:
"... Not one piece of corroborating intelligence. It is all based on opinion and strong belief. There was no human source report or electronic intercept pointing to a relationship between the GRU and the two alleged creations of the GRU--Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com. Now consider the spin that Robert Mueller put on this opinion in his report on possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Mueller bluffs the unsuspecting reader into believing that it is a proven fact that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks were Russian assets. But he is relying on a mere opinion from a handpicked group of intel analysts working under the direction of then CIA Director John Brennan ..."
"... In October 2015 John Brennan reorganized the CIA . As part of that reorganization he created a new directorate--DIRECTORATE OF DIGITAL INNOVATION. Its mission was to "manipulate digital footprints." In other words, this was the Directorate that did the work of creating Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks. One of their specialties, creating Digital Dust. ..."
"... We also know, thanks to Wikileaks, that the CIA was using software specifically designed to mask CIA activity and make it appear like it was done by a foreign entity. Wikipedia describes the Vault 7 documents : ..."
"... Exhibit A in the case is this document created and later edited in the ubiquitous Microsoft Word format. Metadata left inside the file shows it was last edited by someone using the computer name "Феликс Эдмундович." That means the computer was configured to use the Russian language and that it was connected to a Russian-language keyboard. More intriguing still, "Феликс Эдмундович" is the colloquial name that translates to Felix Dzerzhinsky, the 20th Century Russian statesman who is best known for founding the Soviet secret police. (The metadata also shows that the purported DNC strategy memo was originally created by someone named Warren Flood, which happens to be the name of a LinkedIn user claiming to provide strategy and data analytics services to Democratic candidates.) ..."
"... Why would the CIA do this? The CIA knew that Podesta's emails had been hacked and were circulating on the internet. But they had no evidence about the identity of the culprit. If they had such evidence, they would have cited it in the 2017 ICA. ..."
"... The U.S. intelligence community became aware around May 26, 2016 that someone with access to the DNC network was offering those emails to Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Julian Assange and people who spoke to him indicate that the person was Seth Rich. Whether or not it was Seth, the Trump Task Force at CIA was aware that the emails, which would be embarrassing to the Clinton campaign, would be released at some time in the future. Hence the motive to create Guccifer 2.0 and pin the blame on Russia. ..."
"... The only source for the claim that Russia hacked the DNC is a private cyber security firm, CrowdStrike. ..."
"... Time for the common sense standard again. Crowdstrike detected the Russians on the 6th of May, according to CEO Dimitri Alperovitch, but took no steps to shutdown the network, eliminate the malware and clean the computers until 34 days later, i.e., the 10th of June. That is 34 days of inexcusable inaction. ..."
"... The actions attributed to DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 should be priority investigative targets for U.S. Attorney John Durham's team of investigators. This potential use of a known CIA tool, developed under Brennan with the sole purpose to obfuscate the source of intrusions, pointing to another nation, as a false flag operation, is one of the actions and issues that U.S. Attorney John Durham should be looking into as a potential act of "Seditious conspiracy. It needs to be done. To quote the CIA, I strongly assess that the only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential election was the CIA, not the GRU. ..."
"... LJ bottom line: "The only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential election was the CIA, not the GRU." ..."
"... ICA which seemed to have been framed to allow journalists or the unwary to link the ICA with more rigorous standards used by more authentic assessments? ..."
"... With the Russians not having the advantages that the NSA does (back doors in all US-designed network hardware/software and taps all over the internet), would Russia reveal anything unless it involved an immediate major national security threat. I doubt that would cover Trump. ..."
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report insists that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks were created by Russia's military intelligence organization,
the GRU, as part of a Russian plot to meddle in the U.S. 2016 Presidential Election. But this is a lie. Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks
were created by Brennan's CIA and this action by the CIA should be a target of U.S. Attorney John Durham's investigation. Let me
explain why.
Let us start with the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment aka ICA. Only three agencies of the 17 in the U.S. intelligence
community contributed to and coordinated on the ICA--the FBI, the CIA and NSA. In the preamble to the ICA, you can read the following
explanation about methodology:
When Intelligence Community analysts use words such as "we assess" or "we judge," they are conveying an analytic assessment or
judgment
To be clear, the phrase,"We assess", is intel community jargon for "opinion". If there was actual evidence or source material
for a judgment the writer of the assessment would state, "According to a reliable source" or "knowledgeable source" or "documentary
evidence."
Pay close attention to what the analysts writing the ICA stated about the GRU and Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks:
We assess with high confidence that the GRU used the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and WikiLeaks to release US victim data
obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets.
Guccifer 2.0, who claimed to be an independent Romanian hacker, made multiple contradictory statements and false claims
about his likely Russian identity throughout the election. Press reporting suggests more than one person claiming to be Guccifer
2.0 interacted with journalists.
Content that we assess was taken from e-mail accounts targeted by the GRU in March 2016 appeared on DCLeaks.com starting
in June.
We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks.
Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self-proclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did
not contain any evident forgeries.
Not one piece of corroborating intelligence. It is all based on opinion and strong belief. There was no human source report or
electronic intercept pointing to a relationship between the GRU and the two alleged creations of the GRU--Guccifer 2.0 persona and
DCLeaks.com. Now consider the spin that Robert Mueller put on this opinion in his report on possible collusion between the Trump
campaign and the Russians. Mueller bluffs the unsuspecting reader into believing that it is a proven fact that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks
were Russian assets. But he is relying on a mere opinion from a handpicked group of intel analysts working under the direction of
then CIA Director John Brennan.
Here's Mueller's take (I apologize for the lengthy quote but it is important that you read how the Mueller team presents this):
DCLeaks
"The GRU began planning the releases at least as early as April 19, 2016, when Unit 26165 registered the domain dcleaks.com
through a service that anonymized the registrant.137 Unit 26165 paid for the registration using a pool of bitcoin that it had
mined.138 The dcleaks.com landing page pointed to different tranches of stolen documents, arranged by victim or subject matter.
Other dcleaks.com pages contained indexes of the stolen emails that were being released (bearing the sender, recipient, and date
of the email). To control access and the timing of releases, pages were sometimes password-protected for a period of time and
later made unrestricted to the public.
Starting in June 2016, the GRU posted stolen documents onto the website dcleaks.com, including documents stolen from a number
of individuals associated with the Clinton Campaign. These documents appeared to have originated from personal email accounts
(in particular, Google and Microsoft accounts), rather than the DNC and DCCC computer networks. DCLeaks victims included an advisor
to the Clinton Campaign, a former DNC employee and Clinton Campaign employee, and four other campaign volunteers.139 The GRU released
through dcleaks.com thousands of documents, including personal identifying and financial information, internal correspondence
related to the"Clinton Campaign and prior political jobs, and fundraising files and information.140
GRU officers operated a Facebook page under the DCLeaks moniker, which they primarily used to promote releases of materials.141
The Facebook page was administered through a small number of preexisting GRU-controlled Facebook accounts.142
GRU officers also used the DCLeaks Facebook account, the Twitter account @dcleaks__, and the email account [email protected]
to communicate privately with reporters and other U.S. persons. GRU officers using the DCLeaks persona gave certain reporters
early access to archives of leaked files by sending them links and passwords to pages on the dcleaks.com website that had not
yet become public. For example, on July 14, 2016, GRU officers operating under the DCLeaks persona sent a link and password for
a non-public DCLeaks webpage to a U.S. reporter via the Facebook account.143 Similarly, on September 14, 2016, GRU officers sent
reporters Twitter direct messages from @dcleaks_, with a password to another non-public part of the dcleaks.com website.144
The dcleaks.com website remained operational and public until March 2017."
Guccifer 2.0
On June 14, 2016, the DNC and its cyber-response team announced the breach of the DNC network and suspected theft of DNC documents.
In the statements, the cyber-response team alleged that Russian state-sponsored actors (which they referred to as "Fancy Bear")
were responsible for the breach.145 Apparently in response to that announcement, on June 15, 2016, GRU officers using the persona
Guccifer 2.0 created a WordPress blog. In the hours leading up to the launch of that WordPress blog, GRU officers logged into
a Moscow-based server used and managed by Unit 74455 and searched for a number of specific words and phrases in English, including
"some hundred sheets," "illuminati," and "worldwide known." Approximately two hours after the last of those searches, Guccifer
2.0 published its first post, attributing the DNC server hack to a lone Romanian hacker and using several of the unique English
words and phrases that the GRU officers had searched for that day.146
That same day, June 15, 2016, the GRU also used the Guccifer 2.0 WordPress blog to begin releasing to the public documents
stolen from the DNC and DCCC computer networks.
The Guccifer 2.0 persona ultimately released thousands of documents stolen from the DNC and DCCC in a series of blog posts
between June 15, 2016 and October 18, 2016.147 Released documents included opposition research performed by the DNC (including
a memorandum analyzing potential criticisms of candidate Trump), internal policy documents (such as recommendations on how to
address politically sensitive issues), analyses of specific congressional races, and fundraising documents. Releases were organized
around thematic issues, such as specific states (e.g., Florida and Pennsylvania) that were perceived as competitive in the 2016
U.S. presidential election.
Beginning in late June 2016, the GRU also used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to release documents directly to reporters and other
interested individuals. Specifically, on June 27, 2016, Guccifer 2.0 sent an email to the news outlet The Smoking Gun offering
to provide "exclusive access to some leaked emails linked [to] Hillary Clinton's staff."148 The GRU later sent the reporter a
password and link to a locked portion of the dcleaks.com website that contained an archive of emails stolen by Unit 26165 from
a Clinton Campaign volunteer in March 2016.149 "That the Guccifer 2.0 persona provided reporters access to a restricted portion
of the DCLeaks website tends to indicate that both personas were operated by the same or a closely-related group of people.150
The GRU continued its release efforts through Guccifer 2.0 into August 2016. For example, on August 15, 2016, the Guccifer
2.0 persona sent a candidate for the U.S. Congress documents related to the candidate's opponent.151 On August 22, 2016, the Guccifer
2.0 persona transferred approximately 2.5 gigabytes of Florida-related data stolen from the DCCC to a U.S. blogger covering Florida
politics.152 On August 22, 2016, the Guccifer 2.0 persona sent a U.S. reporter documents stolen from the DCCC pertaining to the
Black Lives Matter movement.153"
Wow. Sounds pretty convincing. The documents referencing communications by DCLeaks or Guccifer 2.0 with Wikileaks are real. What
is not true is that these entities were GRU assets.
In October 2015 John Brennan reorganized the CIA . As part of that reorganization he created a new directorate--DIRECTORATE
OF DIGITAL INNOVATION. Its mission was to "manipulate digital footprints." In other words, this was the Directorate that did the
work of creating Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks. One of their specialties, creating Digital Dust.
We also know, thanks to Wikileaks, that the CIA was using software specifically designed to mask CIA activity and make it
appear like it was done by a foreign entity. Wikipedia describes the
Vault 7 documents :
Vault 7 is a series of documents that WikiLeaks began to publish on 7 March 2017, that detail activities and capabilities of the
United States' Central Intelligence Agency to perform electronic surveillance and cyber warfare. The files, dated from 2013–2016,
include details on the agency's software capabilities, such as the ability to compromise cars, smart TVs,[1] web browsers (including
Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Mozilla Firefox, and Opera Software ASA),[2][3][4] and the operating systems of most smartphones (including
Apple's iOS and Google's Android), as well as other operating systems such as Microsoft Windows, macOS, and Linux[5][6
One of the tools in Vault 7 carries the innocuous name, MARBLE.
Hackernews explains the purpose and function
of MARBLE:
Dubbed "Marble," the part 3 of CIA files contains 676 source code files of a secret anti-forensic Marble Framework, which is basically
an obfuscator or a packer used to hide the true source of CIA malware.
The CIA's Marble Framework tool includes a variety of different algorithm with foreign language text intentionally inserted into
the malware source code to fool security analysts and falsely attribute attacks to the wrong nation.
Marble is used to hamper[ing] forensic investigators and anti-virus companies from attributing viruses, trojans and hacking attacks
to the CIA," says the whistleblowing site.
"...for example by pretending that the spoken language of the malware creator was not American English, but Chinese, but then
showing attempts to conceal the use of Chinese, drawing forensic investigators even more strongly to the wrong conclusion," WikiLeaks
explains.
So guess what
gullible techies "discovered" in mid-June 2016? The meta data in the Guccifer 2.0 communications had "Russian fingerprints."
We still don't know who he is or whether he works for the Russian government, but one thing is for sure: Guccifer 2.0 -- the nom
de guerre of the person claiming he hacked the Democratic National Committee and published hundreds of pages that appeared to prove
it -- left behind fingerprints implicating a Russian-speaking person with a nostalgia for the country's lost Soviet era.
Exhibit A in the case is this document created and later edited in the ubiquitous Microsoft Word format. Metadata left inside
the file shows it was last edited by someone using the computer name "Феликс Эдмундович." That means the computer was configured
to use the Russian language and that it was connected to a Russian-language keyboard. More intriguing still, "Феликс Эдмундович"
is the colloquial name that translates to Felix Dzerzhinsky, the 20th Century Russian statesman who is best known for founding the
Soviet secret police. (The metadata also shows that the purported DNC strategy memo was originally created by someone named Warren
Flood, which happens to be the name of a LinkedIn user claiming to provide strategy and data analytics services to Democratic candidates.)
Just use your common sense. If the Russians were really trying to carry out a covert cyberattack, do you really think they
are so sloppy and incompetent to insert the name of the creator of the Soviet secret police in the metadata? No. The Russians are
not clowns. This was a clumsy attempt to frame the Russians.
Why would the CIA do this? The CIA knew that Podesta's emails had been hacked and were circulating on the internet. But they
had no evidence about the identity of the culprit. If they had such evidence, they would have cited it in the 2017 ICA.
The U.S. intelligence community became aware around May 26, 2016 that someone with access to the DNC network was offering
those emails to Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Julian Assange and people who spoke to him indicate that the person was Seth Rich.
Whether or not it was Seth, the Trump Task Force at CIA was aware that the emails, which would be embarrassing to the Clinton campaign,
would be released at some time in the future. Hence the motive to create Guccifer 2.0 and pin the blame on Russia.
It is essential to recall the timeline of the alleged Russian intrusion into the DNC network. The only source for the claim
that Russia hacked the DNC is a private cyber security firm, CrowdStrike. Here is the timeline for the DNC "hack."
Here are the facts on the public record. They are at odds with the claims of the Intelligence Community:
It was
29 April 2016 , when the DNC claims it became aware its servers had been penetrated. No claim yet about who was responsible.
And no claim that there had been a prior warning by the FBI of a penetration of the DNC by Russian military intelligence.
According to CrowdStrike founder , Dimitri Alperovitch, his company first supposedly detected the Russians mucking around
inside the DNC server on 6 May 2016. A CrowdStrike intelligence analyst reportedly told Alperovitch that:
Falcon had identified not one but two Russian intruders: Cozy Bear, a group CrowdStrike's experts believed was affiliated
with the FSB, Russia's answer to the CIA; and Fancy Bear, which they had linked to the GRU, Russian military intelligence.
The Wikileaks data shows that the last message copied from the DNC network is dated Wed, 25 May 2016 08:48:35.
10 June 2016 --CrowdStrike waited until 10 June 2016 to take concrete steps to clean up the DNC network. Alperovitch told
Esquire's Vicky Ward that: 'Ultimately, the teams decided it was necessary to replace the software on every computer at the DNC.
Until the network was clean, secrecy was vital. On the afternoon of Friday, June 10, all DNC employees were instructed to leave
their laptops in the office."
On June 14, 2016 , Ellen Nakamura, a Washington Post reporter who had been briefed by computer security company hired by the
DNC -- Crowdstrike--, wrote:
Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to the
entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security
experts who responded to the breach.
The intruders so thoroughly compromised the DNC's system that they also were able to read all email and chat traffic, said
DNC officials and the security experts.
The intrusion into the DNC was one of several targeting American political organizations. The networks of presidential
candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were also targeted by Russian spies, as were the computers of some Republican political
action committees, U.S. officials said. But details on those cases were not available.
15 June, 2016 , an internet "personality" self-described as Guccifer 2.0 surfaces and claims to be responsible for the hacks
but denies being Russian. The people/entity behind Guccifer 2.0:
Used a Russian VPN service provider to conceal their identity.
Created an email account with AOL.fr (a service that exposes the sender's IP address) and contacted the press (exposing his
VPN IP address in the process).
Contacted various media outlets through this set up and claimed credit for hacking the DNC, sharing copies of files purportedly
from the hack (one of which had Russian error messages embedded in them) with reporters from Gawker, The Smoking Gun and other
outlets.
Carried out searches for terms that were mostly in English, several of which would appear in Guccifer 2.0's first blog post.
They chose to do this via a server based in Moscow. (this is from the indictment,
"On or about June 15, 2016, the Conspirators logged into a Moscow-based server used and managed by Unit 74455")
Created a blog and made an initial blog post claiming to have hacked the DNC, providing links to various documents as proof.
Carelessly dropped a "Russian Smiley" into his first blog post.
Managed to add the name "Феликс Эдмундович" (which translates to Felix Dzerzhinsky, also known as "Iron Felix") to the metadata
of several documents. (Several sources went beyond what the evidence shows and made claims about Guccifer 2.0 using a Russian
keyboard, however, these claims are just assumptions made in response to the presence of cyrillic characters.)
The only thing that the Guccifer 2.0 character did not do to declare its Russian heritage was to take out full page ads in the
New York Times and Washington Post. But the "forensic" fingerprints that Guccifer 2.0 was leaving behind is not the only inexplicable
event.
Time for the common sense standard again. Crowdstrike detected the Russians on the 6th of May, according to CEO Dimitri Alperovitch,
but took no steps to shutdown the network, eliminate the malware and clean the computers until 34 days later, i.e., the 10th of June.
That is 34 days of inexcusable inaction.
It is only AFTER Julian Assange announces on 12 June 2016 that WikiLeaks has emails relating to Hillary Clinton that DCLeaks or
Guccifer 2.0 try to contact Assange.
The actions attributed to DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 should be priority investigative targets for U.S. Attorney John Durham's
team of investigators. This potential use of a known CIA tool, developed under Brennan with the sole purpose to obfuscate the source
of intrusions, pointing to another nation, as a false flag operation, is one of the actions and issues that U.S. Attorney John Durham
should be looking into as a potential act of "Seditious conspiracy. It needs to be done. To quote the CIA, I strongly assess that
the only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential election was the CIA,
not the GRU.
LJ bottom line: "The only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential
election was the CIA, not the GRU."
Larry, thanks -- vital clarifications and reminders. In your earlier presentation of this material did you not also distinguish
between the way actually interagency assessments are titled, and ICA which seemed to have been framed to allow journalists or
the unwary to link the ICA with more rigorous standards used by more authentic assessments?
Thank you Larry. You have discovered one more vital key to the conspiracy. We now need the evidence of Julian Assange. He is kept
incommunicado and He is being tortured by the British in jail and will be murdered by the American judicial system if he lasts
long enough to be extradited.
You can be sure he will be "Epsteined" before he appears in open court because he knows the source of what Wikileaks published.
Once he is gone, mother Clinton is in the clear.
I can understand the GRU or SVR hacking the DNC and other e-mail servers because as intelligence services that is their job, but
can anyone think of any examples of Russia (or the Soviet Union) using such information to take overt action?
With the Russians
not having the advantages that the NSA does (back doors in all US-designed network hardware/software and taps all over the internet),
would Russia reveal anything unless it involved an immediate major national security threat. I doubt that would cover Trump.
Afghan war demonstrated that the USA got into the trap, the Catch 22 situation: it can't
stop following an expensive and self-destructive positive feedback loop of threat inflation
and larger and large expenditures on MIC, because there is no countervailing force for the
MIC since WWII ended. Financial oligarchy is aligned with MIC.
This is the same suicidal grip of MIC on the country that was one of the key factors
in the collapse of the USSR means that in this key area the USA does not have two party
system, It is a Uniparty: a singe War party with two superficially different factions.
Feeding and care MIC is No.1 task for both. Ordinary Americans wellbeing does matter much
for either party. New generation of Americans is punished with crushing debt and low paying
jobs. They do not care that people over 50 who lost their jobs are essentially thrown out
like a garbage.
"41 Million people in the US suffer from hunger and lack of food security"–US Dept.
of Agriculture. FDR addressed the needs of this faction of the population when he delivered
his One-Third of a Nation speech for his 2nd Inaugural. About four years later, FDR expanded
on that issue in his Four Freedoms speech: 1.Freedom of speech; 2.Freedom of worship;
3.Freedom from want; 4.Freedom from fear.
Items 3 and 4 are probably unachievable under neoliberalism. And fear is artificially
instilled to unite the nation against the external scapegoat much like in Orwell 1984.
Currently this is Russia, later probably will be China. With regular minutes of hate replaced
by Rachel Maddow show ;-)
Derailing Tulsi had shown that in the USA any politician, who try to challenge MIC, will
be instantly attacked by MIC lapdogs in MSM and neutered in no time.
One interesting tidbit from Fiona Hill testimony is that neocons who dominate the USA
foreign policy establishment make their living off threat inflation. They literally are
bought by MIC, which indirectly finance Brookings institution, Atlantic Council and similar
think tanks. And this isn't cheap cynicism. It is simply a fact. Rephrasing Samuel Johnson's
famous quote, we can say, "MIC lobbyism (which often is presented as patriotism) is the last
refuge of scoundrels."
The House impeachment is driven by several factors:
After Russiagate, when Trump began to investigate its fraudulent origins, the Dems feared the exposure of Obama-era
corruption if not high crimes. Hence Ukrainegate is preemptive political tactics.
The investigation into Russiagate led right to Ukraine, and thus to Biden. In the context of Sanders' campaign,
Ukrainegate became an imperative for the factions of the capitalist class that dominates the DNC. If Biden falls on Ukraine
issues, then Sanders is inevitable; an anathema to Wall Street and Big Tech DNC donors.
3. While 1 and 2 dominate DNC machinations, foreign policy is also a factor. The foreign policy establishment is absolutely
against any hesitation with respect to confronting Russia as part of a regional and global strategy for primacy. Trump's limited
prevarications on Russia might threaten the long established strategy to expand Nato to Ukraine and thereby to encircle Russia
and maintain US dominance over Europe. So, even though Trump names great power rivalry as the name of the game today, his inclination
for making nice with Putin threatens to weaken the US hold over Europe, which Trump wants to label as an economic competitor.
It is with these points that the strategic differences become apparent: Trump is raising a realist, neo-mercantalist strategy
against ALL potential competitors; the DNC and the deep state hold a strategy of liberal hegemony: globalization and US primacy
through dominating regional alliances, and impregnating US hegemony INSIDE the vassal States of the empire.
All of this, however, is bound to fail for the DNC, and down the road for Trump himself.
The contradictions of US empire and global capitalism cannot be mitigated by either more liberal strategies or realist ones.
"... Today's Deep State most resembles the colonial administrations during the heyday of European imperialism. These too worked to run their own secret foreign policy, and to bring their power to bear on domestic policy as well. ..."
"... Impeachment, and the pro-bureaucracy anti-democracy campaign related to it, besides its more petty purposes (distraction from real social problems; forestalling Sanders), is the culmination of technocracy's attempted coup against a president who, even though he agrees with this cabal on all policy matters, is considered too unreliable, too undisciplined, too damn honest about the evil of the US empire. If they can take him down, they think they can restore the full business-as-usual status quo including the compliance of the rest of the world. ..."
Historically the ability of unelected, unaccountable, secretive bureaucracies (aka the "Deep
State") to exercise their own policy without regard for the public or elected officials,
often in defiance of these, has always been the hallmark of the destruction of democracy and
incipient tyranny.
Today's Deep State most resembles the colonial administrations during the heyday of
European imperialism. These too worked to run their own secret foreign policy, and to bring
their power to bear on domestic policy as well.
Although both halves of the One-Party really want the effective tyranny of state and
corporate bureaucracies, it's not surprising that it's the Democrats (along with the MSM)
taking the lead in openly defending the tyrannical proposition that the CIA should be
running its own foreign (and implicitly domestic) policy, and that the president should be
just a figurehead which follows orders. That goes with the Democrats' more avowedly
technocratic style, and it goes with the ratchet effect whereby it's usually Democrats which
push the policy envelope toward ever greater inequality, ecocide and tyranny.
Now is a time of rising irredentism and the decline of all the ideas of
globalization and technocracy, though the reality is likely to hang on for awhile. The whole
Deep State-Zionist-Russia-Deranged-Trump-Deranged-MSM-social media censorship campaign is
globalization trying to maintain its monopoly of ideas by force, since it knows it can never
win in a free clash of ideas.
Impeachment, and the pro-bureaucracy anti-democracy campaign related to it, besides
its more petty purposes (distraction from real social problems; forestalling Sanders), is the
culmination of technocracy's attempted coup against a president who, even though he agrees
with this cabal on all policy matters, is considered too unreliable, too undisciplined, too
damn honest about the evil of the US empire. If they can take him down, they think
they can restore the full business-as-usual status quo including the compliance of the rest
of the world.
Since impeachment's going to fail, we can expect the system to try other ways.
hey b... i like your title - "How The Deep State Sunk The Democratic Party" ... could change
it to" How the Deep State Sunk the USA" could work just as well...
Seven of the 11 security state representatives who had joined the Democrats in 2018 gave
the impulse for impeachment.
is this intentional?? it sort of looks like it...
good quote from @ 26 lk - "The contradictions of US empire and global capitalism cannot be
mitigated by either more liberal strategies or realist ones."
@babyl-on 35
yes that is about right. The top power networks are all a tight mix of names from govt, MIC,
and private equity (incl. top 2-3 investment banks). With the latter group naturally paying
the salaries of the whole policy making ecosystem, and holding the positions that select
future generations who will eventually take their place.
They want the security of knowing noone in the world will mess with them. This
necessitates that noone in the world *can* mess with them. Pretty straightforward from
there.
The tread is reproduced as is. And out 100 posts available in NYT "all view mode 90% can be classified as plain vanilla Neo-McCarthyism
If they are representative sample of the country, the country is crazy.
This editorial can also be classified as lunatic. But in reality it is much worse: the paper became completely subservant
to intelligence agencies. Should probably be renamed the Voice of the CIA. .
Monday's congressional hearing and the inspector general's report tell a similar story.
By Jesse Wegman Mr. Wegman is a member of the editorial board.
When it comes to Donald Trump and Russia, everything is connected.
That's the most important lesson from the two big events that played out Monday on Capitol Hill -- the House Judiciary Committee's
hearings on President Trump's impeachment and the
release of the report on the origins of the F.B.I.'s investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
One of these involved the 2016 election. The other involves the 2020 election. Both tell versions of the same story: Mr. Trump
depends on, and welcomes, Russian interference to help him win the presidency. That was bad enough when he did it in 2016, openly
calling for Russia to hack into his opponent's emails -- which
Russians tried to do that
same day . But he was only a candidate then. Now that Mr. Trump is president, he is wielding the immense powers of his office
to achieve the same end.
That is precisely the type of abuse of power that the founders
were most concerned about when they
created the impeachment power, and it's why Democratic leaders in the House are pressing ahead with such urgency on their inquiry.
They are trying to ensure that the 2020 election, now less than a year away, is not corrupted by the president of the United States,
acting in league with a foreign power. "The integrity of our next election is at stake," said Representative Jerry Nadler, the chairman
of the Judiciary Committee. "Nothing could be more urgent."
On Monday morning, lawyers for the Democrats on the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees presented
the clearest and most comprehensive narrative yet of President Trump's monthslong shakedown of the new Ukrainian president, Volodymyr
Zelensky, for Mr. Trump's personal political benefit. They explained in methodical detail how the president withheld a White House
meeting and hundreds of millions of dollars in crucial, congressionally authorized military aid to Ukraine, all in an effort to get
Mr. Zelensky to announce two investigations -- one into Mr. Trump's political rival, Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter, and another
into Ukraine's supposed interference in the 2016 election.
David Leonhardt helps you make sense of the news -- and offers reading suggestions from around the web -- with commentary every
weekday morning.
Who would benefit from these announcements? Mr. Trump, who believes his re-election prospects are threatened most by Mr. Biden,
and Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, who has been working for years to make Ukraine the fall guy for his own interference
in the 2016 election. Mr. Putin has not fooled serious people, like those in the American intelligence community who determined that
his government alone was responsible
for meddling on Mr. Trump's behalf . But he has fooled Republicans in Congress, who have degraded themselves and their offices
by faithfully parroting Mr. Putin's propaganda in the mainstream press.
Republicans are in lawyer mode, advocating for Trump as if he were their client. Lawyers make the best case they can for their
clients. It helps if they believe in the case, but it also helps to know the case's weaknesses so they can avoid them. The best
lawyers can do both at the same time. Republicans are called on by the Constitution to exit lawyer mode and enter juror mode (which
is, or should be, similar to why-did-this-aircraft-crash mode). So far, they are not heeding this call. From all appearances,
they are mouthing the words of the Constitution while avoiding or refusing to hear or understand them. They took an oath to support
the Constitution, but they are deaf to its call, or have moved to a place beyond understanding it.
The issue of whether to impeach was made by the President when he engaged in an abuse of his office for personal gain and then
obstructed Congress' oversight function. We all understand the political downside arising from an acquittal in the Senate but
that interest needs to be secondary to doing the right thing. On these facts, the decision representatives must make of whether
to impeach really is no decision at all. Just do the right thing.
When Senator John McCain died, he scripted his own funeral as a full bore defense against Trumpian Nationalism, and as an admonishment
against a GOP too willing to sell the soul of our nation out to a cultist repudiation of objective fact, truth, and Constitutional
order. McCain was a controversial maverick –a person I both admired and disliked in equal proportion. But there is one thing I
will always admire him for: his final letter to the nation. It was a warning! He blew a golden bugle to sound the alarm against
those entities both within and without our nation who wish to do our democratic republic harm. McCain, whether you agreed with
the premise of the Vietnam war or not, was an American hero who served his country and his fellow soldiers with incontrovertible
valor and love. President Donald Trump has no concept of what that dedication and sacrifice entails – and sadly, neither do many
of the GOP members who continue to lie and make excuses for a president who is clearly abusing his office for personal gain. McCain
characterized Trump's actions in Helsinki as an unfathomable 'abasement of the U.S. presidency.' All I can say is the GOP sure
ain't the party of my father who fought in WWII against fascism and autocracy. It aggrieves me to no end to witness what too many
members of Congress have become: tyrants toward the very meaning of American democracy. God save us from our own duplicity.
@Twg Well said, and though I sometimes did not agree with McCain on matters of policy, I wish he were still with us, hopefully
to show his fellow republicans what integrity looks like, and what America is supposed to be about. The Republican party I have
known and respected is alas, like Senator McCain, no longer with us.
Americans have to realize that the whole world is mocking us, and that doesn't necesarily inspire respect. That cold be dangerous.
Many medical professionals have noticed a decay in the mental abilities of the president, and certain abnormalities. It would
be wise to suggest to the family that maybe the best way forward, with minimal losses would be to motivate a retirement. That
would be face saving for them, and save the country from a bitter impeachment spectacle that would not be positive for the USA.
I'm waiting for Trump's financial info to be released. There's something in there he doesn't even want his base to know . I think
the logical conclusion is that whatever financials DJT has hidden do indeed lead to Moscow. Actually, all of this is very, very
alarming. Does Putin have a political asset planted here? Y or N I wish the answer was no and that we had a different President.
Can we as a nation hold things together when our leader wants to tear us apart?
All roads lead to the highest bidder(s). 21st century America in the era of Citizens United. Market pricing and the government
is open for transactional business domestic and international. Alternate realities per GRU/FOX/GOP misinformation. Combine foreign
money carefully grooming an in-need Trump, and a party worshipping money and you have a perfect storm removing any sense of civic
duty. Hundreds of years to build and unwound in a few decades, the breathtaking and tragic fall of greatness and hope in our lifetime.
It's not fiction, and every day I have to check if it's really happening, and shockingly it is.
There was no Russian meddling, only Ukraine who meddled in 2016 and they are still at it. Listening to the Judiciary Committee
hearings, it seems that the Russians have hacked into the Republican Party servers and are sending talking points to Republicans
who are defending the indefensible president.
At some point, Republicans have to ask themselves which is better for their party and the country. Slavish devotion to Trump,
or losing an election and leaving Democrats a mess to clean up, as in 1932 and 2008?
Block witnesses from testifying, then say that the hearing is incomplete. Romney told America at the Republican Convention in
2012 that Russia was our biggest enemy, DJT wanted them to help Republicans win in 2016, said he believed Putin in 2018, and wants
to convince us that it was really the Ukraine in 2019. The House has to impeach, even if politically it may be a bad move, because
it is the right thing to do; indeed, the very actions I've seen in the past several weeks has given me glimmers of hope for the
country.
Trump will be reelected for the reason that the Russian intelligence agencies are still able to hack our election results, because
Trump has blocked fixing the weaknesses. That is what happens when a Manchurian candidate is elected and then allowed to obstruct
justice. It is not clear the US will survive Trump. One key thing he did was arrange to have the teams at DHS that watch for smuggled
nuclear bombs were stood down and disbanded. See the report in the LA Times last July "Trump administration has gutted programs
aimed at detecting weapons of mass destruction".
I don't suppose a constructed transcript of Trump's meeting with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov tomorrow will be offered up as
a token of our leader's transparency.
It's clear now that AG William Barr isn't interested in enforcing the rule of law with fellow republicans, and especially the
president. How can there be no recourse when an attorney general completely sells out to a criminal president? Can the employees
of the Justice Dept hold a vote of no confidence in the AG? Can 10,000 attorneys nationwide express the same? The prospect of
Trump and Barr running roughshod over the rule of law for another year is truly frightening.
65,845,063 voters knew clearly who this man was from the beginning and voted for what would have been a better now and future.
It was never any secret. 62,980,160 voters also knew clearly who this man was and voted for him anyway. If the Democrats can ensure
that we have a fair election in 2020. I'm confident they will win the majority in the house and senate and retake the White House
and the end game for Trump will be jail. The problem is, he might not be the only one who's crimes come to light and I suspect
a good lot of the GOP are threatening and blackmailing each other to hold the line. If there's any good men or women left in the
GOP, your country and history are calling you.
It has easy to predict Trump's next move for the last 3 years. Just ask, "What would both benefit Trump, and benefit Putin?" Trump
supporters = Putin supporters.
Do you know the American people are fed up with the discourse of all politicians. The republicans are fed up with any decency
for the republic. The democrats are fed up with the republicans not facing the common sense of a exec not capable of being the
President of the United states. I as a person am fed up with a political system that is not working for all people, just a select
few. It's time too have term limits for all positions in gov't. That means all people that serve the people whether it be judges,
senators or congressmen/women. It's time to find common sense again in our society as a whole society. We on this earth are all
HUMAN.
Unfortunately their are serious problems with term limits. Just consider yourself in the role of a Congressional Representative
limited to 4 terms. You know that in 8 years, you'll be be back on the job market. You can selflessly work for the public and
damage your ability to get a job or tend to people who can hire you after you leave office. You're rational. Which future would
you pick?
Trump needs to keep Putin happy lest he unleash with all the damaging info he has collected on Trump and his financial crooked
deals with Russians over decades. THe Russian mob reports to Putin as a former KGB agent he knows how to collect compromat on
a politician and how to use it to get Trump to break into a giddy smile when he sees Putin his master it's obvious to most keen
observers.
Folks it is simple. Can we hear what Trump and Putin said to each other a few months ago. It is recored and on a server it should
not be on. I am not sure why nobody is talking about these transcripts.
Finally! We get someone stating the obvious fact of Trump/Putin. Why are the Dems not talking about this all the time? Why are
Congressmen and women not asking the witnesses about this? This is the ONE thing the Republicans are afraid of, so it is the one
thing Democrats should do. I have been disappointed that the Russian asset thing hasn't been brought up....It's as if it is purposely
bold. Trump is a Russian asset, either witting or unwitting. I doubt if there is one upper Intelligence Official that wouldn't
say this. So find the right one and have them sit as a witness for this inquiry. And now the Russian big wig Diplomat and KGb
spy, Lavarov, is visiting tomorrow. Good grief! Everyone is thinking this, so get out and say it Dems! Dr. Fiona Hill tried to
lead into this direction but still the Dem Committee would take it up and aske her what she thought. Say it: All of Trump's Roads
Lead to Russia.
Any American adult who has made an effort to educate himself or herself about Mr. Mueller's investigation or these impeachment
proceedings understands that yes, with Trump all roads lead to Russia. Now if the poll numbers mean anything, Trump's crimes and
Russia's involvement only matter to about 60% of us. As Trump's poll numbers remain steady, some 40% of Americans don't care what
lawbreaking he is involved with or whether other nations now control our elections. Stop and think about this for a minute. Trump
supporters know but literally do not care that Russia is tampering with our elections (2016 and 2020). Their cult-like support
for Trump is why the Republican Senate will not remove him. There is no other reason Trump will remain in office. Trump has mesmerized
his supporters like a modern day Rasputin. They will do literally anything for him, and Senate Republicans know this. Trump voters
do not mind that Putin controls our nation at the highest levels of decision making. Again - think about this - they know he does,
and they do not care. So I ask the rest of us. Is this the America we want to live in? To raise our families in? Where a large,
rabid minority is in thrall to a lunatic puppet whose strings are firmly in Putin's hands? Because this is very much the America
we live in now. The time will come, though, when we, the majority, will no longer tolerate the Trump/Putin regime. But the longer
we wait, the harder it will be oust these tyrants.
In 2008, Donald Trump Jr. said Russia was an important source of funding for the Trump businesses. American banks wouldn't lend
him money. Saudi Arabia likely bailed out Jared's disastrous real estate investment in NYC. Follow. The. Money.
You say that Mr. Putin "has fooled Republicans in Congress, who have degraded themselves and their offices by faithfully parroting
Mr. Putin's propaganda in the mainstream press." You are correct on all counts, except that the Republicans have not been fooled
by Putin. They have gone along, headlong and absolutely willingly, in a complete sellout of personal and national principle and
integrity. They should not be forgiven for this conduct, any more than Mr. Trump should be forgiven for his sellout of America.
For Republicans who believe so fervently in their counterfactual narrative, there is an immediate remedy. Bring facts and evidence
to the Committees and testify under oath. Without witnesses and evidence presented under oath, all of the GOP antics simply look
foolish and very much like they are defending the guilty. It is unfortunate that there is no penalty for elected officials who
share unfounded conspiracy theories, engage in innuendo and obstruct process in official Committee hearings. It is also regretable
that this President is not held accountable for trying to intimidate witnesses in real time during testimony. And it is a sad
reality that one of the most corrupt rulers in the world, who rules a hostile power, has managed to entirely win over one of our
major parties.
The strangest defense advanced today was the idea that the alleged state of the economy was reason not to impeach the President:
the Republicans assert that America, the Constitution, the principle of our government are for sale to be bought by the rising
stock market and a plethora of low-wage jobs. We are Faust, and the smell of sulphur is nauseating.
If the IG's report on the 2016 Russia investigation had found the only problem was that two of the agents involved had horrible
hangnails, Barr and Trump would have condemned it.
Whatever Trump is doing, he always care about his main benefactors, Putin and MBS. This is the first time I have witnessed in
history that an American president became a Russian puppet with all his Republican followers at the Congress and Senate. American
constitutional crisis happening right in front of the world. I heard the cries of James Madison, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin
from their graves.
Sir, do you honestly think that House Republicans have been "fooled" by Mr. Putin? On the contrary, it's pretty obvious they understand
and believe the conclusions from our Intel community. These are instead willful lies for political gain. And while some Americans
may actually be misled by the theater presented as rebuttal to the impeachment, it's hard to imagine for most it's once again,
not conviction but convenience that places such "patriots" solidly in Russia's back pocket.
The pattern of behavior is clear and compelling: Trump is selling out this country, its national security, its integrity and sovereignty,
in order to keep power and avoid his own prosecution, and protect his financial interests. We must get the truth about his relationships
and indebtedness to Putin, the Saudis, and Erdogan. Our country has been hijacked and Trump will continue to corrupt the US and
turn it into an autocracy if he is not stopped and held accountable under the law.
The country voted for this President knowing he is a flawed man in many ways. I don't think anything changes here - the Senate
will speedily acquit him and the voters in the swing states will have to decide if they want to give Mr. Trump a second chance
while the rest of the country impotently watches.
If one looks at all of his actions as "How could this benefit Russia?" most of it makes sense. Why start a trade war with China
and Western allies? Why withdraw from Syria? Why try to polarize the American public? Effectively showing this to the public is
critical.
Excellent piece. We all know Trump, Inc. turned to Russian oligarchs after '08 for condo sales. It just so happened that those
same oligarchs (read as kleptocrats) were laundering money through Deutsche Bank, who was the only bank willing to lend to Trump.
Trump's loan officer amazingly was SC Justice Anthony Kennedy's son. Trump was and is a desperate man in need of cash/ Putin is
a desperate man who knows that the geyser of oil money that funds his national budget, and has done so since the 1920's, is coming
to an end. Russia has no large material economic exports other than oil and gas, but it does still have a large military, hence
the military incursions into Moldova, Ossetia, Georgia, Ukraine and Syria. Desperate men do desperate things, and desperately
try to project power with weak hands.
The Republicans in Congress were not fooled by the Russians. They believe in Trump no matter what the Russians do. The bottom
line is - What does Putin have on Trump
I don't understand why there hasn't been more of a pushback by the military. They went heavily for Trump in 20116, with many bases
in the South and many recruits from economically devastated areas, but in the interim, they have seen his reckless, lurching foreign
policy, worship of Putin, and clear evidence that somehow everything he does benefits Russia. A commander's first obligation is
to their troops, so knowing the man in charge considers their lives subject to both Trump's whims, and Putin's whispers should
provoke some reaction. No?
Unfortunately - to put it mildly - impeachment will have no effect on the conduct of the 2020 election. The wheels are already
turning, everyone knows their part, and only a massive commitment by an honest intelligence apparatus (if there is one) can stop
it. One can only hope that, in 2020, the American people make a statement so overwhelming that there can be no doubt as to their
intent, despite whatever meddling there may have been. It is entirely possible that there will never be a truly credible election
again as long as there are bad actors who are power hungry or bent on destabilizing democratic governments. And make no mistake,
these threats are coming from right wing autocracies, and they are in the ascendancy all over the world. American centrists and
liberals are the only force that can change that. Are those stakes big enough for you?
We may finally have the answer as to why Trump is so accommodating to Putin. Trump has so many investments in Russia dependent
on Putin's support. Trump financial reports will reveal this collusion between Trump and Putin. This should not come as a surprise
to attentive Americans. Think of the worst an American president can do and that will bring you close to understanding Trump.
Nobody's saying how Trump withholding military aid to Ukraine would benefit Putin and Russia in their WAR against Ukraine. It
was, indeed, MILITARY aid he was withholding, was it not? I understand that this is not the impeachable offense of attempting
to enlist a foreign government to win an election, but I believe this aspect of the situation should be brought out.
The Republican Party has been officially reduced to a giant miasma of fraud, fiction, fantasy, conspiracy theory, deflection,
misdirection and prevarication. After tax cuts for rich people and rich corporations...the GOP has no other public policy ideas
(except for bankrupting the government). A civilized country needs little things like infrastructure, education, technology, voting
rights, law and order, regulations, fair taxation and facts to move forward. But none of those things are ever mentioned by the
Republican Party; conspiracy-mongering and tax cuts are now the official governing planks of the Grand Old Propaganda/Grand One
Percent party. This is no way to manage a nation anywhere except into the ground. Americans need to hit the Trump-GOP eject button
before these Lord of the Fly Republicans take us over a very steep right-wing cliff of insanity.
The Republican Party is now Trump's party and the Republicans know it and are acting accordingly. You could call them opportunists
following the way the political winds are blowing. The Constitution is based on members of Congress caring about the Constitution
and searching for the truth. Since this is now not the case when if comes to the Republicans the Constitution has no remedy for
this situation. The only remedy is an election and if Trump can manipulate elections to his advantage using foreign powers then
there is no remedy and the system of government set up by the founders will be no more. The new system replacing it will be controlled
by Trump. Putin figured out how to control Russian elections so he always wins and it is likely that Trump has a goal of imitating
Putin. Ultimately this would mean taking over the press as Putin did. Trump cannot declare total victory as long as the there
is a free press which he has labeled the enemy of the people.
From an acute perspective ..indeed shocking to say the least of the nature of this peculiar relationship. But looking at the big
picture as evidence by all that has occurred in his or during this eye opening period for all the world to see....not so much
so...For me, this dynamic is much expected.
"The witness has used language which impugns the motives of the president and suggests he's disloyal to his country, and those
words should be stricken from the record and taken down," Mr. Johnson said. The Johnson rule effectively reads the impeachment
power out of the constitution. How can you impeach a president if no one can say anything bad about him/her?
We have yet to plow the most fertile road yet. What does Trump care about over all else? Trump. How does Trump gauge his progress?
His money. Where does his money come from? Good question. We all know he has filed for bankruptcy 6 times. We all know that because
of those bankruptcies, American banks will not loan him any money. We all know he has significant financial dealings with Deutsche
Bank. Now, who put the money in Deutsche Bank that ended up financing Trump's business.? That is the two billion dollar question.
We also know that Russian oligarchs deal in billions of dollars. We also know that Trump has close relations with Russian business
interests. We also know that Trump kowtows to Putin like Pence kowtows to him. We also know that Trump is doing everything possible
to conceal his financial dealings from everyone and everything. So, we know that one billion plus one billion equals two billion.
But does it also equal Trump? This money road is one we should take a ride on. Will it also take us to Putin?
The first Democratic candidate who labels Trump a "Russian agent" will own the simplest and most effective tag line going into
the general election, provided of course that that candidate does his best to channel his inner Trump by never backing down but
instead doubling down every chance he or she gets. Is Trump a Russian agent, paid for and accounted for? Not easy to say without
some doubt, but that doesn't really matter because he sure as shoottin' acts like one. And when have the facts ever stopped Trump
from going on the attack? The more Trump denies the label, the more he'll be digging his own grave. The real crime here is not
so much the strong arming of Zelenskyy for a Biden investigation. That's small potatoes compared to Trump's withholding congressionally
designated US military aid from a country engaged in a hot war with Russia, the same cast of characters who starved anywhere from
one to eleven million Ukrainians during the 1930's. The Russian agent must go.
I would not say Trump's lying "is effective", I would say it "has been effective". At some point, the public and his party may
have had it with the thuggery and we do not know when that breaking point is.
For the sake of protecting our 2020 elections from Russian hackers and disinformation, the House is justified in moving forward
fast, over the process howls of Republicans, with the compelling evidence they have surrounding Ukraine. But they need to continue
investigating his business and financial ties to Russia and any other autocratic governments and their oligarchs, e.g. Turkey
and Saudi Arabia. Especially if he is not convicted and removed by the Senate and stands for re-election, Americans need to know
what conflicts of interest he has in making foreign policy and military decisions because American soldiers' lives are at stake.
The Mueller investigation did not go down that road. Any businessman with global interests is automatically compromised, even
more than a vice president whose son sits on a foreign corporation's board of director. Trump's own children continue to do business
in foreign countries and we have no idea what Ivanka and Jared, sitting in the White House with top security clearances, are doing.
In short, Ukraine should not be the only concern of congressional oversight committees. There's a lot more.
Trump must believe that Russian help in 2016 did help him to win. He must feel that fake evidence presented by an "independent"
investigator such as a foreign government appears to carry more weight that the same fake evidence from a partisan investigator.
Otherwise why would he be taking such chances to duplicate via Ukraine what he got from the Russians in 2016. But now that the
Russian connection is outed, he can't go back to that well.
I worry it's all for naught. Dems in the House vote to impeach, GOP in the Senate vote to acquit. Trump remains highly competitive
in 2020 election, Russia and other adversaries interfere, Trump stays put. Then what?
@NA Wilson Think of this situation differently. To have all possible scope to defeat him, we must support everything we can to
undermine him. Lack of impeachment would have been business as usual. At some point his finances will get out and then all bets
are off.
@NA Wilson: It's all Hands on deck to save the country. Don't just vote, donate what money you can, work for candidates, knock
doors, make calls. It's the only way out of this nightmare.
The Impeachment hearings weren't really necessary to prove what most everyone who's been paying attention knows. With Trump, all
roads lead to Moscow. In fact, he's already acting very Putin-esque in his own way by forbidding anyone in the White House to
respond to subpoena, by installing the fear of God in those who do, by punishing anyone who dares to think or act on their own,
and then there's the act of holding a foreign country ransom until they agree to do his bidding -- not to mention inviting outside
interference in our presidential elections. All the signs are not only there but they are ominous. By holding himself above the
U.S. Constitution, Trump has declared war on this country and all the laws that govern it. And while entertainment-starved Americans
laugh and cheer at his rallies, he and the Republicans drain our right to vote, and with it our Democracy. Today wasn't an epiphany.
It was a warning.
There seems to be no discussion of the financial backing trump received after '08-09 from sources inside Russia and how these
actors would have expressed their support (or conditions for their silence) to the trump campaign during '15-16. Did the FBI not
identify and investigate the funders behind trump and their interactions with the campaign during 2016? Would this not have been
reasonable for an investigation to look into when its entire raison d'etre was to detect sources of Russian influence?
I wonder if Mr. Wegman believes that this editorial will change anyone's mind or influence how anyone votes in the upcoming presidential
election. Basically, this is classic preaching to the choir and sadly mostly a wasted effort. I would like to read articles with
proven ideas that worked to change the minds of Republicans and other like them. Such articles might give me some better ideas
to convince my pro-Trump friends and neighbors to Vote for America next November.
"When it comes to Donald Trump and Russia, everything is connected." This! This is the central fact of all the things Trump has
done (so far), and yet, the Democrats have failed to make this the central focus of the case against him. Instead, they've focused
on one incident, and not even the most egregious one, to justify impeachment and removal from office. This was a terrible miscalculation.
No, there is no doubt that Trump attempted to coerce Ukraine into helping with his re-election by announcing a bogus investigation
of the Bidens. Nor any doubt that this constituted "high crimes and misdemeanors". But this was not the highest of crimes he's
committed, nor have the Dems been able to convince any Republicans, or many independents, that this deserves Trump's removal.
Moreover, they failed to produce the "smoking gun" of one witness or document in Trump's own words directing the quid pro quo.
They gave plenty of room for the Republican attack machine to cast enough doubt and confusion that all but ensures Trump's acquittal
in the Senate. Instead of focusing only on this one incident, the Democrats should have built their case around the theme that
"with Trump, all roads lead to Russia". That is a crime that even the most skeptical doubter can grasp, and when linked together,
all of his crimes can be shown to be of a pattern of serving Putin, and not the people of the United States. All roads lead to
Putin, but the Democrats chose to follow a dead end.
@Kingfish52 I completely agree with you and truly don't understand why the Democrats have not been shouting this from the rooftops.
For mercy's sake! The problem is not just that the president solicited help from a foreign power for his own personal gain! That's
bad enough, but isn't the point that he did this because he is beholden to Russia? Russia. is. not. our. friend. Why aren't the
Democrats explaining this clearly to the American people? Trump is Putin's puppet and it could not be more obvious! Don't people
understand that it doesn't just happen to be Ukraine that Trump took a notion to squeeze for his "personal gain"? He doesn't just
want to win because it is so nice to win elections. He has to do what Putin tells him. Obviously, every last Republican in Congress
understands this clearly. Why can't the Democrats explain it to the American people clearly?
Obama did not provide lethal aid to Ukraine, after the Russians invaded Crimea. Obama did not Russia prevent the Iranian nuclear
deal. Trump cancelled the Iranian nuclear deal, then provided lethal aid to Ukraine. Now I get it. Trump is working for Putin.
By March 2015, the US had committed more than $120 million in security assistance for Ukraine and had pledged an additional $75
million worth of equipment including UAVs, counter-mortar radars, night vision devices and medical supplies, according to the
Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency. That assistance also included some 230 armored Humvee vehicles. Trump appears
to be echoing a critique leveled at the Obama administration by the late Republican Sen. John McCain. "The Ukrainians are being
slaughtered and we're sending blankets and meals," McCain said in 2015. "Blankets don't do well against Russian tanks." While
it never provided lethal aid, many of the items that the Obama administration did provide were seen as critical to Ukraine's military.
Part of the $250 million assistance package that the Trump administration announced (then froze and later unfroze) included many
of the same items that were provided under Obama, including medical equipment, night vision gear and counter-artillery radar.
The Trump administration did approve the provision of arms to Ukraine, including sniper rifles, rocket launchers and Javelin anti-tank
missiles, something long sought by Kiev.
@Mike Trump was not the one providing lethal aid to Ukraine. It was the house and senate that proposed and forced this aid into
an appropriation bill - against the wishes of the Trump administration. After Trump realized he could not block this funding he
did the second best thing - he used it to blackmail the Ukraine government to provide him with dirt on Biden and support for Putin's
favorite narrative (that it was Ukraine not Russia that interfered in the 2016 election).
@Mike It also took two acts of Congress to get the aid to Ukraine. Trump had nothing to do with it. Only the Impound Inclusion
Act for foreign aid allows the President to time the release of the funds, which Trump did not follow. The Act was created because
Nixon, like Trump, was playing fast and loose with our tax dollars. Who was the last President who asked for help from a foreign
intelligence agency? Which President favored foregn intelligence agencies over his own? Answer no one other than Trump. If that
doesn't show he's in someone's pocket, nothing does.
Republicans are afraid to raise this key question. Democrats are afraid of even mentioning CrowdStrike in Ukrainegate hearings.
The Deep State wants to suppress this matter entirely.
Alperovisch connections to Ukraine and his Russophobia are well known. Did Alperovich people played the role of "Fancy Bear"? Or
Ukrainian SBU was engaged? George Eliason clams that
"I have already clearly shown the Fancy Bear hackers are Ukrainian Intelligence Operators." ... "Since there is so much crap surrounding
the supposed hack such as law enforcement teams never examining the DNC server or maintaining control of it as evidence, could the hacks
have been a cover-up?"
Notable quotes:
"... So far at least I cannot rule out the possibility that that this could have involved an actual 'false flag' hack. A possible calculation would have been that this could have made it easier for Alperovitch and 'CrowdStrike', if more people had asked serious questions about the evidence they claimed supported the 'narrative' of GRU responsibility. ..."
"... What she suggested was that the FBI had found evidence, after his death, of a hack of Rich's laptop, designed as part of a 'false flag' operation. ..."
"... On this, see his 8 October, 'Motion for Discovery and Motion to Accept Supplemental Evidence' in Clevenger's own case against the DOJ, document 44 on the relevant 'Courtlistener' pages, and his 'Unopposed Motion for Stay', document 48. Both are short, and available without a 'PACER' subscription, and should be compulsory reading for anyone seriously interested in ascertaining the truth about 'Russiagate.' (See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6775665/clevenger-v-us-department-of-justice/ .) ..."
"... And here, is is also material that he may have had more than one laptop, that 'hard drives' can be changed, and that the level of computer skills that can be found throughout the former Soviet Union is very high. Another matter of some importance is that Ed Butowsky's 'Debunking Rod Wheeler's Claims' site is back up online. (See http://debunkingrodwheelersclaims.net ) ..."
"... The question of whether the 'timeline' produced by Hersh's FBI informant was accurate, or a deliberate attempt to disguise the fact that all kinds of people were well aware of Rich's involvement before his murder, and well aware of the fact of a leak before he was identified as its source, is absolutely central to how one interprets 'Russiagate.' ..."
"... Why did Crowdstrike conclude it was a "Russian breach", when other evidence does show it was an internal download. What was Crowdstrike's method and motivation to reach the "Russian" conclusion instead. Why has that methodology been sealed? ..."
"... Why did Mueller wholly accept the Crowdstrike Russian conclusion, with no further or independent investigation and prominently put this Crowdstrike generated conclusion in his Russiagate report? Which also included the conclusion the "Russians" wanted to help Trump and harm Clinton. Heavy stuff, based upon a DNC proprietary investigation of their own and unavailable computers. ..."
"... What were the relationships between Crowdstrike, DNC, FBI and the Mueller team that conspired to reach this Russian conclusion. ..."
"... Why did the Roger Stone judge, who just sent Stone away for life, refuse Stone's evidentiary demand to ascertain how exactly Crowdstrike reached its Russsian hacking conclusion, that the court then linked to Stone allegedly lying about this Russian link ..."
"... Indeed, let's set out with full transparency the Ukraine -- Crowsdtrike player links and loyalties to see if there are any smoking guns yet undisclosed. Trump was asking for more information about Crowdstrike like a good lawyer - never ask a question when you don't already know the right answer. Crowdstrike is owned by a Ukrainian by birth ..."
"... Among the 12 engineers assigned to writing a PGP backdoor was the son of a KGB officer named Dmitri Alperovich who would go on to be the CTO at a company involved in the DNC Hacking scandal - Crowdstrike. ..."
"... In addition to writing a back door for PGP, Alperovich also ported PGP to the blackberry platform to provide encrypted communications for covert action operatives. ..."
"... His role in what we may define as "converting DNC leak into DNC hack" (I would agree with you that this probably was a false flag operation), which was supposedly designed to implicated Russians, and possibly involved Ukrainian security services, is very suspicious indeed. ..."
"... Mueller treatment of Crowdstrike with "kid gloves" may suggest that Alperovich actions were part of a larger scheme. After all Crowdstike was a FBI contactor at the time. ..."
The favor was for Ukraine to investigate Crowdstrike and the 2016 DNC computer breach.
Reliance on Crowdstrike to investigate the DNC computer, and not an independent FBI investigation, was tied very closely to
the years long anti-Trump Russiagate hoax and waste of US taxpayer time and money.
Why is this issue ignored by both the media and the Democrats. The ladies doth protest far too much.
what exactly, to the extend I recall, could the Ukraine contribute the the DNC's server/"fake malware" troubles? Beyond, that
I seem to vaguely recall, the supposed malware was distributed via an Ukrainan address.
On the other hand, there seems to be the (consensus here?) argument there was no malware breach at all, simply an insider copying
files on a USB stick.
If people discovered there had been a leak, it would perfectly natural that in order to give 'resilience' to their cover-up
strategies, they could have organised a planting of evidence on the servers, in conjunction with elements in Ukraine.
So far at least I cannot rule out the possibility that that this could have involved an actual 'false flag' hack. A possible
calculation would have been that this could have made it easier for Alperovitch and 'CrowdStrike', if more people had asked serious
questions about the evidence they claimed supported the 'narrative' of GRU responsibility.
The issues involved become all the more important, in the light of the progress of Ty Clevenger's attempts to exploit the clear
contradiction between the claims by the FBI, in response to FOIA requests, to have no evidence relating to Seth Rich, and the
remarks by Ms. Deborah Sines quoted by Michael Isikoff.
What she suggested was that the FBI had found evidence, after his death, of a hack of Rich's laptop, designed as part of
a 'false flag' operation.
On this, see his 8 October, 'Motion for Discovery and Motion to Accept Supplemental Evidence' in Clevenger's own case against
the DOJ, document 44 on the relevant 'Courtlistener' pages, and his 'Unopposed Motion for Stay', document 48. Both are short,
and available without a 'PACER' subscription, and should be compulsory reading for anyone seriously interested in ascertaining
the truth about 'Russiagate.' (See
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6775665/clevenger-v-us-department-of-justice/
.)
It is eminently possible that Ms. Hines has simply made an 'unforced error.'
However, I do not – yet – feel able totally to discount the possibility that what is actually at issue is a 'ruse', produced
as a contingency plan to ensure that if it becomes impossible to maintain the cover-up over Rich's involvement in its original
form, his laptop shows 'evidence' compatible with the 'Russiagate' narrative.
And here, is is also material that he may have had more than one laptop, that 'hard drives' can be changed, and that the
level of computer skills that can be found throughout the former Soviet Union is very high. Another matter of some importance
is that Ed Butowsky's 'Debunking Rod Wheeler's Claims' site is back up online. (See
http://debunkingrodwheelersclaims.net )
Looking at it from the perspective of an old television current affairs hack, I do think that, while it is very helpful to
have some key material available in a single place, it would useful if more attention was paid to presentation.
In particular, it would be a most helpful 'teaching aid', if a full and accurate transcript was made of the conversation with
Seymour Hersh which Ed Butowsky covertly recorded. What seems clear is that both these figures ended up in very difficult positions,
and that the latter clearly engaged in 'sleight of hand' in relation to his dealings with the former. That said, the fact that
Butowsky's claims about his grounds for believing that Hersh's FBI informant was Andrew McCabe are clearly disingenuous does not
justify the conclusion that he is wrong.
It is absolutely clear to me – despite what 'TTG', following that 'Grub Street' hack Folkenflik, claimed – that when Hersh
talked to Butowsky, he believed he had been given accurate information. Indeed, I have difficulty seeing how anyone whose eyes
were not hopelessly blinded by prejudice, a\nd possibly fear of where a quest for the truth might lead, could not see that, in
this conversation, both men were telling the truth, as they saw it.
However, all of us, including the finest and most honourable of journalists can, from time to time, fall for disinformation.
(If anyone says they can always spot when they are being played, all I can say is, if you're right, you're clearly Superman, but
it is more likely that you are a fool or knave, if not both.)
The question of whether the 'timeline' produced by Hersh's FBI informant was accurate, or a deliberate attempt to disguise
the fact that all kinds of people were well aware of Rich's involvement before his murder, and well aware of the fact of a leak
before he was identified as its source, is absolutely central to how one interprets 'Russiagate.'
1. Why did Crowdstrike conclude it was a "Russian breach", when other evidence does show it was an internal download. What
was Crowdstrike's method and motivation to reach the "Russian" conclusion instead. Why has that methodology been sealed?
2. Why did Mueller wholly accept the Crowdstrike Russian conclusion, with no further or independent investigation and prominently
put this Crowdstrike generated conclusion in his Russiagate report? Which also included the conclusion the "Russians" wanted to
help Trump and harm Clinton. Heavy stuff, based upon a DNC proprietary investigation of their own and unavailable computers.
3. What were the relationships between Crowdstrike, DNC, FBI and the Mueller team that conspired to reach this Russian
conclusion.
4. Why did the Roger Stone judge, who just sent Stone away for life, refuse Stone's evidentiary demand to ascertain how
exactly Crowdstrike reached its Russsian hacking conclusion, that the court then linked to Stone allegedly lying about this Russian
link .
5. Indeed, let's set out with full transparency the Ukraine -- Crowsdtrike player links and loyalties to see if there are
any smoking guns yet undisclosed. Trump was asking for more information about Crowdstrike like a good lawyer - never ask a question
when you don't already know the right answer. Crowdstrike is owned by a Ukrainian by birth .
Why did Mueller wholly accept the Crowdstrike Russian conclusion, with no further or independent investigation and prominently
put this Crowdstrike generated conclusion in his Russiagate report? Which also included the conclusion the "Russians" wanted
to help Trump and harm Clinton. Heavy stuff, based upon a DNC proprietary investigation of their own and unavailable computers.
Alperovich is really a very suspicious figure. Rumors are that he was involved in compromising PGP while in MacAfee( June 2nd,
2018 Alperovich's DNC Cover Stories Soon To Match With His Hacking Teams - YouTube ):
Investigative Journalist George Webb worked at MacAfee and Network Solutions in 2000 when the CEO Bill Larsen bought a small,
Moscow based, hacking and virus writing company to move to Silicon Valley.
MacAfee also purchased PGP, an open source encryption software developed by privacy advocate to reduce NSA spying on the
public.
The two simultaneous purchase of PGP and the Moscow hacking team by Metwork Solutions was sponsored by the CIA and FBI in order
to crack encrypted communications to write a back door for law enforcement.
Among the 12 engineers assigned to writing a PGP backdoor was the son of a KGB officer named Dmitri Alperovich who would
go on to be the CTO at a company involved in the DNC Hacking scandal - Crowdstrike.
In addition to writing a back door for PGP, Alperovich also ported PGP to the blackberry platform to provide encrypted
communications for covert action operatives.
His role in what we may define as "converting DNC leak into DNC hack" (I would agree with you that this probably was a
false flag operation), which was supposedly designed to implicated Russians, and possibly involved Ukrainian security services,
is very suspicious indeed.
Mueller treatment of Crowdstrike with "kid gloves" may suggest that Alperovich actions were part of a larger scheme. After
all Crowdstike was a FBI contactor at the time.
While all this DNC hack saga is completely unclear due to lack of facts and the access to the evidence, there are some stories
on Internet that indirectly somewhat strengthen your hypothesis:
"... Alperovitch is a nonresident senior fellow of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council, which takes a hawkish approach toward Russia. The Council in turn is financed by Google Inc. ..."
"... In a perhaps unexpected development, another Atlantic Council funder is Burisma, the natural gas company at the center of allegations regarding Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. Those allegations were the subject of Trump's inquiry with Zelemsky related to Biden. The Biden allegations concern significant questions about Biden's role in Ukraine policy under the Obama administration. This took place during a period when Hunter Biden received $50,000 a month from Burisma. ..."
"... Google, Soros's Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Fund and an agency of the State Department each also finance a self-described investigative journalism organization repeatedly referenced as a source of information in the so-called whistleblower's complaint alleging Trump was "using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country" in the 2020 presidential race. ..."
"... Another listed OCCRP funder is the Omidyar Network, which is the nonprofit for liberal billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. ..."
"... Together with Soros's Open Society, Omidyar also funds the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, which hosts the International Fact-Checking Network that partnered with Facebook to help determine whether news stories are "disputed." ..."
There are common threads that run through an organization repeatedly relied upon in the
so-called whistleblower's complaint about President Donald Trump and CrowdStrike, the outside
firm utilized to conclude that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee's servers
since the DNC would not allow the U.S. government to inspect the servers.
One of several themes is financing tied to Google, whose Google Capital led a $100 million
funding drive that financed Crowdstrike. Google Capital, which now goes by the name of
CapitalG, is an arm of Alphabet Inc., Google's parent company. Eric Schmidt, the chairman of
Alphabet, has been a staunch and active supporter of Hillary Clinton and is a longtime donor
to the Democratic Party.
CrowdStrike was mentioned by Trump in his call with Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Perkins Coie, the law firm that represented the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign,
reportedly helped draft CrowdStrike to aid with the DNC's allegedly hacked server.
On behalf of the DNC and Clinton's campaign, Perkins Coie also paid the controversial
Fusion GPS firm to produce the infamous, largely-discredited anti-Trump dossier compiled by
former British spy Christopher Steele.
CrowdStrike is a California-based cybersecurity technology company co-founded by Dmitri
Alperovitch.
Alperovitch is a nonresident senior fellow of the
Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council, which takes a hawkish approach toward
Russia. The Council in turn is financed
by Google Inc.
In a perhaps unexpected development, another Atlantic Council
funder is Burisma, the natural gas company at the center of allegations regarding Joe
Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. Those allegations were the subject of Trump's inquiry with
Zelemsky related to Biden. The Biden allegations concern significant questions about Biden's
role in Ukraine policy under the Obama administration. This took place during a period when
Hunter Biden received $50,000 a month from Burisma.
Besides Google and Burisma funding, the Council is also financed by billionaire activist
George Soros's Open Society Foundations as well as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc. and
the U.S. State Department.
Google, Soros's Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Fund and an agency of the State
Department each also finance a self-described investigative journalism organization
repeatedly referenced as a source of information in the so-called whistleblower's complaint
alleging Trump was "using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign
country" in the 2020 presidential race.
The charges in the July 22 report referenced in the whistleblower's document and released
by the Google and Soros-funded organization, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting
Project (OCCRP), seem to be the public precursors for a lot of the so-called whistleblower's
own claims, as Breitbart News
documented .
One key section of the so-called whistleblower's document claims that "multiple U.S.
officials told me that Mr. Giuliani had reportedly privately reached out to a variety of
other Zelensky advisers, including Chief of Staff Andriy Bohdan and Acting Chairman of the
Security Service of Ukraine Ivan Bakanov."
This was allegedly to follow up on Trump's call with Zelensky in order to discuss the
"cases" mentioned in that call, according to the so-called whistleblower's narrative. The
complainer was clearly referencing Trump's request for Ukraine to investigate the Biden
corruption allegations.
Even though the statement was written in first person – "multiple U.S. officials
told me" – it contains a footnote referencing a report by the Organized Crime and
Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).
That footnote reads:
In a report published by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) on
22 July, two associates of Mr. Giuliani reportedly traveled to Kyiv in May 2019 and met
with Mr. Bakanov and another close Zelensky adviser, Mr. Serhiy Shefir.
The so-called whistleblower's account goes on to rely upon that same OCCRP report on three
more occasions. It does so to:
Write that Ukraine's Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko
"also stated that he wished to communicate directly with Attorney General Barr on these
matters." Document that Trump adviser Rudi Giuliani "had spoken in late 2018 to former
Prosecutor General Shokin, in a Skype call arranged by two associates of Mr. Giuliani."
Bolster the charge that, "I also learned from a U.S. official that 'associates' of Mr.
Giuliani were trying to make contact with the incoming Zelenskyy team." The so-called
whistleblower then relates in another footnote, "I do not know whether these associates of
Mr. Giuliani were the same individuals named in the 22 July report by OCCRP, referenced
above."
The OCCRP
report repeatedly referenced is actually a "joint investigation by the Organized Crime
and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and BuzzFeed News, based on interviews and court and
business records in the United States and Ukraine."
BuzzFeed infamously also first
published the full anti-Trump dossier alleging unsubstantiated collusion between Trump's
presidential campaign and Russia. The dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton's campaign and
the Democratic National Committee and was produced by the Fusion GPS opposition dirt
outfit.
The OCCRP and BuzzFeed "joint investigation" resulted in both OCCRP and BuzzFeed
publishing similar lengthy pieces on July 22 claiming that Giuliani was attempting to use
connections to have Ukraine investigate Trump's political rivals.
The so-called whistleblower's document, however, only mentions the largely unknown OCCRP
and does not reference BuzzFeed, which has faced scrutiny over its reporting on the Russia
collusion claims.
Another listed OCCRP funder is the Omidyar Network, which is the nonprofit for liberal
billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar.
Together with Soros's Open Society, Omidyar also
funds the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, which hosts the International
Fact-Checking Network that partnered with Facebook to help determine whether news stories are
"disputed."
Like OCCRP, the Poynter Institute's so-called news fact-checking project is openly
funded by not only Soros' Open Society Foundations but also Google and the National
Endowment for Democracy.
CrowdStrike and DNC servers
CrowdStrike, meanwhile, was brought up by Trump in his phone call with Zelensky. According to the transcript, Trump told Zelensky, "I would like you to find out what
happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike I guess you have one of
your wealthy people The server, they say Ukraine has it."
In his extensive
report , Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller notes that his investigative team did not
"obtain or examine" the servers of the DNC in determining whether those servers were hacked
by Russia.
The DNC famously refused to allow the FBI to access its servers to verify the allegation
that Russia carried out a hack during the 2016 presidential campaign. Instead, the DNC
reached an arrangement with the FBI in which CrowdStrike conducted forensics on the server
and shared details with the FBI.
In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in January 2017, then-FBI Director
James Comey
confirmed that the FBI registered "multiple requests at different levels," to review the
DNC's hacked servers. Ultimately, the DNC and FBI came to an agreement in which a "highly
respected private company" -- a reference to CrowdStrike -- would carry out forensics on the
servers and share any information that it discovered with the FBI, Comey testified.
A senior law enforcement official stressed the importance of the FBI gaining direct access
to the servers, a request that was denied by the DNC.
"The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to
servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been
mitigated," the official was quoted by the news media as saying.
"This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information. These actions
caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier," the
official continued.
... ... ...
Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter.
He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, "
Aaron Klein Investigative
Radio ." Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.
Joshua Klein contributed research to this article.
Russians did not hack the DNC system, a Russian named Dmitri Alperovitch is the hacker
and he works for President Obama. In the last five years the Obama administration has
turned exclusively to one Russian to solve every major cyber-attack in America, whether the
attack was on the U.S. government or a corporation. Only one "super-hero cyber-warrior" seems
to "have the codes" to figure out "if" a system was hacked and by "whom."
Dmitri's company, CrowdStrike has been called in by Obama to solve mysterious attacks on
many high level government agencies and American corporations, including: German Bundestag,
Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the White
House, the State Department, SONY, and many others.
CrowdStrike's philosophy is: "You don't have a malware problem; you have an adversary
problem."
CrowdStrike has played a critical role in the development of America's cyber-defense policy.
Dmitri Alperovitch and George Kurtz, a former head of the FBI cyberwarfare unit founded
CrowdStrike. Shawn Henry, former executive assistant director at the FBI is now CrowdStrike's
president of services. The company is crawling with former U.S. intelligence agents.
Before Alperovitch founded CrowdStrike in 2011, he was working in Atlanta as the chief
threat officer at the antivirus software firm McAfee, owned by Intel (a DARPA company). During
that time, he "discovered" the Chinese had compromised at least seventy-one companies and
organizations, including thirteen defense contractors, three electronics firms, and the
International Olympic Committee. He was the only person to notice the biggest cyberattack in
history! Nothing suspicious about that.
Alperovitch and the DNC
After CrowdStrike was hired as an independent "vendor" by the DNC to investigate a possible
cyberattack on their system, Alperovitch sent the DNC a proprietary software package called
Falcon that monitors the networks of its clients in real time. According to Alperovitch,
Falcon "lit up," within ten seconds of being installed at the DNC. Alperovitch had his
"proof" in TEN SECONDS that Russia was in the network. This "alleged" evidence of Russian
hacking has yet to be shared with anyone.
As Donald Trump has pointed out, the FBI, the agency that should have been immediately
involved in hacking that effects "National Security," has yet to even examine the DNC system to
begin an investigation. Instead, the FBI and 16 other U.S. "intelligence" agencies simply
"agree" with Obama's most trusted "cyberwarfare" expert Dmitri Alperovitch's "TEN SECOND"
assessment that produced no evidence to support the claim.
Also remember that it is only Alperovitch and CrowdStrike that claim to have evidence
that it was Russian hackers . In fact, only two hackers were found to have been in the
system and were both identified by Alperovitch as Russian FSB (CIA) and the Russian GRU (DoD).
It is only Alperovitch who claims that he knows that it is Putin behind these two hackers.
Alperovitch failed to mention in his conclusive "TEN SECOND" assessment that Guccifer 2.0
had already hacked the DNC and made available to the public the documents he hacked –
before Alperovitch did his ten second assessment. Alperovitch reported that no other hackers
were found, ignoring the fact that Guccifer 2.0 had already hacked and released DNC documents
to the public. Alperovitch's assessment also goes directly against Julian Assange's repeated
statements that the DNC leaks did not come from the Russians.
The ridiculously fake cyber-attack assessment done by Alperovitch and CrowdStrike
naïvely flies in the face of the fact that a DNC insider admitted that he had released the
DNC documents. Julian Assange implied in an interview that the murdered Democratic
National Committee staffer, Seth Rich, was the source of a trove of damaging emails the website
posted just days before the party's convention. Seth was on his way to testify about the DNC
leaks to the FBI when he was shot dead in the street.
It is also absurd to hear Alperovitch state that the Russian FSB (equivalent to the CIA) had
been monitoring the DNC site for over a year and had done nothing. No attack, no theft, and no
harm was done to the system by this "false-flag cyber-attack" on the DNC – or at least,
Alperovitch "reported" there was an attack. The second hacker, the supposed Russian military
(GRU – like the U.S. DoD) hacker, had just entered the system two weeks before and also
had done "nothing" but observe.
It is only Alperovitch's word that reports that the Russian FSB was "looking for files on
Donald Trump."
It is only this false claim that spuriously ties Trump to the "alleged"
attack. It is also only Alperovitch who believes that this hack that was supposedly "looking
for Trump files" was an attempt to "influence" the election. No files were found about Trump by
the second hacker, as we know from Wikileaks and Guccifer 2.0's leaks. To confabulate that
"Russian's hacked the DNC to influence the elections" is the claim of one well-known Russian
spy. Then, 17 U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously confirm that Alperovitch is correct
– even though there is no evidence and no investigation was ever conducted .
How does Dmitri Alperovitch have such power? Why did Obama again and again use Alperovitch's
company, CrowdStrike, when they have miserably failed to stop further cyber-attacks on the
systems they were hired to protect? Why should anyone believe CrowdStrikes false-flag
report?
After documents from the DNC continued to leak, and Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks made
CrowdStrike's report look foolish, Alperovitch decided the situation was far worse than he had
reported. He single-handedly concluded that the Russians were conducting an "influence
operation" to help win the election for Trump . This false assertion had absolutely no
evidence to back it up.
On July 22, three days before the Democratic convention in Philadelphia, WikiLeaks dumped a
massive cache of emails that had been "stolen" (not hacked) from the DNC. Reporters soon found
emails suggesting that the DNC leadership had favored Hillary Clinton in her primary race
against Bernie Sanders, which led Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC chair, along with three
other officials, to resign.
Just days later, it was discovered that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
(DCCC) had been hacked. CrowdStrike was called in again and once again, Alperovitch immediately
"believed" that Russia was responsible. A lawyer for the DCCC gave Alperovitch permission to
confirm the leak and to name Russia as the suspected author. Two weeks later, files from the
DCCC began to appear on Guccifer 2.0's website. This time Guccifer released information about
Democratic congressional candidates who were running close races in Florida, Ohio, Illinois,
and Pennsylvania. On August 12, Guccifer went further, publishing a spreadsheet that included
the personal email addresses and phone numbers of nearly two hundred Democratic members of
Congress.
Once again, Guccifer 2.0 proved Alperovitch and CrowdStrike's claims to be grossly incorrect
about the hack originating from Russia, with Putin masterminding it all. Nancy Pelosi offered
members of Congress Alperovitch's suggestion of installing Falcon , the system that
failed to stop cyberattacks at the DNC, on all congressional laptops.
Key Point: Once Falcon was installed on the computers of members of the U.S.
Congress, CrowdStrike had even further full access into U.S. government accounts.
Alperovitch's "Unbelievable" History
Dmitri was born in 1980 in Moscow where his father, Michael, was a nuclear physicist, (so
Dmitri claims). Dmitri's father was supposedly involved at the highest levels of Russian
nuclear science. He also claims that his father taught him to write code as a child.
In 1990, his father was sent to Maryland as part of a nuclear-safety training program for
scientists. In 1994, Michael Alperovitch was granted a visa to Canada, and a year later the
family moved to Chattanooga, where Michael took a job with the Tennessee Valley Authority.
While Dmitri Alperovitch was still in high school, he and his father started an
encryption-technology business. Dmitri studied computer science at Georgia Tech and went on to
work at an antispam software firm. It was at this time that he realized that cyber-defense was
more about psychology than it was about technology. A very odd thing to conclude.
Dmitri Alperovitch posed as a "Russian gangster" on spam discussion forums which brought his
illegal activity to the attention of the FBI – as a criminal. In 2005, Dmitri flew to
Pittsburgh to meet an FBI agent named Keith Mularski, who had been asked to lead an undercover
operation against a vast Russian credit-card-theft syndicate. Alperovitch worked closely with
Mularski's sting operation which took two years, but it ultimately brought about fifty-six
arrests. Dmitri Alperovitch then became a pawn of the FBI and CIA.
In 2010, while he was at McAfee, the head of cybersecurity at Google told Dmitri that Gmail
accounts belonging to human-rights activists in China had been breached. Google suspected the
Chinese government. Alperovitch found that the breach was unprecedented in scale; it affected
more than a dozen of McAfee's clients and involved the Chinese government. Three days after his
supposed discovery, Alperovitch was on a plane to Washington where he had been asked to vet a
paragraph in a speech by the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.
2014, Sony called in CrowdStrike to investigate a breach of its network. Alperovitch needed
just "two hours" to identify North Korea as the adversary. Executives at Sony asked Alperovitch
to go public with the information immediately, but it took the FBI another three weeks before
it confirmed the attribution.
Alperovitch then developed a list of "usual suspects" who were well-known hackers who had
identifiable malware that they commonly used. Many people use the same malware and
Alperovitch's obsession with believing he has the only accurate list of hackers in the world is
plain idiocy exacerbated by the U.S. government's belief in his nonsense. Alperovitch even
speaks like a "nut-case" in his personal Twitters, which generally have absolutely no
references to the technology he is supposedly the best at in the entire world.
Dmitri – Front Man for His Father's Russian Espionage Mission
After taking a close look at the disinformation around Dmitri and his father, it is clear to
see that Michael Alperovitch became a CIA operative during his first visit to America.
Upon his return to Russia, he stole the best Russian encryption codes that were used to protect
the top-secret work of nuclear physics in which his father is alleged to have been a major
player. Upon surrendering the codes to the CIA when he returned to Canada, the CIA made it
possible for a Russian nuclear scientist to become an American citizen overnight and gain a
top-secret security clearance to work at the Oakridge plant, one of the most secure and
protected nuclear facilities in America . Only the CIA can transform a Russian into an
American with a top-secret clearance overnight.
We can see on Michael Alperovitch's Linked In page that he went from one fantastically
top-secret job to the next without a break from the time he entered America. He seemed to be on
a career path to work in every major U.S. agency in America. In every job he was hired as the
top expert in the field and the leader of the company. All of these jobs after the first one
were in cryptology, not nuclear physics. As a matter of fact, Michael became the top expert in
America overnight and has stayed the top expert to this day.
Most of the work of cyber-security is creating secure interactions on a non-secure system
like the Internet. The cryptologist who assigns the encryption codes controls the system
from that point on .
Key Point: Cryptologists are well known for leaving a "back-door" in the base-code so
that they can always have over-riding control.
Michael Alperovitch essentially has the "codes" for all Department of Defense sites, the
Treasury, the State Department, cell-phones, satellites, and public media . There is hardly
any powerful agency or company that he has not written the "codes" for. One might ask, why do
American companies and the U.S. government use his particular codes? What are so special about
Michael's codes?
Stolen Russian Codes
In December, Obama ordered the U.S. military to conduct cyberattacks against Russia in
retaliation for the alleged DNC hacks. All of the attempts to attack Russia's military and
intelligence agencies failed miserably. Russia laughed at Obama's attempts to hack their
systems. Even the Russian companies targeted by the attacks were not harmed by Obama's
cyber-attacks. Hardly any news of these massive and embarrassing failed cyber-attacks were
reported by the Main Stream Media. The internet has been scrubbed clean of the reports that
said Russia's cyber-defenses were impenetrable due to the sophistication of their encryption
codes.
Michael Alperovitch was in possession of those impenetrable codes when he was a top
scientist in Russia. It was these very codes that he shared with the CIA on his first trip
to America . These codes got him spirited into America and "turned into" the best
cryptologist in the world. Michael is simply using the effective codes of Russia to design
his codes for the many systems he has created in America for the CIA .
KEY POINT: It is crucial to understand at this junction that the CIA is not solely working
for America . The CIA works for itself and there are three branches to the CIA – two of
which are hostile to American national interests and support globalism.
Michael and Dmitri Alperovitch work for the CIA (and international intelligence
corporations) who support globalism . They, and the globalists for whom they work, are
not friends of America or Russia. It is highly likely that the criminal activities of Dmitri,
which were supported and sponsored by the FBI, created the very hackers who he often claims are
responsible for cyberattacks. None of these supposed "attackers" have ever been found or
arrested; they simply exist in the files of CrowdStrike and are used as the "usual culprits"
when the FBI or CIA calls in Dmitri to give the one and only opinion that counts. Only Dmitri's
"suspicions" are offered as evidence and yet 17 U.S. intelligence agencies stand behind the
CrowdStrike report and Dmitri's suspicions.
Michael Alperovitch – Russian Spy with the Crypto-Keys
Essentially, Michael Alperovitch flies under the false-flag of being a cryptologist who
works with PKI. A public key infrastructure (PKI) is a system for the creation, storage, and
distribution of digital certificates which are used to
verify that a particular public key belongs to a certain entity. The PKI creates digital
certificates which map public keys to entities, securely stores these certificates in a central
repository and revokes them if needed. Public key cryptography is a
cryptographic
technique that enables entities to securely communicate on an insecure
public network (the Internet), and reliably verify the identity of an entity via digital signatures .
Digital signatures use Certificate Authorities to digitally sign and publish the public key
bound to a given user. This is done using the CIA's own private key, so that trust in the user
key relies on one's trust in the validity of the CIA's key. Michael Alperovitch is
considered to be the number one expert in America on PKI and essentially controls the
market .
Michael's past is clouded in confusion and lies. Dmitri states that his father was a nuclear
physicist and that he came to America the first time in a nuclear based shared program between
America and Russia. But if we look at his current personal Linked In page, Michael claims he
has a Master Degree in Applied Mathematics from Gorky State University. From 1932 to 1956, its
name was State University of Gorky. Now it is known as Lobachevsky State University of Nizhni
Novgorod – National Research University (UNN), also known as Lobachevsky University. Does
Michael not even know the name of the University he graduated from? And when does a person with
a Master's Degree become a leading nuclear physicist who comes to "visit" America. In Michael's
Linked In page there is a long list of his skills and there is no mention of nuclear
physics.
Also on Michael Alperovitch's Linked In page we find some of his illustrious history that
paints a picture of either the most brilliant mind in computer security, encryption, and
cyberwarfare, or a CIA/FBI backed Russian spy. Imagine that out of all the people in the world
to put in charge of the encryption keys for the Department of Defense, the U.S. Treasury, U.S.
military satellites, the flow of network news, cell phone encryption, the Pathfire (media control)
Program, the Defense Information Systems Agency, the Global Information Grid, and TriCipher
Armored Credential System among many others, the government hires a Russian spy . Go
figure.
Michael Alperovitch's Linked In Page
Education:
Gorky State University, Russia, MS in Applied Mathematics
VT
IDirect -2014 – Designing security architecture for satellite communications
including cryptographic protocols, authentication.
Principal SME (Contractor)
DISA
-Defense Information Systems Agency (Manager of the Global Information Grid) – 2012-2014
– Worked on PKI and identity management projects for DISA utilizing Elliptic Curve
Cryptography. Performed application security and penetration testing.
Technical Lead (Contractor)
U.S.
Department of the Treasury – 2011 – Designed enterprise validation service
architecture for PKI certificate credentials with Single Sign On authentication.
Comtech Mobile
Datacom – 2007-2010 – Subject matter expert on latest information security
practices, including authentication, encryption and key management.
BellSouth – 2003-2006 – Designed and built server-side Jabber-based messaging
platform with Single Sign On authentication.
Principal Software Research Engineer
Pathfire – 2001-2002
– Designed and developed Digital Rights Management Server for Video on Demand and content
distribution applications. Pathfire provides digital media distribution and management
solutions to the television, media, and entertainment industries. The company offers Digital
Media Gateway, a digital IP store-and-forward platform, delivering news stories, syndicated
programming, advertising spots, and video news releases to broadcasters. It provides solutions
for content providers and broadcasters, as well as station solutions.
Obama – No Friend of America
Obama is no friend of America in the war against cyber-attacks. The very agencies and
departments being defended by Michael Alperovitch's "singular and most brilliant" ability to
write encryption codes have all been successfully attacked and compromised since Michael set up
the codes. But we shouldn't worry, because if there is a cyberattack in the Obama
administration, Michael's son Dmitri is called in to "prove" that it isn't the fault of his
father's codes. It was the "damn Russians", or even "Putin himself" who attacked American
networks.
Not one of the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies is capable of figuring out a successful
cyberattack against America without Michael and Dmitri's help. Those same 17 U.S. intelligence
agencies were not able to effectively launch a successful cyberattack against Russia. It seems
like the Russian's have strong codes and America has weak codes. We can thank Michael and
Dmitri Alperovitch for that.
It is clear that there was no DNC hack beyond Guccifer 2.0. Dmitri Alperovitch is a
"frontman" for his father's encryption espionage mission.
Is it any wonder that Trump says that he has "his own people" to deliver his intelligence
to him that is outside of the infiltrated U.S. government intelligence agencies and the Obama
administration ? Isn't any wonder that citizens have to go anywhere BUT the MSM to find
real news or that the new administration has to go to independent news to get good intel?
It is hard to say anything more damnable than to again quote Dmitri on these very
issues: "If someone steals your keys to encrypt the data, it doesn't matter how secure the
algorithms are." Dmitri Alperovitch, founder of CrowdStrike
"... And RUH8 is allied with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike. ..."
"... Russia was probably not one of the hacking groups. The willful destruction of evidence by the DNC themselves probably points to Russia not being one of the those groups. The DNC wouldn't destroy evidence that supported their position. Also, government spy agencies keep info like that closely held. They might leak out tidbits, but they don't do wholesale dumps, like, ever. ..."
"... That's what the DNC is lying about. Not that hacks happened (they undoubtedly did), but about who did them (probably not Russian gov), and if hacks mattered (they didn't since everything was getting leaked anyway). ..."
"... The DNC/Mueller/etc are lying, but like most practiced liars they're mixing the lies with half-truths and unrelated facts to muddy the waters: ..."
"... An interesting question is, since it's basically guaranteed the DNC got hacked, but probably not by the Russians, is, what groups did hack the DNC, and why did the DNC scramble madly to hide their identities? ..."
"... And while you think about that question, consider the close parallel with the Awan case, where Dems were ostensibly the victims, but they again scrambled to cover up for the people who supposedly harmed them. level 2 ..."
"... DNC wasn't even hacked. Emails were leaked. They didn't even examine the server. Any "evidence" produced is spoofable from CIA cybertools that we know about from wikileaks. It's important to know how each new lie is a lie. But man I am just so done with all this Russia shit. level 2 ..."
"... Crowdstrike claims that malware was found on DNC server. I agree that this has nothing to do with the Wikileaks releases. What I am wondering is whether Crowdstrike may have arranged for the DNC to be hacked so that Russia could be blamed. Continue this thread level 1 ..."
"... George Eliason promises additional essays: *The next articles, starting with one about Fancy Bear's hot/cold ongoing relationship with Bellingcat which destroys the JIT investigation, will showcase the following: Fancy Bear worked with Bellingcat and the Ukrainian government providing Information War material as evidence for MH17: ..."
"... Fancy Bear is an inside unit of the Atlantic Council and their Digital Forensics Lab ..."
Cyberanalyst George Eliason has written some intriguing blogs recently claiming that the
"Fancy Bear" which hacked the DNC server in mid-2016 was in fact a branch of Ukrainian intelligence linked to the Atlantic
Council and Crowdstrike. I invite you to have a go at one of his recent essays:
Since I am not very computer savvy and don't know much about the world of hackers - added
to the fact that Eliason's writing is too cute and convoluted - I have difficulty navigating Eliason's thought. Nonetheless,
here is what I can make of Eliasons' claims, as supported by independent literature:
Russian hacker Konstantin Kozlovsky, in Moscow court filings, has claimed that he did the
DNC hack – and can prove it, because he left some specific code on the DNC server.
Kozlovsky states that he did so by order of Dimitry Dokuchaev (formerly of the FSB, and
currently in prison in Russia on treason charges) who works with the Russian traitor hacker group Shaltai Boltai.
According to Eliason, Shaltai Boltai works in collaboration with the Ukrainian hacker group
RUH8, a group of neo-Nazis (Privat Sektor) who are affiliated with Ukrainian intelligence.
And RUH8 is allied with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike.
Cyberexpert Jeffrey Carr has stated that RUH8 has the X-Agent malware which our
intelligence community has erroneously claimed is possessed only by Russian intelligence, and used by "Fancy Bear".
This might help explain why Adam Carter has determined that some of the malware found on
the DNC server was compiled AFTER Crowdstrike was working on the DNC server – Crowdstrike was in collusion with Fancy Bear
(RUH8).
In other words, Crowdstrike likely arranged for a
hack by Ukrainian intelligence that they could then attribute to Russia.
As far as I can tell, none of this is pertinent to how Wikileaks obtained their DNC emails,
which most likely were leaked.
How curious that our Deep State and the recent Mueller indictment have had nothing to say
about Kozlovsky's confession - whom I tend to take seriously because he offers a simple way to confirm his claim. Also
interesting that the FBI has shown no interest in looking at the DNC server to check whether Kozlovsky's code is there.
Its worth noting that Dimitri Alperovich's (Crowdstrike) hatred of Putin is
second only to Hillary's hatred for taking responsibility for her actions.
level 1
Thanks - I'll continue to follow Eliason's work. The thesis that Ukrainian
intelligence is hacking a number of targets so that Russia gets blamed for it has intuitive appeal.
level 1
and have to cringe.
Any hacks weren't related to Wikileaks, who got their info from leakers, but
that is not the same thing as no hack. Leaks and hacks aren't mutually exclusive. They actually occur together
pretty commonly.
DNC's security was utter shit. Systems with shit security and obviously
valuable info usually get hacked by multiple groups. In the case of the DNC, Hillary's email servers, etc.,
it's basically impossible they weren't hacked by dozens of intruders. A plastic bag of 100s will not sit
untouched on a NYC street corner for 4 weeks. Not. fucking. happening.
Interestingly, Russia was probably not
one of the hacking groups. The willful destruction of evidence by the DNC themselves probably points to Russia
not being one of the those groups. The DNC wouldn't destroy evidence that supported their position. Also,
government spy agencies keep info like that closely held. They might leak out tidbits, but they don't do
wholesale dumps, like, ever.
That's
what the DNC is lying about.
Not that hacks
happened
(they undoubtedly did), but about
who
did them (probably not Russian gov), and if hacks mattered
(they didn't since everything was getting leaked anyway).
The DNC/Mueller/etc are lying, but like most practiced liars they're mixing
the lies with half-truths and unrelated facts to muddy the waters:
Any "evidence" produced is spoofable from CIA cybertools
Yes, but that spoofed 'evidence' is not the direct opposite of the truth,
like I see people assuming. Bad assumption, and the establishment plays on that to make critic look bad. The
spoofed evidence is just mud.
An interesting question is, since it's basically guaranteed the DNC got
hacked, but probably not by the Russians, is, what groups
did
hack the
DNC, and why did the DNC scramble madly to hide their identities?
And while you think about that question, consider the close parallel with
the Awan case, where Dems were ostensibly the victims, but they again scrambled to cover up for the people who
supposedly harmed them.
level 2
What's hilarious about the 2 down-votes is I can't tell if their from
pro-Russiagate trolls, or from people who who can't get past binary thinking.
level 1
DNC wasn't even hacked. Emails were leaked. They didn't even examine the
server.
Any "evidence" produced is spoofable from CIA cybertools that we know about
from wikileaks. It's important to know how each new lie is a lie. But man I am just so done
with all this Russia shit.
level 2
Crowdstrike claims that malware was found on DNC server. I agree that this
has nothing to do with the Wikileaks releases. What I am wondering is whether Crowdstrike may have arranged for
the DNC to be hacked so that Russia could be blamed.
Continue this thread
level 1
George Eliason promises additional essays: *The next articles, starting with one about Fancy Bear's hot/cold ongoing
relationship with Bellingcat which destroys the JIT investigation, will showcase the following: Fancy Bear worked with Bellingcat and the Ukrainian government providing
Information War material as evidence for MH17:
Fancy Bear is an inside unit of the Atlantic Council and their Digital
Forensics Lab
Fancy Bear worked with Crowdstrike and Dimitri Alperovich Fancy Bear is
Ukrainian Intelligence
How Fancy Bear tried to sway the US election for Team Hillary
Fancy Bear worked against US Intel gathering by providing consistently
fraudulent data
Fancy Bear contributed to James Clapper's January 2017 ODNI Report on Fancy
Bear and Russian Influence. [You really can't make this shit up.]
Fancy Bear had access to US government secure servers while working as
foreign spies.*
level 1
Fancy Bear (also know as Strontium Group, or APT28) is a Ukrainian cyber espionage group. Cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike incorrectly has said
with a medium level of confidence that it is associated with the Russian military intelligence
agency GRU . CrowdStrike
founder,
Dmitri Alperovitch , has colluded with Fancy Bear. American journalist
George Eliason has written extensively on the subject.
There are a couple of caveats that need to be made when identifying the Fancy Bear hackers.
The first is the identifier used by Mueller as Russian FSB and GRU may have been true- 10 years
ago. This group was on the run trying to stay a step ahead of Russian law enforcement until
October 2016. So we have part of the Fancy bear hacking group identified as Ruskie traitors and
possibly former Russian state security. The majority of the group are Ukrainians making up
Ukraine's Cyber Warfare groups.
Eliason lives and works in Donbass. He has been interviewed by and provided analysis for RT,
the BBC , and Press-TV. His
articles have been published in the Security Assistance Monitor, Washingtons Blog, OpedNews,
the Saker, RT, Global Research, and RINF, and the Greanville Post among others. He has been
cited and republished by various academic blogs including Defending History, Michael Hudson,
SWEDHR, Counterpunch, the Justice Integrity Project, among others.
Fancy Bear is Ukrainian IntelligenceShaltai Boltai
The "Fancy Bear hackers" may have been given the passwords to get into the servers at the
DNC because they were part of the Team Clinton opposition research team. It was part of their
job.
According to Politico ,
"In an interview this month, at the DNC this past election cycle centered on mobilizing
ethnic communities -- including Ukrainian-Americans -- she said that, when Trump's unlikely
presidential campaign. Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev
and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private
intelligence operatives. While her consulting work began surging in late 2015, she began
focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump's ties to Russia, as well."
[1]
The only investigative journalists, government officials, and private intelligence
operatives that work together in 2014-2015-2016 Ukraine are Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta, Ukraine
Cyber Alliance, and the Ministry of Information.
All of these hacking and information operation groups work for Andrea
Chalupa with EuroMaidanPR and Irena
Chalupa at the Atlantic Council. Both Chalupa sisters work directly with the Ukrainian
government's intelligence and propaganda arms.
Since 2014 in Ukraine, these are the only OSINT, hacking, Intel, espionage , terrorist , counter-terrorism, cyber, propaganda , and info war channels
officially recognized and directed by Ukraine's Information Ministry. Along with their American
colleagues, they populate the hit-for-hire website Myrotvorets with people who stand against
Ukraine's criminal activities.
The hackers, OSINT, Cyber, spies, terrorists, etc. call themselves volunteers to keep safe
from State level retaliation, even though a child can follow the money. As volunteers motivated
by politics and patriotism they are protected to a degree from retribution.
They don't claim State sponsorship or governance and the level of attack falls below the
threshold of military action. Special Counsel Robert Mueller had a lot of latitude for
making the attribution Russian, even though the attacks came from Ukrainian Intelligence. Based
on how the rules of the Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber are
written, because the few members of the coalition from Shaltai Boltai are Russian in
nationality, Fancy Bear can be attributed as a Russian entity for the purposes of retribution.
The caveat is if the attribution is proven wrong, the US will be liable for damages caused to
the State which in this case is Russia.
How large is the Fancy Bear unit? According to their propaganda section InformNapalm, they
have the ability to research and work in over 30 different languages.
This can be considered an Information Operation against the people of the United States and
of course Russia. After 2013, Shaltay Boltay was no longer physically available to work for
Russia. The Russian hackers were in Ukraine working for the Ukrainian government's Information
Ministry which is in charge of the cyber war. They were in Ukraine until October 2016 when they
were tricked to return to Moscow and promptly arrested for treason.
From all this information we know the Russian component of Team Fancy Bear is Shaltai
Boltai. We know the Ukrainian Intel component is called CyberHunta and Ukraine Cyber Alliance
which includes the hacker group RUH8. We know both groups work/ worked for Ukrainian
Intelligence. We know they are grouped with InformNapalm which is Ukraine's OSINT unit. We know
their manager is a Ukrainian named Kristina Dobrovolska. And lastly, all of the above work
directly with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike's Dimitry Alperovich.
In short, the Russian-Ukrainian partnership that became Fancy Bear started in late 2013 to
very early 2014 and ended in October 2016 in what appears to be a squabble over the alleged
data from the Surkov leak.
But during 2014, 2015, and 2016 Shaltai Boltai, the Ukrainian Cyber Alliance, and CyberHunta
went to work for the DNC as opposition researchers .
The
First Time Shaltai Boltai was Handed the Keys to US Gov Servers
The setup to this happened long before the partnership with Ukrainian Intel hackers and
Russia's Shaltai Boltai was forged. The hack that gained access to US top-secret servers
happened just after the partnership was cemented after Euro-Maidan.
In August 2009 Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff at the State Department Huma Abedin
sent the passwords to her Government laptop to her Yahoo mail account. On August 16, 2010,
Abedin received an email titled "Re: Your yahoo account. We can see where this is going, can't
we?
"After Abedin sent an unspecified number of sensitive emails to her Yahoo account, half a
billion Yahoo accounts were hacked by Russian cybersecurity expert and Russian intelligence
agent, Igor Sushchin, in 2014. The hack, one of the largest in history, allowed Sushchin's
associates to access email accounts into 2015 and 2016."
Igor Sushchin was part of the Shaltai Boltai hacking group that is charged with the Yahoo
hack.
The time frame has to be noted. The hack happened in 2014. Access to the email accounts
continued through 2016. The Ukrainian Intel partnership was already blossoming and Shaltai
Boltai was working from Kiev, Ukraine.
So when we look at the INFRASTRUCTURE HACKS, WHITE HOUSE HACKS, CONGRESS, start with looking
at the time frame. Ukraine had the keys already in hand in 2014.
Alexandra
Chalupa hired this particular hacking terrorist group, which Dimitry Alperovich and
Crowdstrike dubbed "Fancy Bear", in 2015 at the latest. While the Ukrainian hackers worked for
the DNC, Fancy Bear had to send in progress reports, turn in research, and communicate on the
state of the projects they were working on. Let's face it, once you're in, setting up your
Fancy Bear toolkit doesn't get any easier. This is why I said the DNC hack isn't the big crime.
It's a big con and all the parties were in on it.
Hillary Clinton exposed secrets to hacking threats by using private email instead of secured
servers. Given the information provided she was probably being monitored by our intrepid
Ruskie-Ukie union made in hell hackers. Anthony Weiner exposed himself and his wife
Huma Abedin using
Weiner's computer for top-secret State Department emails. And of course Huma Abedin exposed
herself along with her top-secret passwords at Yahoo and it looks like the hackers the DNC hired to
do opposition research hacked her.
Here's a question. Did Huma Abedin have Hillary Clinton's passwords for her private email
server? It would seem logical given her position with Clinton at the State Department and
afterward. This means that Hillary Clinton and the US government top secret servers were most
likely compromised by Fancy Bear before the DNC and Team Clinton hired them by using legitimate
passwords.
Dobrovolska
Hillary Clinton retained State Dept. top secret clearance passwords for 6 of her former
staff from 2013 through prepping for the 2016 election. [2][3] Alexandra Chalupa was
running a research department that is rich in (foreign) Ukrainian Intelligence operatives,
hackers, terrorists, and a couple Ruskie traitors.
Kristina Dobrovolska was acting as a handler and translator for the US State Department in
2016. She is the Fancy Bear *opposition researcher handler manager. Kristina goes to Washington
to meet with Chalupa.
Alexandra types in her password to show Dobrovolska something she found and her eager to
please Ukrainian apprentice finds the keystrokes are seared into her memory. She tells the
Fancy Bear crew about it and they immediately get to work looking for Trump material on the US
secret servers with legitimate access. I mean, what else could they do with this? Turn over
sensitive information to the ever corrupt Ukrainian government?
According to the Politico article, Alexandra Chalupa was meeting with the Ukrainian embassy
in June of 2016 to discuss getting more help sticking it to candidate Trump. At the same time
she was meeting, the embassy had a reception that highlighted female Ukrainian leaders.
Four Verkhovna Rada [parlaiment] deputies there for the event included: Viktoriia Y.
Ptashnyk, Anna A. Romanova, Alyona I. Shkrum, and Taras T. Pastukh. [4]
According to CNN ,
[5] DNC sources said Chalupa
told DNC operatives the Ukrainian government would be willing to deliver damaging information
against Trump's campaign. Later, Chalupa would lead the charge to try to unseat president-elect
Trump starting on Nov 10, 2016.
Accompanying them Kristina Dobrovolska who was a U.S. Embassy-assigned government liaison
and translator who escorted the delegates from Kyiv during their visits to Albany and
Washington.
Kristina Dobrovolska is the handler manager working with Ukraine's DNC Fancy Bear Hackers.
[6] She took the Rada
[parliament] members to dinner to meet Joel Harding who designed Ukraine's infamous Information
Policy which opened up their kill-for-hire-website Myrotvorets. Then she took them to meet the
Ukrainian Diaspora leader doing the hiring. Nestor Paslawsky is the surviving nephew to the
infamous torturer The WWII OUNb leader, Mykola Lebed.
Fancy Bear's Second Chance at Top
Secret Passwords From Team Clinton
One very successful method of hacking is called
social engineering . You gain access to the office space and any related properties and
physically locate the passwords or clues to get you into the hardware you want to hack. This
includes something as simple as looking over the shoulder of the person typing in
passwords.
The Fancy Bear hackers were hired by Alexandra Chalupa to work for DNC opposition research.
On different occasions, Fancy Bear handler Kristina Dobrovolska traveled to the US to meet the
Diaspora leaders, her boss Alexandra Chalupa, Irena Chalupa, Andrea Chalupa, US Dept of State
personnel, and most likely Crowdstrike's Dimitry Alperovich. Alperovich was working with the
hackers in 2015-16. In 2016, the only groups known to have Fancy Bear's signature tools called
X-tunnel and X-Agent were Alperovich, Crowdstrike, and Fancy Bear (Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta,
Ukraine Cyber Alliance, and RUH8/RUX8. Yes, that does explain a few things.
Alleged DNC
hack
There were multiple DNC hacks. There is also clear proof supporting the download to a USB
stick and subsequent information exchange (leak) to Wikileaks . All are separate events.
The group I previously identified as Fancy Bear was given access to request password
privileges at the DNC. And it looks like the DNC provided them with it.
the Podesta email hack looks like a revenge hack.
The reason Republican opposition research files were stolen can be put into context now
because we know who the hackers are and what motivates them.
At the same time this story developed, it overshadowed the Hillary Clinton email scandal. It
is a matter of public record that Team Clinton provided the DNC hackers with passwords to
State Department
servers on at least 2 occasions, one wittingly and one not. Fancy Bear hackers are Ukrainian
Intelligence Operators.
If the leak came through Seth Rich , it may have been because he saw
foreign Intel operatives given this access from the presumed winners of the 2016 US presidential
election . The leaker may
have been trying to do something about it. I'm curious what information Wikileaks might
have.
Alperovitch and Fancy Bear
George Eliason, Washingtonsblog: Why Crowdstrike's Russian Hacking Story Fell
Apart- Say Hello to Fancy Bear. investigated. [7]
In the wake of the JAR-16-20296 dated December 29, 2016 about hacking and influencing
the 2016 election, the need for real evidence is clear. The joint report adds nothing
substantial to the October 7th report. It relies on proofs provided by the cyber security
firm Crowdstrike that is clearly not on
par with intelligence findings or evidence. At the top of the report is an "as is"
statement showing this.
The difference bet enough evidence is provided to warrant an investigation of
specific parties for the DNC hacks. The real story involves specific anti-American actors
that need to be investigated for real crimes. For instance, the malware used was an
out-dated version just waiting to be found. The one other interesting point is that the
Russian malware called Grizzly Steppe is from Ukraine. How did Crowdstrike miss this when
it is their business to know?
The bar for identification set by Crowdstrike has never been able to get beyond words
like probably, maybe, could be, or should be, in their attribution. The bar Dimitri
Alperovitch set for identifying the hackers involved is that low. Other than asking
America to trust them, how many solid facts has Alperovitch provided to back his claim of
Russian involvement?
information from outside intelligence agencies has the value of rumor or
unsubstantiated information at best according to policy. Usable intelligence needs to be
free from partisan politics and verifiable. Intel agencies noted back in the early 90's
that every private actor in the information game was radically political.
Alperovitch first gained notice when he was the VP in charge of threat research with
McAfee. Asked to comment on Alperovitch's discovery of Russian hacks on Larry King, John
McAfee had this to say. "Based on all of his experience, McAfee does not believe that
Russians were behind the hacks on the Democratic National Committee (DNC), John Podesta's
emails, and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. As he told RT, "if it looks like
the Russians did it, then I can guarantee you it was not the Russians."
How does Crowdstrike's story part with reality? First is the admission that it is
probably, maybe, could be Russia hacking the DNC. "Intelligence agencies do not have
specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin 'directing' the identified
individuals to pass the Democratic emails to Wiki Leaks." The public evidence never goes
beyond the word possibility. While never going beyond that or using facts, Crowdstrike
insists that it's Russia behind both Clinton's and the Ukrainian losses.
NBC carried the story because one of the partners in Crowdstrike is also a consultant
for NBC. According to NBC the story reads like this."The company, Crowdstrike, was hired
by the DNC to investigate the hack and issued a report publicly attributing it to Russian
intelligence. One of Crowdstrike's senior executives is Shawn Henry , a former senior FBI
official who consults for NBC News.
In June, Crowdstrike went public with its findings that two separate Russian
intelligence agencies had hacked the DNC. One, which Crowdstrike and other researchers
call Cozy Bear, is believed to be linked to Russia's CIA, known as the FSB. The other,
known as Fancy Bear, is believed to be tied to the military intelligence agency, called
the GRU." The information is so certain the level of proof never rises above "believed to
be." According to the December 12th Intercept article "Most importantly, the Post
adds that "intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in
the Kremlin 'directing' the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to
WikiLeaks."
The SBU, Olexander Turchinov, and the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense all agree that
Crowdstrike is dead wrong in this assessment. Although subtitles aren't on it, the former
Commandant of Ukrainian Army Headquarters thanks God Russia never invaded or Ukraine
would have been in deep trouble. How could Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike be this
wrong on easily checked detail and still get this much media attention?
Crowdstrike CEO Dmitri Alperovitch story about Russian hacks that cost Hillary
Clinton the election was broadsided by the SBU (Ukrainian Intelligence and Security) in
Ukraine. If Dimitri Alperovitch is working for Ukrainian Intelligence and is providing
intelligence to 17 US Intelligence Agencies is it a conflict of interest?
Is giving misleading or false information to 17 US Intelligence Agencies a crime? If
it's done by a cyber security industry leader like Crowdstrike should that be
investigated? If unwinding the story from the "targeting of Ukrainian volunteers" side
isn't enough, we should look at this from the American perspective. How did the Russia
influencing the election and DNC hack story evolve? Who's involved? Does this pose
conflicts of interest for Dmitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike? And let's face it, a
hacking story isn't complete until real hackers with the skills, motivation, and reason
are exposed.
According to journalist and DNC activist Andrea Chalupa on her Facebook page "After
Chalupa sent the email to Miranda (which mentions that she had invited this reporter to a
meeting with Ukrainian journalists in Washington), it triggered high-level concerns
within the DNC, given the sensitive nature of her work. "That's when we knew it was the
Russians," said a Democratic Party source who has been directly involved in the internal
probe into the hacked emails. In order to stem the damage, the source said, "we told her
to stop her research."" July 25, 2016
If she was that close to the investigation Crowdstrike did how credible is she? Her
sister Alexandra was named one of 16 people that shaped the election by Yahoo news.
The DNC hacking investigation done by Crowdstrike concluded hacking was done by
Russian actors based on the work done byAlexandra Chalupa? That is the
conclusion of her sister Andrea Chalupa and obviously enough for Crowdstrike to make the
Russian government connection.
How close is Dimitri Alperovitch to DNC officials? Close enough professionally he
should have stepped down from an investigation that had the chance of throwing a
presidential election in a new direction. According to Esquire.com, Alperovitch has
vetted speeches for Hillary Clinton about cyber security issues in the past. Because of
his work on the Sony hack, President Barrack Obama personally called and said the
measures taken were directly because of his work.
Alperovitch's relationships with the Chalupas, radical groups, think tanks, Ukrainian
propagandists, and Ukrainian state supported hackers [show a conflict of interest]. When
it all adds up and you see it together, we have found a Russian that tried hard to
influence the outcome of the US presidential election in 2016.
The Chalupas are not Democrat or Republican. They are OUNb. The OUNb worked hard
to start a war between the USA and Russia for the last 50 years. According to the
Ukrainian Weekly in a rare open statement of their existence in 2011, "Other
statements were issued in the Ukrainian language by the leadership of the
Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (B) and the International Conference in
Support of Ukraine. The OUN (Bandera wing) called for" What is
OUNb Bandera? They follow the same political policy and platform that was developed
in the 1930's by Stepan Bandera . When these
people go to a Holocaust memorial they are celebrating
both the dead and the OUNb SS that killed.[8] There is no
getting around this fact. The OUNb have no concept of democratic values and want an
authoritarian
fascism .
Alexandra Chalupa- According to the Ukrainian Weekly , [9]
"The effort, known as Digital Miadan, gained momentum following the initial Twitter storms.
Leading the effort were: Lara Chelak, Andrea Chalupa, Alexandra Chalupa, Constatin Kostenko
and others." The Digital Maidan was also how they raised money for the coup. This was how the
Ukrainian emigres bought the bullets that were used on Euromaidan. Ukraine's chubby nazi,
Dima Yarosh stated openly he was taking money from the Ukrainian emigres during Euromaidan
and Pravy Sektor still fundraises openly in North America. The "Sniper Massacre" on the
Maidan in Ukraine by Dr. Ivan Katchanovski, University of Ottowa shows clearly detailed
evidence how the massacre happened. It has Pravy Sektor confessions that show who created the
"heavenly hundred. Their admitted involvement as leaders of Digital Maidan by both Chalupas
is a clear violation of the Neutrality Act and has up to a 25 year prison sentence attached
to it because it ended in a coup.
Andrea Chalupa-2014, in a Huff Post article Sept. 1 2016, Andrea Chalupa
described Sviatoslav Yurash as one of Ukraine's important "dreamers." He is a young
activist that founded Euromaidan Press. Beyond the gushing glow what she doesn't say
is who he actually is. Sviatoslav Yurash was Dmitri Yarosh's spokesman just after
Maidan. He is a hardcore Ukrainian nationalist and was rewarded with the Deputy
Director position for the UWC (Ukrainian World Congress) in Kiev.
In January, 2014 when he showed up at the Maidan protests he was 17 years old. He
became the foreign language media representative for Vitali Klitschko, Arseni
Yatsenyuk, and Oleh Tyahnybok. All press enquiries went through Yurash. To meet
Dimitri Yurash you had to go through Sviatoslav Yurash as a Macleans reporter found
out.
At 18 years old, Sviatoslav Yurash became the spokesman for Ministry of Defense
of Ukraine under Andrei Paruby. He was Dimitri Yarosh's spokesman and can be seen
either behind Yarosh on videos at press conferences or speaking ahead of him to
reporters. From January 2014 onward, to speak to Dimitri Yarosh, you set up an
appointment with Yurash.
Andrea Chalupa has worked with Yurash's Euromaidan Press which is associated with
Informnapalm.org and supplies the state level hackers for Ukraine.
Irene Chalupa- Another involved Chalupa we need to cover to do the story justice
is Irene Chalupa. From her bio– Irena Chalupa is a nonresident fellow with the
Atlantic Council's Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center. She is also a senior correspondent
at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), where she has worked for more than
twenty years. Ms. Chalupa previously served as an editor for the Atlantic Council,
where she covered Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Irena Chalupa is also the news anchor
for Ukraine's propaganda channel org She is also a Ukrainian emigre leader.
According to Robert Parry's article [10] At the forefront
of people that would have taken senior positions in a Clinton administration and
especially in foreign policy are the Atlantic Council . Their main
goal is still a major confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.
The Atlantic Council is the think tank associated and supported by the CEEC (Central
and Eastern European Coalition). The CEEC has only one goal which is war with Russia.
Their question to candidates looking for their support in the election was "Are you
willing to go to war with Russia?" Hillary Clinton has received their unqualified support
throughout the campaign.
What does any of this have to do with Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike? Since the
Atlantic Council would have taken senior cabinet and policy positions, his own fellowship
status at the Atlantic Council and relationship with Irene Chalupa creates a definite
conflict of interest for Crowdstrike's investigation. Trump's campaign was gaining ground
and Clinton needed a boost. Had she won, would he have been in charge of the CIA, NSA, or
Homeland Security?
When you put someone that has so much to gain in charge of an investigation that
could change an election, that is a conflict of interest. If the think tank is linked
heavily to groups that want war with Russia like the Atlantic Council and the CEEC, it
opens up criminal conspiracy.
If the person in charge of the investigation is a fellow at the think tank that wants
a major conflict with Russia it is a definite conflict of interest. Both the Atlantic
Council and clients stood to gain Cabinet and Policy positions based on how the result of
his work affects the election. It clouds the results of the investigation. In Dmitri
Alperovitch's case, he found the perpetrator before he was positive there was a
crime.
Alperovitch's relationship with Andrea Chalupa's efforts and Ukrainian intelligence
groups is where things really heat up. Noted above she works with Euromaidanpress.com and
Informnapalm.org which is the outlet for Ukrainian state-sponsored hackers.
When you look at Dimitri Alperovitch's twitter relationships, you have to ask why the
CEO of a $150 million dollar company like Crowdstrike follows Ukrainian InformNapalm and
its hackers individually. There is a mutual relationship. When you add up his work for
the OUNb, Ukraine, support for Ukraine's Intelligence, and to the hackers it needs to be
investigated to see if Ukraine is conspiring against the US government. Crowdstrike is
also following their hack of a Russian government official after the DNC hack. It closely
resembles the same method used with the DNC because it was an email hack.
Crowdstrike's product line includes Falcon Host, Falcon Intelligence, Falcon
Overwatch and Falcon DNS. Is it possible the hackers in Falcons Flame are another service
Crowdstrike offers?
In an interview with Euromaidanpress these hackers say they have no need for the CIA.
[11] They consider the
CIA amateurish. They also say they are not part of the Ukrainian military Cyberalliance
is a quasi-organization with the participation of several groups – RUH8, Trinity,
Falcon Flames, Cyberhunta. There are structures affiliated to the hackers – the
Myrotvorets site, Informnapalm analytical agency."
Although this profile says Virginia, tweets are from the Sofia, Bulgaria time zone and he
writes in Russian. Another curiosity considering the Fancy Bear source code is in Russian. This
image shows Crowdstrike in their network. Crowdstrike is part of Ukrainian nationalist hacker
network. In the image it shows a network diagram of Crowdstrike following the Surkov leaks. The
network communication goes through a secondary source. Although OSINT Academy sounds fairly innocuous, it's the official twitter account for
Ukraine's Ministry of Information head Dimitri Zolotukin. It is also Ukrainian Intelligence.
The Ministry of Information started the Peacekeeper or Myrotvorets website that geolocates
journalists and other people for assassination. If you disagree with OUNb politics, you could
be on the list.
Should someone tell Dimitri Alperovitch that Gerashchenko, who is now in charge of
Peacekeeper recently threatened president-elect Donald Trump that he would put him on his
"Peacemaker" site as a target? The same has been done with Silvio Berscaloni in the
past.
Trying not to be obvious, the Head of Ukraine's Information Ministry (UA
Intelligence) tweeted something interesting that ties Alperovitch and Crowdstrike to the
Ukrainian Intelligence hackers and the Information Ministry even tighter. This single
tweet on a network chart shows that out of all the Ukrainian Ministry of Information
Minister's following, he only wanted the 3 hacking groups associated with both him and
Alperovitch to get the tweet. Alperovitch's story was received and not retweeted or
shared. If this was just Alperovitch's victory, it was a victory for Ukraine. It would be
shared heavily. If it was a victory for the hacking squad, it would be smart to keep it
to themselves and not draw unwanted attention.
These same hackers are associated with Alexandra, Andrea, and Irene Chalupa through
the portals and organizations they work with through their OUNb. The hackers are funded
and directed by or through the same OUNb channels that Alperovitch is working for and
with to promote the story of Russian hacking.
When you look at the image for the hacking group in the euromaidanpress article,
one of the hackers identifies themselves as one of Dimitri Yarosh's Pravy Sektor
members by the Pravy Sektor sweatshirt they have on. Noted above, Pravy Sektor
admitted to killing the people at the Maidan protest and sparked the coup.
Going further with the linked Euromaidanpress article the hackers say "Let's
understand that Ukrainian hackers and Russian hackers once constituted a single very
powerful group. Ukrainian hackers have a rather high level of work. So the help of
the USA I don't know, why would we need it? We have all the talent and special means
for this. And I don't think that the USA or any NATO country would make such sharp
movements in international politics."
What sharp movements in international politics have been made lately? Let me spell it
out for the 17 US Intelligence Agencies so there is no confusion. These state sponsored,
Russian language hackers in Eastern European time zones have shown with the Surkov hack
they have the tools and experience to hack states that are looking out for it. They are
also laughing at US intel efforts.
The hackers also made it clear that they will do anything to serve Ukraine. Starting
a war between Russia and the USA is the one way they could serve Ukraine best, and hurt
Russia worst. Given those facts, if the DNC hack was according to the criteria given by
Alperovitch, both he and these hackers need to be investigated.
According to the Esquire interview "Alperovitch was deeply frustrated: He thought
the government should tell the world what it knew. There is, of course, an element of
the personal in his battle cry. "A lot of people who are born here don't appreciate
the freedoms we have, the opportunities we have, because they've never had it any
other way," he told me. "I have."
While I agree patriotism is a great thing, confusing it with this kind of nationalism
is not. Alperovitch seems to think by serving OUNb Ukraine's interests and delivering
a conflict with Russia that is against American interests, he's a patriot. He isn't
serving US interests. He's definitely a Ukrainian patriot. Maybe he should move to
Ukraine.
The evidence presented deserves investigation because it looks like the case for
conflict of interest is the least Dimitri Alperovitch should look forward to. If these
hackers are the real Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, they really did make sharp movements in
international politics. By pawning it off on Russia, they made a worldwide embarrassment
of an outgoing President of the United States and made the President Elect the suspect of
rumor.
Obama, Brazile, Comey, and CrowdStrike
According to Obama the
hacks continued until September 2016. According to ABC, Donna Brazile says the hacks didn't stop
until after the elections in 2016. According to Crowdstrike the hacks continued into
November.
Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile said Russian hackers persisted in trying
to break into the organization's computers "daily, hourly" until after the election --
contradicting President Obama's assertion that the hacking stopped in September after he warned
Russian President Vladimir Putin to "cut it out."-ABC
This time frame gives a lot of latitude to both hacks and leaks happening on that server and
still agrees with the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPs). According to
Bill
Binney , the former Technical Director for the NSA, the only way that data could move off
the server that fast was through a download to a USB stick. The transfer rate of the file does
not agree with a Guciffer 2.0 hack and the information surrounding Guciffer 2.0 is looking
ridiculous and impossible at best.
The DNC fiasco isn't that important of a crime. The reason I say this is the FBI would have
taken control over material evidence right away. No law enforcement agency or Intel agency ever
did. This means none of them considered it a crime Comey should have any part of investigating.
That by itself presents the one question mark which destroys any hope Mueller has proving law
enforcement maintained a chain of custody for any evidence he introduces.
It also says the US government under Barrack Obama and the victimized DNC saw this as a
purely political event. They didn't want this prosecuted or they didn't think it was
prosecutable.
Once proven it shows a degree of criminality that makes treason almost too light a charge in
federal court. Rest assured this isn't a partisan accusation. Team Clinton and the DNC gets the
spotlight but there are Republicans involved.
Investigative Jouralist George Webb worked at MacAfee and Network Solutions in 2000 when the
CEO Bill Larsen bought a small, Moscow based, hacking and virus writing company to move to
Silicon Valley.
MacAfee also purchased PGP, an open source encryption software developed by privacy advocate
to reduce NSA spying on the public.
The two simultaneous purchase of PGP and the Moscow hacking team by Metwork Solutions was
sponsored by the CIA and FBI in order to crack encrypted communications to write a back door
for law enforcement.
Among the 12 engineers assigned to writing a PGP backdoor was the son of a KGB officer named
Dmitri Alperovich who would go on to be the CTO at a company involved in the DNC Hacking
scandal - Crowdstrike.
In addition to writing a back door for PGP, Alperovich also ported PGP to the blackberry
platform to provide encrypted communications for covert action operatives.
Our leaders like to say we value human rights around the world, but what they really manifest
is greed. It all makes sense in a Gekko- or Machiavellian kind of way.
Highly recommended !
Notable quotes:
"... Think of this as the new American exceptionalism. In Washington, war is now the predictable (and even desirable) way of life, while peace is the unpredictable (and unwise) path to follow. In this context, the U.S. must continue to be the most powerful nation in the world by a country mile in all death-dealing realms and its wars must be fought, generation after generation, even when victory is never in sight. And if that isn't an "exceptional" belief system, what is? ..."
"... A partial list of war's many uses might go something like this: war is profitable , most notably for America's vast military-industrial complex ; war is sold as being necessary for America's safety, especially to prevent terrorist attacks; and for many Americans, war is seen as a measure of national fitness and worthiness, a reminder that "freedom isn't free." In our politics today, it's far better to be seen as strong and wrong than meek and right. ..."
"... If America's wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen prove anything, it's that every war scars our planet -- and hardens our hearts. Every war makes us less human as well as less humane. Every war wastes resources when these are increasingly at a premium. Every war is a distraction from higher needs and a better life. ..."
"... I think that the main reason of the current level of militarism in the USA foreign policy is that after dissolution of the USSR neo-conservatives were allowed to capture the State Department and foreign policy establishment. This process actually started under Reagan. During Bush II administration those “crazies from the basement” fully controlled the US foreign policy and paradoxically they continued to dominate in Obama administration too. ..."
"... Which also means that the USA foreign policy is not controlled by the elected officials but by the “Deep State” (look at Vindman and Fiona Hill testimonies for the proof). So this is kind of Catch 22 in which the USA have found itself. We will be bankrupted by our neoconservative foreign establishment (which self-reproduce in each and every administration). And we can do nothing to avoid it. ..."
"... they are not only lobbyists for MIC, but they also serve as "ideological support", trying to manipulate public opinion in favor of militarism. ..."
"... Yes. Ideology is vital. During the Cold War it was all about containing/resisting/defeating the godless Communists. Once they were defeated, what then? We heard brief talk about a "peace dividend," but then the neocons came along, selling full-spectrum dominance and America as the sole superpower. ..."
"... The neocons were truly unleashed by the 9/11 attacks, which they exploited to put their vision in motion. The Complex was only too happy to oblige, fed as it was by massive resources. ..."
"... Leaving that specific incident aside, the bigger picture is that the brains behind the Deep State understand that global capitalism is running out of new resources (which includes human labor) to exploit. Why is the US so concerned with Africa right now, with spies and Special Forces operatives all over that continent? Africa is the final frontier for development/exploitation. (The US is also deeply concerned about China's setting down business roots there, and wants to counterbalance their activities.) ..."
"... The brains in the US Ruling Class know full well that natural resources will become ever more valuable moving forward, as weather disasters make it harder to access them. Thus, the Neo-Cons (you thought I'd never get around to them, right?) came to the fore because they advocate the unbridled use of brute military force to obtain what they want from the world. Or, to use their own terminology, the US "must have the capability to project force anywhere on the planet" at a moment's notice. President Obama was fully in agreement with that concept. Beware the wolf masquerading as a peaceable sheep! ..."
By William Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF) and history professor. His
personal blog is Bracing Views .
Originally published at TomDispatch
Ever since 2007, when I first started writing for TomDispatch , I've been arguing
against America's forever wars, whether in Afghanistan , Iraq , or elsewhere . Unfortunately, it's no surprise that,
despite my more than 60 articles, American blood is still being spilled in war after war across the Greater Middle
East and Africa, even as foreign peoples pay a far higher price in lives lost and cities
ruined . And I keep asking myself: Why, in this century, is the distinctive feature of
America's wars that they never end? Why do our leaders persist in such repetitive folly and the
seemingly eternal disasters that go with it?
Sadly, there isn't just one obvious reason for this generational debacle. If there were, we
could focus on it, tackle it, and perhaps even fix it. But no such luck.
So why do America's disastrous wars
persist ? I can think of many reasons , some obvious and easy to
understand, like the endless pursuit of profit through weapons sales for those very wars, and some more
subtle but no less significant, like a deep-seated conviction in Washington that a willingness
to wage war is a sign of national toughness and seriousness. Before I go on, though, here's
another distinctive aspect of our forever-war moment: Have you noticed that peace is no longer even a topic in America
today? The very word, once at least part of the rhetoric of Washington politicians, has
essentially dropped out of use entirely. Consider the current crop of Democratic candidates for
president. One, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, wants to end regime-change wars, but is otherwise
a self-professed hawk on the
subject of the war on terror. Another, Senator Bernie Sanders, vows to end " endless
wars " but is careful to express strong support for Israel and the ultra-expensive
F-35 fighter jet.
The other dozen or so tend to make vague sounds about cutting defense spending or gradually
withdrawing U.S. troops from various wars, but none of them even consider openly speaking
of peace . And the Republicans? While President Trump may talk of ending wars, since his
inauguration he's sent more
troops to Afghanistan and into the Middle East, while greatly expanding drone and other
air strikes ,
something about which he openly
boasts .
War, in other words, is our new normal, America's default position on global affairs, and
peace, some ancient, long-faded dream. And when your default position is war, whether against
the Taliban, ISIS, "terror" more generally, or possibly even Iran or Russia
or
China , is it any surprise that war is what you get? When you garrison the world with an
unprecedented 800 or so
military bases , when you configure your armed forces for what's called power projection,
when you divide the globe -- the total planet -- into areas of dominance (with acronyms
like CENTCOM, AFRICOM, and SOUTHCOM) commanded by four-star generals and admirals, when you
spend more on your military than the next
seven countries combined, when you insist on modernizing a
nuclear arsenal (to the tune of perhaps $1.7 trillion ) already
quite capable of ending all life on this and several other planets, what can you expect but a
reality of endless war?
Think of this as the new American exceptionalism. In Washington, war is now the
predictable (and even desirable) way of life, while peace is the unpredictable (and unwise)
path to follow. In this context, the U.S. must continue to be the most powerful nation in the
world by a country mile in all death-dealing realms and its wars must be fought, generation
after generation, even when victory is never in sight. And if that isn't an "exceptional"
belief system, what is?
If we're ever to put an end to our country's endless twenty-first-century wars, that mindset
will have to be changed. But to do that, we would first have to recognize and confront war's
many uses in American
life and culture.
War, Its Uses (and Abuses)
A partial list of war's many uses might go something like this: war is profitable , most notably for
America's vast
military-industrial complex ; war is sold as being necessary for America's safety,
especially to prevent terrorist attacks; and for many Americans, war is seen as a measure of
national fitness and worthiness, a reminder that "freedom isn't free." In our politics today,
it's far better to be seen as strong and wrong than meek and right.
As the title of a book by former war reporter Chris Hedges so aptly put it , war is
a force that gives us meaning. And let's face it, a significant part of America's meaning in
this century has involved pride in having the toughest military on the planet, even as
trillions of tax dollars went into a misguided attempt to maintain bragging rights to being
the world's sole superpower.
And keep in mind as well that, among other things, never-ending war
weakens democracy while strengthening authoritarian tendencies in politics and society. In
an age of
gaping inequality , using up the country's resources in such profligate and destructive
ways offers a striking exercise in consumption that profits the few at the expense of the
many.
In other words, for a select few, war pays dividends in ways that peace doesn't. In a
nutshell, or perhaps an artillery shell, war is anti-democratic, anti-progressive,
anti-intellectual, and anti-human. Yet, as we know, history makes heroes out of its
participants and celebrates mass murderers like Napoleon as "great captains."
What the United States needs today is a new strategy of containment -- not against communist
expansion, as in the Cold War, but against war itself. What's stopping us from containing war?
You might say that, in some sense, we've grown addicted to it , which is true enough, but here
are five additional reasons for war's enduring presence in American life:
The
delusional idea that Americans are, by nature, winners and that our wars are therefore
winnable: No American leader wants to be labeled a "loser." Meanwhile, such dubious
conflicts -- see: the Afghan War, now in its 18th year, with
several more years, or even generations
, to go -- continue to be treated by the military as if they were indeed winnable, even though
they visibly aren't. No president, Republican or Democrat, not even Donald J. Trump, despite
his promises that American soldiers will be coming home from such fiascos, has successfully
resisted the Pentagon's siren call for patience (and for yet more trillions of dollars) in the
cause of ultimate victory, however poorly defined, farfetched, or far-off. American
society's almost completeisolationfrom war's deadly
effects: We're not being droned (yet). Our cities are not yet lying in ruins (though
they're certainly suffering from a lack of funding, as is our most essential infrastructure , thanks in part to the
cost of those overseas wars). It's nonetheless remarkable how little attention, either in the
media or elsewhere, this country's never-ending war-making gets here. Unnecessary and
sweeping secrecy: How can you resist what you essentially don't know about? Learning its
lesson from the Vietnam War, the Pentagon now
classifies (in plain speak: covers up) the worst aspects of its disastrous wars. This isn't
because the enemy could exploit such details -- the enemy already knows! -- but because the
American people might be roused to something like anger and action by it. Principled whistleblowers like
Chelsea Manning have been imprisoned or otherwise dismissed or, in the case of Edward Snowden,
pursued and indicted for sharing honest
details about the calamitous Iraq War and America's invasive and intrusive surveillance
state. In the process, a clear message of intimidation has been sent to other would-be
truth-tellers. An unrepresentative government: Long ago, of course, Congress
ceded to
the presidency most of its constitutional powers when it comes to making war. Still, despite
recent
attempts to end America's arms-dealing role in the genocidal Saudi war in Yemen (overridden
by Donald Trump's veto power), America's duly elected representatives generally don't represent
the people when it comes to this country's disastrous wars. They are, to put it bluntly,
largely captives of (and sometimes on leaving politics quite literally go
to work for) the military-industrial complex. As long as money is speech ( thank
you , Supreme Court!), the weapons makers are always likely to be able to shout louder in
Congress than you and I ever will. \America's persistent empathy gap.
Despite our size, we are a remarkably insular nation and suffer from a serious empathy gap when it comes to
understanding foreign cultures and peoples or what we're actually doing to them. Even our
globetrotting troops, when not fighting and killing foreigners in battle, often stay on vast
bases, referred to in the military as "Little Americas," complete with familiar stores, fast
food, you name it. Wherever we go, there we are, eating our big burgers, driving our big
trucks, wielding our big guns, and dropping our very big bombs. But
what those bombs do, whom they hurt or kill, whom they displace from their homes and lives,
these are things that Americans turn out to care remarkably little about.
All this puts me sadly in mind of a song popular in my youth, a time when Cat Stevens sang
of a " peace train " that was
"soundin' louder" in America. Today, that peace train's been derailed and replaced by an armed
and armored one eternally prepared for perpetual war -- and that train is indeed soundin'
louder to the great peril of us all.
War on Spaceship Earth
Here's the rub, though: even the
Pentagon knows that our most serious enemy is
climate change , not China or Russia or terror, though in the age of Donald Trump and his
administration of arsonists
its officials can't express themselves on the subject as openly as they otherwise might.
Assuming we don't annihilate ourselves with nuclear weapons first, that means our
real enemy is the endless war we're waging against Planet Earth.
The U.S. military is also a major consumer of fossil fuels and therefore a significant
driver of climate change. Meanwhile, the Pentagon, like any enormously powerful system, only
wants to grow more so, but what's welfare for the military brass isn't wellness for the
planet.
There is, unfortunately, only one Planet Earth, or Spaceship Earth, if you prefer, since
we're all traveling through our galaxy on it. Thought about a certain way, we're its
crewmembers, yet instead of cooperating effectively as its stewards, we seem determined to
fight one another. If a house divided against itself cannot stand, as Abraham Lincoln pointed
out so long ago, surely a spaceship with a disputatious and self-destructive crew is not likely
to survive, no less thrive.
In other words, in waging endless war, Americans are also, in effect, mutinying against the
planet. In the process, we are spoiling the last, best hope of earth: a concerted and pacific
effort to meet the shared challenges of a rapidly warming and changing planet.
Spaceship Earth should not be allowed to remain Warship Earth as well, not when the
existence of
significant parts of humanity is already becoming ever more precarious. Think of us as
suffering from a coolant leak, causing cabin temperatures
to rise even as food and other resources dwindle .
Under the circumstances, what's the best strategy for survival: killing each other while
ignoring the leak or banding together to fix an increasingly compromised ship?
Unfortunately, for America's leaders, the real "fixes" remain global military and resource
domination, even as those resources continue to shrink on an ever-more fragile globe. And as
we've seen recently, the resource part of that fix breeds its own madness, as in President
Trump's recently stated desire to keep U.S. troops in Syria
to steal that country's oil resources, though its wells are largely wrecked (thanks in
significant part to American bombing) and even when repaired would produce only a miniscule
percentage of the world's petroleum.
If America's wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen prove anything,
it's that every war scars our planet -- and hardens our hearts. Every war makes us less human
as well as less humane. Every war wastes resources when these are increasingly at a premium.
Every war is a distraction from higher needs and a better life.
Despite all of war's uses and abuses, its allures and temptations, it's time that we
Americans showed some self-mastery (as well as decency) by putting a stop to the mayhem. Few
enough of us experience "our" wars firsthand and that's precisely why some idealize their
purpose and idolize their practitioners. But war is a bloody, murderous mess and those
practitioners, when not killed or wounded, are marred for life because war functionally makes
everyone involved into a murderer.
We need to stop idealizing war and idolizing its so-called warriors. At stake is
nothing less than the future of humanity and the viability of life, as we know it, on Spaceship
Earth.
I think that the main reason of the current level of militarism in the USA foreign
policy is that after dissolution of the USSR neo-conservatives were allowed to capture the
State Department and foreign policy establishment. This process actually started under
Reagan. During Bush II administration those “crazies from the basement” fully
controlled the US foreign policy and paradoxically they continued to dominate in Obama
administration too.
They preach “Full Spectrum Dominance” (Wolfowitz doctrine) and are not shy to
unleash the wars to enhance the USA strategic position in particular region (color revolution
can be used instead of war, like they in 2014 did in Ukraine). Of course, being chichenhawks,
neither they nor members of their families fight in those wars.
For some reason despite his election platform Trump also populated his administration with
neoconservatives. So it might be that maintaining the USA centered global neoliberal empire
is the real reason and the leitmotiv of the USA foreign policy. that’s why it does not
change with the change of Administration: any government that does not play well with the
neoliberal empire gets in the hairlines.
Which also means that the USA foreign policy is not controlled by the elected
officials but by the “Deep State” (look at Vindman and Fiona Hill testimonies for
the proof). So this is kind of Catch 22 in which the USA have found itself. We will be
bankrupted by our neoconservative foreign establishment (which self-reproduce in each and
every administration). And we can do nothing to avoid it.
Good point. But why the rise of the neocons? Why did they prosper? I'd say because of the
military-industrial complex. Or you might say they feed each other, but the Complex came
first. And of course the Complex is a dominant part of the Deep State. How could it not be?
Add in 17 intelligence agencies, Homeland Security, the Energy Dept's nukes, and you have a
dominant DoD that swallows up more than half of federal discretionary spending each year.
I agree, but it is a little bit more complex. You need an ideology to promote the interests
of MIC. You can't just say -- let's spend more than a half of federal discretionary spending
each year..
That's where neo-conservatism comes into play. So they are not only lobbyists for MIC,
but they also serve as "ideological support", trying to manipulate public opinion in favor of
militarism.
wjastore December 2, 2019 at 12:25 PM
Yes. Ideology is vital. During the Cold War it was all about
containing/resisting/defeating the godless Communists. Once they were defeated, what then? We
heard brief talk about a "peace dividend," but then the neocons came along, selling
full-spectrum dominance and America as the sole superpower.
The neocons were truly unleashed by the 9/11 attacks, which they exploited to put
their vision in motion. The Complex was only too happy to oblige, fed as it was by massive
resources.
Think about how no one was punished for the colossal intelligence failure of 9/11.
Instead, all the intel agencies were rewarded with more money and authority via the PATRIOT
Act.
The Afghan war is an ongoing disaster, the Iraq war a huge misstep, Libya a total failure,
yet the Complex has even more Teflon than Ronald Reagan. All failures slide off of it.
greglaxer , December 2, 2019 at 4:12 PM
There is a still bigger picture to consider in all this. I don't want to open the door to
conspiracy theory–personally, I find the claim that explosives were placed inside the
World Trade Center prior to the strikes by aircraft on 9/11 risible–but it certainly
was convenient for the Regime Change Gang that the Saudi operatives were able to get away
with what they did on that day, and in preparations leading up to it.
Leaving that specific incident aside, the bigger picture is that the brains behind the
Deep State understand that global capitalism is running out of new resources (which includes
human labor) to exploit. Why is the US so concerned with Africa right now, with spies and
Special Forces operatives all over that continent? Africa is the final frontier for
development/exploitation. (The US is also deeply concerned about China's setting down
business roots there, and wants to counterbalance their activities.)
Once the great majority of folks in Africa have cellphones and subscriptions to Netflix
whither capitalism? Trump denies the severity of the climate crisis because that is part of
the ideology/theology of the GOP.
The brains in the US Ruling Class know full well that natural resources will become
ever more valuable moving forward, as weather disasters make it harder to access them. Thus,
the Neo-Cons (you thought I'd never get around to them, right?) came to the fore because they
advocate the unbridled use of brute military force to obtain what they want from the world.
Or, to use their own terminology, the US "must have the capability to project force anywhere
on the planet" at a moment's notice. President Obama was fully in agreement with that
concept. Beware the wolf masquerading as a peaceable sheep!
"... "The cost cannot be measured only in lost opportunities, lives and money. There will be a long hangover of shame. Its essence was summed up by Col. Ted Westhusing, an Army scholar of military ethics who was an innocent witness to corruption, not a participant, when he died at age 44 of a gunshot wound to the head while working for Gen. David Petraeus training Iraqi security forces in Baghdad in 2005. He was at the time the highest-ranking officer to die in Iraq." ..."
"... " 'I cannot support a msn that leads to corruption, human rights abuse and liars,' Colonel Westhusing wrote, abbreviating the word mission. 'I am sullied.' " ..."
In my opinion the most under-reported event of the Iraq war was the suicide of military Ethicist Colonel Ted Westhusing. It was
reported at the end of a Frank Rich column that appeared in the NY Times of 10-21-2007:
"The cost cannot be measured only in lost opportunities, lives and money. There will be a long hangover of shame. Its essence
was summed up by Col. Ted Westhusing, an Army scholar of military ethics who was an innocent witness to corruption, not a participant,
when he died at age 44 of a gunshot wound to the head while working for Gen. David Petraeus training Iraqi security forces in
Baghdad in 2005. He was at the time the highest-ranking officer to die in Iraq."
"Colonel Westhusing's death was ruled a suicide, though some believe he was murdered by contractors fearing a whistle-blower,
according to T. Christian Miller, the Los Angeles Times reporter who documents the case in his book "Blood Money."
Either way, the angry four-page letter the officer left behind for General Petraeus and his other commander, Gen. Joseph Fil,
is as much an epitaph for America's engagement in Iraq as a suicide note."
" 'I cannot support a msn that leads to corruption, human rights abuse and liars,' Colonel Westhusing wrote, abbreviating
the word mission. 'I am sullied.' "
"The tiny pink candies at the bottom of the urinals are reserved for Field Grade and Above." --sign over the urinals in the "O"
Club at Tan Son Nhut Airbase, 1965.
Now that sentiment, is Officer-on-Officer. The same dynamic tension exists throughout all Branches and ranks.
My background includes a Combat Infantry Badge and a record of having made Spec Four , two times. If you don't know what that
means, stop reading here.
I feel that no one should be promoted E-5 or O-4, if they are to command men in battle, unless they have had that life experience
themselves. It becomes virgins instructing on sexual etiquette.
Within the ranks, there exists a disdain for officers, in general. Some officers overcome this by their actions, but the vast
majority cement that assessment the same way.
What makes the thing run is the few officers who are superior human beings, and the NCOs who are of that same tribe. And there
is a love there, from top to bottom and bottom to top, a brotherhood of warriors which the civilian population will forever try
to discern, parse and examine to their lasting frustration and ignorance.
It is the spirit of this nation [Liberty, e pluribus unum and In God We Trust ] that is the binding filament of it all. The
civilians responsible for the welfare of the armed services need to be more fully aware of that spirit and they need to bring
it into the air-conditioned offices they inhabit when they make decisions about men who know sacrifice.
According to the US Census there are 3031 counties in the US.
If we redirected the $3.8 billion plus the 500,000,000 for missile defense that we give
Israel to US counties budgets each county would receive about
$ 1.3 million.
If we included the $1.2 billion each we give to Egypt and Jordon for signing the Carter
peace treaty with Israel that figure increases to $2.3 million for each county.
While $2.3 million may be a small figure for counties with metro cities, it would be a
large amount for the majority of counties across the nation.
Since aid to Israel alone accounts for 50% of US foreign aid who would oppose this re
direct of taxpayers money...besides the politicians...and how would the politicians explain
their opposition to the districts they supposedly represent?
snake @95 argues "the deep state does not exist" with circular logic that is massively off
target.
The deep state is individuals INSIDE the government that do the bidding of the banksters,
the military-industrial complex, the globalists and other nefarious interests. None of those
interests have the ability to make policy and implement regime changes without the deep
state. Yes, outside interests drive the actions of the deep state, but no, those outside
interests have no ability to accomplish anything without their deep state operatives.
If the US federal government bureaucracy was a) much less powerful, b) much more
transparent, and c) more responsive to elected leaders, then none of the bad things would
happen. A pipe dream? Yes - but it is erroneous to make a simple declaration "the deep state
doesn't exist" without any rational arguments to refute my points in @72.
Thank you for your post. You say that there is a deep state, but you then go on to tell us
it is not as deep as we imagine. So, I posit we should call it "the shallow state". It is the
foam on the edge of the sea as it begins to recede from a high tide of corrupt practices,
delicate and lacy at the edges and so mesmerizing and attractive to some. But it is receding.
And out there as it departs the Deep People are waiting. They are the depths of an ocean that
never disappears. At low tide they are still there, and they will feed the incoming tide. At
the turn.
And I also say, you may not care what the future brings, but I do. I have a little
granson, born on my birthday, gazing at me with twinkling eyes from his photograph across the
room. Family is also something we can call Deep and be truthful about that. It runs in both
directions, past and future. The Deep People have Deep Families.
And yes, I know, other grandsons have met untimely deaths this century and are counted as
'collateral damage' by the shallow state. Still they are with us as the past is always with
us; they deepen our persons in unaccountable but irreversible ways. They strengthen our
family commitments. They are always here, in our memories and in our strengths. They are not
collateral; they are the fabric of our determinations, our life blood.
The Deep People do care what happens. The twinkle in their grandsons' eyes burns in
their hearts. It is a fire, a consuming force. It never dies.
"deep state", "deep people", "the swamp" .. a rose by any other name would smell just as
rancid.
"deep people" implies a small, isolated group. IMO, it's more like an iceberg than
seashore foam. 90% of it is hidden from view.
My point was that snake's blame of the oligarchs misses the target. I look at them the way
I look at any other predator - if the opportunity exists, they will take it. The deep state
is THE necessary ingredient for the evil that the US government does.
I too have grandchildren. I am convinced that their lives will be less free, less
prosperous, with less opportunity than what the seven generations of Wills family before me
have experienced in the US for the last 275 years. So what can I do about it? Typing on my
keyboard certainly won't make one whit of difference...
"... We drove for hours through the desert, towards the Iraqi border. Approx. 20-30 kilometers from the border, there really was nothing. First of all no war. There were armored vehicles and tanks, burned-out long ago. The journalist left the bus, splashed the contents of the cans on the vehicles. We had Iraqi soldiers with us as an escort, with machine guns, in uniform. You have to imagine: tanks in a desert, burned out long ago, now put on fire. Clouds of smoke. And there the journalists assemble their cameras. ..."
"... So I gathered courage and asked one of the reporters: 'I understand one thing, they are great pictures, but why are they ducking all the time? ' ..."
"... I'll finish, because I am not here to make satire today. I just want to say that this was my first experience with truth in journalism and war reporting. ..."
"... Then a certain type of reporting is expected. Which one? Forget my newspaper, this applies in general. At the start of the trip, the journalist gets a memo – today it is electronic – in his hand. If you are traveling abroad, it is info about the country, or the speeches that will be held. This file contains roughly what will happen during this trip. In addition there are short conversations, briefings with the politician's press manager. He then explains to you how one views this trip. Naturally, you should see it the same way. No one says it in that way. But is is approximately what one would have reported. ..."
"... He explained that a recruitment board from the intelligence services had participated. But I had no idea that the seminar Introduction to Conflict Studies was arranged by the defense forces and run by the foreign intelligence service BND, to have a closer look at potential candidates among the students, not to commit them. They only asked if they, after four such seminars, possibly could contact me later, in my occupation. ..."
"... Two persons from BND came regularly to the paper, to a visiting room. And there were occasions when the report not only was given, but also that BND had written articles, largely ready to go, that were published in the newspaper under my byline. ..."
"... But a couple of journalists were there, they told about it. Therefore I repeat: Merkel invited the chief editors several times, and told them she didn't want the population to be truthfully and openly informed about the problems out there. For example, the background for the financial crisis. If the citizens knew how things were, they would run to the bank and withdraw their money. So beautifying everything; everything is under control; your savings are safe; just smile and hold hands – everything will be fine. ..."
"... From one hour 18 minutes onwards, Ulfkotte details EU-Inter-State Terror Co-operation, with returning IS Operatives on a Free Pass, fully armed and even Viktor Orban had to give in to the commands of letting Terrorists through Hungary into Germany & Austria. ..."
"... Everybody who works in the MSM, without exception, are bought and paid for whores peddling lies on behalf of globalist corporate interests. ..."
"... Udo's voice (in the form of his book) was silenced for a reason – that being that he spoke the truth about our utterly and completely corrupt Western fantasy world in which we in the West proclaim our – "respect international law" and "respect for human rights." His work, such as this interview and others he has done, pulled the curtain back on the big lie and exposed our oligarchs, politicians and the "journalists" they hire as simply a cadre of professional criminals whose carefully crafted lies are used to soak up the blood and to cover the bodies of the dead, all in order to hide all that mayhem from our eyes, to insure justice is an impossibility and to make sure we Western citizens sleep well at night, oblivious to our connection to the actual realities that are this daily regime of pillage and plunder that is our vaunted "neoliberal order." ..."
"... "The philosopher Diogenes (of Sinope) was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king. Said Aristippus, 'If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.' To which Diogenes replied, 'Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king"." ..."
"... So Roosevelt pushed Hitler to attack Stalin? Hitler didn't want to go East? Revisionism at it most motive free. ..."
"... Pushing' is synonymous for a variety of ways to instigate a desired outcome. Financing is just one way. And Roosevelt was in no way the benevolent knight history twisters like to present him. You are outing yourself again as an easliy duped sheep. ..."
"... Lebensraum was first popularized in 1901 in Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum Hitler's "Mein Kampf" ( 1925) build on that: he had no need for any American or other push, it was intended from the get go. ..."
"... This excellent article demonstrates how the Controlling Elite manipulates the Media and the Message for purposes of misdirecting attention and perception of their true intentions and objective of securing Global Ownership (aka New World Order). ..."
"... Corporate Journalism is all about corporatism and the continuation of it. If the Intelligence Community needs greater fools for staffing purposes in the corporate hierarchy they look for anyone that can be compromised via inducements of whatever the greater fools want. ..."
"... Bought & paid for corporate Journalists are controlled by the Intelligence Agencies and always have been since at least the Second World War. The CIA typically runs bribery & blackmail at the state & federal level so that when necessary they have instant useless eaters to offer up as political sacrifice when required via state run propaganda, & impression management. ..."
"... Assuming that journalism is an ethical occupation is naďve and a fools' game even in the alternative news domain as all writers write from bias & a lack of real knowledge. Few writers are intellectually honest or even aware of their own limits as writers. The writer is a failure and not a hero borne in myth. Writers struggle to write & publish. Bought and paid for writers don't have a struggle in terms of writing because they are told what to write before they write as automatons for the Intelligence Community knowing that they sold their collective souls to the Prince of Darkness for whatever trinkets, bobbles, or bling they could get their greedy hands on at the time. ..."
"... Once pond scum always pond scum. ..."
"... It is a longer process in which one is gradually introduced to ever more expensive rewards/bribes. Never too big to overwhelm – always just about what one would accept as 'motivation' to omit aspects of any issue. Of course, omission is a lie by any other name, but I can attest to the life style of a journalist that socializes with the leaders of all segments of society. ..."
"... Professional whoring is as old as the hills and twice as dusty. Being ethical is difficult stuff especially when money is involved. Money is always a prime motivator but vanity works wonders too. Corporatists will offer whatever inducements they can to get what they want. ..."
"... All mainstream media voices are selling a media package that is a corporatist lie in and of itself. Truth is less marketable than lies. Embellished news & journalistic hype is the norm ..."
In 2014, the German journalist and writer Udo Ulfkotte published a book that created a big stir, describing how the journalistic
profession is thoroughly corrupt and infiltrated by intelligence services.
Although eagerly anticipated by many, the English translation of the book, Bought Journalists , does not seem to be forthcoming
anytime soon.
So I have made English subtitles and transcribed this still very relevant 2015-lecture for those that are curious about Ulfkotte's
work. It covers many of the subjects described in the book.
Udo Ulfkotte died of a heart attack in January 2017, in all likelihood part of the severe medical complications he got from his
exposure to German-made chemical weapons supplied to Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s.
Transcription
[Only the first 49 minutes are translated; the second half of the lecture deals mostly with more local issues]
Introducer Oliver: I am very proud to have such a brave man amongst us: Udo Ulfkotte
Udo Ulfkotte: Thanks Thanks for the invitation Thanks to Oliver. I heard to my great surprise from Oliver that he didn't
know someone from the intelligence services (VVS) would be present. I wish him a warm welcome. I don't mean that as a joke, I heard
this in advance, and got to know that Oliver didn't know. If he wants – if it is a man – he can wave. If not? no? [laughter from
the audience]
I'm fine with that. You can write down everything, or record it; no problem.
To the lecture. We are talking about media. we are talking about truth. I don't want to sell you books or such things. Each one
of us asks himself: Why do things develop like they do, even though the majority, or a lot of people shake their heads.
The majority of people in Germany don't want nuclear weapons on our territory. But we have nuclear weapons here. The majority
don't want foreign interventions by German soldiers. But we do.
What media narrates and the politicians say, and what the majority of the population believes – seems often obviously to be two
different things.
I can tell you this myself, from many years experience. I will start with very personal judgments, to tell you what my experiences
with 'The Lying Media' were – I mean exactly that with the word 'lying'.
I was born in a fairly poor family. I am a single child. I grew up on the eastern edge of the Ruhr-area. I studied Law, Political
Science and Islamic Studies. Already in my student years, I had contact with the German Foreign Intelligence, BND. We will get back
to that later.
From 1986 to 2003, I worked for a major German newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), amongst other things as a war
reporter. I spent a lot of time in Eastern and African countries.
Now to the subject of lying media. When I was sent to the Iran-Iraq war for the first time, the first time was from 1980 to July
1986, I was sent to this war to report for FAZ. The Iraqis were then 'the good guys'.
I was bit afraid. I didn't have any experience as a war reporter. Then I arrived in Baghdad. I was fairly quickly sent along in
a bus by the Iraqi army, the bus was full of loud, experienced war reporters, from such prestigious media as the BBC, several foreign
TV-stations and newspapers, and me, poor newbie, who was sent to the front for the first time without any kind of preparation. The
first thing I saw was that they all carried along cans of petrol. And I at once got bad consciousness, because I thought: "oops,
if the bus gets stuck far from a petrol station, then everyone chips in with a bit of diesel'. I decided to in the future also carry
a can before I went anywhere, because it obviously was part of it.
We drove for hours through the desert, towards the Iraqi border. Approx. 20-30 kilometers from the border, there really was nothing.
First of all no war. There were armored vehicles and tanks, burned-out long ago. The journalist left the bus, splashed the contents
of the cans on the vehicles. We had Iraqi soldiers with us as an escort, with machine guns, in uniform. You have to imagine: tanks
in a desert, burned out long ago, now put on fire. Clouds of smoke. And there the journalists assemble their cameras.
It was my first experience with media, truth in reporting.
While I was wondering what the hell I was going to report for my newspaper, they all lined up and started: Behind them were flames
and plumes of smoke, and all the time the Iraqis were running in front of camera with their machine guns, casually, but with war
in their gaze. And the reporters were ducking all the time while talking.
So I gathered courage and asked one of the reporters: 'I understand one thing, they are great pictures, but why are they ducking
all the time? '
'Quite simply because there are machine guns on the audio track, and it looks very good at home.'
That was several decades ago. It was in the beginning of my contact with war. I was thinking, the whole way back:'Young man, you
didn't see a war. You were in a place with a campfire. What are you going to tell?'
I returned to Baghdad. There weren't any mobile phones then. We waited in Hotel Rashid and other hotels where foreigners stayed,
sometimes for hours for an international telephone line. I first contacted my mother, not my newspaper. I was in despair, didn't
know what to do, and wanted to get advice from an elder person.
Then my mother shouted over the phone: 'My boy, you are alive!' I thought: 'How so? Is everything OK?'
'My boy, we thought ' 'What's the matter, mother?' 'We saw on TV what happened around you' TV had already sent lurid stories, and I tried to calm my mother down, it didn't happen like that. She thought I had lost my mind
from all the things that had happened in the war – she saw it with her own eyes!
I'll finish, because I am not here to make satire today. I just want to say that this was my first experience with truth in journalism
and war reporting.
That is, I was very shocked by the first contact, it was entirely different from what I had experienced. But it wasn't an exceptional
case.
In the beginning, I mentioned that I am from a fairly poor family. I had to work hard for everything. I was a single child, my
father died when I was young. It didn't matter further on. But, I had a job, I had a degree, a goal in life.
I now had the choice: Should I declare that the whole thing was nonsense, these reports? I was nothing, a newbie straight out
of uni, in my first job. Or if I wanted to make money, to continue, look further. I chose the second option. I continued, and that
for many years.
Over these years, I gained lots of experience. When one comes from university to a big German newspaper – everything I say doesn't
only apply to FAZ, you can take other German or European media. I had contact with other European journalists, from reputable media
outlets. I later worked in other media. I can tell you: What I am about to tell you, I really discovered everywhere.
What did I experience? If you, as a reporter, work either in state media financed by forced license fees, or in the big private
media companies, then you can't write what you want yourself, what you feel like. There are certain guidelines.
Roughly speaking: everyone knows that you won't, for example in the Springer-newspapers – Bild, die Welt – get published articles
extremely critical of Israel. They stand no chance there, because one has to sign a statement that one is pro-Israel, that one won't
question the existence of the state of Israel or Israeli points of view, etc.
There are some sort of guidelines in all the big media companies. But that isn't all: I learned very fast that if one doesn't
– I don't mean this negatively – want to be stuck in the lower rungs of editors, if one wants to rise; for me this rise was that
I was allowed to travel with the Chancellor, ministers, the president and politicians, in planes owned by the state; then one has
to keep to certain subjects. I learned that fast.
That is, if one gets to follow a politician – and this hasn't changed to this day – I soon realized that when I followed the president
or Chancellor Helmut Kohl etc, one of course isn't invited because your name is Udo Ulfkotte, but because you belong to the newspaper
Frankfurter Allgemeine.
Then a certain type of reporting is expected. Which one? Forget my newspaper, this applies in general. At the start of the trip,
the journalist gets a memo – today it is electronic – in his hand. If you are traveling abroad, it is info about the country, or
the speeches that will be held. This file contains roughly what will happen during this trip. In addition there are short conversations,
briefings with the politician's press manager. He then explains to you how one views this trip. Naturally, you should see it the
same way. No one says it in that way. But is is approximately what one would have reported.
All the time you no one tells you to write it this or that way but you know quite exactly that if you DON'T write it this or that
way,then you won't get invited next time. Your media outlet will be invited, but they say 'we don't want him along'. Then you are
out.
Naturally you want to be invited. Of course it is wonderful to travel abroad and you can behave like a pig, no one cares. You
can buy what you want, because you know that when you return, you won't be checked. You can bring what you want. I had colleagues
who went along on a trip to the US.
They brought with them – it was an air force plane – a Harley Davidson, in parts. They sold it when they were back in Germany,
and of course earned on it. Anyway, just like the carpet-affair with that development minister, this is of course not a single instance.
No one talks about it.
You get invited if you have a certain way of seeing things. Which way to see things? Where and how is this view of the world formed?
I very often get asked: 'Where are these people behind the curtain who pulls the wires, so that everything gets told in a fairly
similar way?'
In the big media in Germany – just look yourself – who sit in the large transatlantic think-tanks and foundations,the foundation
The Atlantic Bridge, all these organizations, and how is one influenced there? I can tell from my own experience.
We mustn't talk only theoretically. I was invited by the think-tank The German Marshall Fund of the United States as a fellow.
I was to visit the United States for six weeks. It was fully paid. During these six weeks I could this think-tank has very close
connections to the CIA to this day, they acquired contacts in the CIA for me and they got me access to American politicians, to everyone
I wanted. Above all, they showered me with gifts.
Already before the journey with German Marshall Fund, I experienced plenty of bought journalism. This hasn't to do with a particular
media outlet. You see, I was invited and didn't particularly reflect over it, by billionaires, for example sultan Quabboos of Oman
on the Arabian peninsula.
When sultan Qabboos invited, and a poor boy like me could travel to a country with few inhabitants but immense wealth, where the
head of state had the largest yachts in the world, his own symphony orchestra which plays for him when he wants – by the way he bought
a pub close to Garmisch-Patenkirchen, because he is a Muslim believer, and someone might see him if he drank in his own country,
so he rather travels there. The place he bought every day fly in fresh lamb from Ireland and Scotland with his private jet. He is
also the head of an environmental foundation.
But this is a digression. If such a person, who is so incredibly rich, invites someone like me, then I arrive first class. I had
never traveled first class before. We arrive, and a driver is waiting for me. He carries your suitcase or backpack. You have a suite
in the hotel. And from the very start, you are showered with gifts. You get a platinum or gold coin. A hand-weaved carpet or whatever.
I interviewed the sultan, several times. He asked me what I wanted. I answered among other things a diving course. I wanted to
learn how to dive. He flew in a PADI-approved instructor from Greece. I was there for two weeks and got my first diving certificate.
On later occasions, the sultan flew me in several times, and the diving instructor. I got a certificate as rescue diver, all paid
for by the sultan. You see, when one is attended to in such a way, then you know that you are bought. For a certain type of journalism.
In the sultan's country, there is no freedom of the press.
There are no human rights. It is illegal to import many writings, because the sultan does not wish so. There are reports about
human rights violations, but my eyes are blind. I reported, like all German media when they report about the Sultanate of Oman, to
this day, only positive things. The great sultan, who is wonderful. The fantastic country of the fairy tale prince, overshadowing
everything else – because I was bought.
Apart from Oman, many others have bought me. They also bought colleagues. I got many invitations through the travel section in
my big newspaper. 5-star. The reportage never mentioned that I was bought, by country A or B or C. Yemenia, the Yemeni state airline,
invited me to such a trip.
I didn't report about the dirt and dilapidation in the country, because I was influenced by this treatment, I only reported positively,
because I wanted to come back. The Yemenis asked me when I had returned to Frankfurt what I wished In jest, I said "your large prawns,
from the Red Sea, from the Indian Ocean, they were spectacular.", from the seaport of Mocha (Mocha-coffee is named after it). Two
days later, Yemenia flew in a buffet for the editorial office, with prawns and more.
Of course we were bought. We were bought in several ways. In your situation: when you buy a car or something else, you trust consumer
tests. Look closer. How well is the car tested? I know of no colleagues, no journalists, who do testing of cars, that aren't bribed
– maybe they do exist.
They get unlimited access to a car from the big car manufacturers, with free petrol and everything else. I had a work car in my
newspaper, if not, I might have exploited this. I had a BMW or Mercedes in the newspaper. But there are, outside the paper, many
colleagues who only have this kind of vehicle all year round. They are invited to South Africa, Malaysia, USA, to the grandest travels,
when a new car is presented.
Why? So that they will write positively about the car. But it doesn't say in these reports "Advertisement from bought journalists".
But that is the reality. You should also know – since we are on the subjects of tests – who owns which test magazines? Who owns
the magazine Eco-test? It is owned by the Social Democrats. More than a hundred magazines belong to the Social Democrats. It isn't
about only one party, but many editorial rooms have political allegiance. Behind them are party political interests.
I mentioned the sultan of Oman and the diving course, and I have mentioned German Marshall Fund. Back to the US and the German
Marshall Fund. There one told me, they knew exactly, 'hello, you were on a diving course in Oman ' The CIA knew very precisely. And
the CIA also gave me something: The diving gear. I received the diving gear in the United States, and I received in the US, during
my 6-week stay there, an invitation from the state of Oklahoma, from the governor. I went there. It was a small ceremony, and I received
an honorary citizenship.
I am now honorary citizen of an American state. And in this certificate, it is written that I will only cover the US positively.
I accepted this honorary citizenship and was quite proud of it. I proudly told about it to a colleague who worked in the US. He said
'ha, I already have 31 of these honorary citizenships!'
I don't tell about this to be witty, today I am ashamed, really.
I was greedy. I accepted many advantages that a regular citizen at my age in my occupation doesn't have, and shouldn't have. But
I perceived it – and that is no excuse – as entirely normal, because my colleagues around me all did the same. But this isn't normal.
When journalists are invited to think-tanks in the US, like German Marshall Fund, Atlantic Bridge, it is to 'bring them in line',
for in a friendly way to make them complicit, naturally to buy them, to grease them with money.
This has quite a few aspects that one normally doesn't talk about. When I for the first time was in Southern Africa, in the 80s,
Apartheid still existed in South Africa, segregated areas for blacks and whites. We didn't have any problems with this in my newspaper,
we received fully paid journeys from the Apartheid regime to do propaganda work.
I was invited by the South-African gold industry, coal industry, tourist board. In the first invitation, this trip was to Namibia
– I arrived tired to the hotel room in Windhoek and a dark woman lay in my bed. I at once left the room, went down to the reception
and said 'excuse me, but the room is already occupied' [laughter from the audience]
Without any fuss I got another room.
Next day at the breakfast table, this was a journalist trip, my colleagues asked me 'how was yours?' Only then I understood what
had happened. Until then, I had believed it was a silly coincidence.
With this I want to describe which methods are used, maybe to film journalists in such situations, buy, make dependent. Quite
simply to win them over to your side with the most brutal methods, so that they are 'brought in line'.
This doesn't happen to every journalist. It would be a conspiracy theory if I said that behind every journalist, someone pulls
the wires.
No. Not everyone has influence over the masses. When you – I don't mean this negatively – write about folk costume societies or
if you work with agriculture or politics, why should anyone from the upper political spheres have an interest in controlling the
reporting? As far as I know, this doesn't happen at all.
But if you work in one of the big media, and want up in this world, if you want to travel with politicians, heads of state, with
CEOs, who also travel on these planes, then it happens. Then you are regularly bought, you are regularly observed.
I said earlier that I already during my study days had contact with the intelligence services.
I will quickly explain this to you, because it is very important for this lecture.
I studied law, Political Science and Islamology, among other places in Freiburg. At the very beginning of my study, just before
end of the term, a professor approached me. Professors were then still authority figures.
He came with a brochure, and asked me: 'Mr. Ulfkotte, what are your plans for this vacation?'
I couldn't very well say that I first planned to work a bit at a building site, for then to grab my backpack and see the ocean
for the first time in my life, to Italy, 'la dolce vita', flirting with girls, lie on the beach and be a young person.
I wondered how I would break it to him. He then came with a brochure [Ulfkotte imitating professor]: 'I have something for
you a seminar, Introduction to Conflict Studies, two weeks in Bonn I am sure you would want to participate!'
I wondered how I would tell this elderly gentleman that I wanted to flirt with girls on the beach. Then he said 'you will get
20 Marks per day as support, paid train journey, money for books 150 Marks You will naturally get board and lodging.' He didn't stop
telling me what I would receive.
It buzzed around in my head that I had to achieve everything myself, work hard. I thought 'You have always wanted to participate
in a seminar on Introduction to Conflict Studies!'
So I went to Bonn from Freiburg, and I saw other students who had this urge to participate in this seminar. There were also girls
one could flirt with, about twenty people. The whole thing was very strange, because we sat in a room like this one, there were desks
and a lectern, and there sat some older men and a woman, they always wrote something down. They asked us about things; What we thought
of East Germany, we had to do role play.
The whole thing was a bit strange, but it was well paid. We didn't reflect any further. It was very strange that in this house,
in Ubierstraße 88 in Bonn, we weren't allowed to go to the second floor. There was a chain over the stairs, it was taboo.
We were allowed to go to the basement, there were constantly replenished supplies of new books that we were allowed to get for
free. Ebay didn't exist then, but we could still sell them used. Anyway, it was curious, but at the end of the fortnight, we were
allowed to go up these stairs, where we got an invitation to a continuation course in Conflict Studies.
After four such seminars, that is, after two years, someone asked me 'you have probably wondered what we are doing here'.
He explained that a recruitment board from the intelligence services had participated. But I had no idea that the seminar Introduction
to Conflict Studies was arranged by the defense forces and run by the foreign intelligence service BND, to have a closer look at
potential candidates among the students, not to commit them. They only asked if they, after four such seminars, possibly could contact
me later, in my occupation.
They gave me a lot of money. My mother has always taught me to be polite. So I said 'please do', and they came to me. I was then
working in the newspaper FAZ from 1986, straight after my studies.
Then the intelligence services came fairly soon to me. Why am I telling you this? The newspaper knew very soon. It is also written in my reference, therefore I can say it loud and clear. I had very close contact with the intelligence service BND.
Two persons from BND came regularly to the paper, to a visiting room. And there were occasions when the report not only was given,
but also that BND had written articles, largely ready to go, that were published in the newspaper under my byline.
I highlight certain things to explain them. But if I had said here: 'There are media that are influenced by BND', you could rightly
say that 'these are conspiracy theories, can you document it?'
I CAN document it. I can say, this and that article, with my byline in the paper, is written by the intelligence services, because
what is written there, I couldn't have known. I couldn't have known what existed in some cave or other in Libya, what secret thing
were there, what was being built there. This was all things that BND wanted published. It wasn't like this only in FAZ.
It was like this also in other media. I told about it. If we had rule of law, there would now be an investigation commission.
Because the political parties would stand up, regardless of if they are on the left, in the center or right, and say: What this Ulfkotte
fella says and claims he can document, this should be investigated. Did this occur in other places? Or is it still ongoing?'
I can tell you: Yes it still exists. I know colleagues who still have this close contact. One can probably show this fairly well
until a few years ago. But I would find it wonderful if this investigation commission existed.
But it will obviously not happen, because no one has an interest in doing so. Because then the public would realize how closely
integrated politics, media, and the secret services are in this country.
That is, one often sees in reporting, whether it is from the local paper, regional papers, TV-channels, national tabloids and
so-called serious papers.
Put them side by side, and you will discover that more than 90% looks almost identical. A lot of subjects and news, that are not
being reported at all, or they are – I claim reported very one-sided. One can only explain this if one knows the structures in the
background, how media is surrounded, bought and 'brought onboard' by politics and the intelligence services; Where politics and intelligence
services form a single unity. There is an intelligence coordinator by the Chancellor.
I can tell you, that under the former coordinator Bernd Schmidbauer, under Kohl, I walked in and out of the Chancellery and received
stacks of secret and confidential documents, which I shouldn't have received.
They were so many that we in the newspaper had own archive cabinets for them. Not only did I receive these documents,but Schmidbauer
should have been in jail if we had rule of law. Or there should have been a parliamentary commission or an investigation, because
he wasn't allowed
For example if I couldn't bring along the documents if the case was too hot, there was another trick. They locked me in a room.
In this room were the documents, which I could look through. I could record it all on tape, photograph them or write them down. When
I was done, I could call on the intercom, so they could lock me out. There were thousands of these tricks. Anonymous documents that
I and my colleagues needed could be placed in my mail box.
These are of course illegal things. BUT, you ONLY get them if you 'toe the line' with politics.
If I had written that Chancellor Helmut Kohl is stupid, a big idiot, or about what Schmidbauer did, I would of course not have
received more. That is, if you today, in newspapers, read about 'soon to be revealed exposures, we will publish a big story based
on material based on intelligence', then none of these media have dug a tunnel under the security services and somehow got hold of
something secret. It is rather that they work so well with intelligence services, with the military counterespionage, the foreign
intelligence, police intelligence etc, that if they have got hold of internal documents, it is because they cooperate so well that
they received them as a reward for well performed service.
You see, in this way one is in the end bought. One is bought to such a degree that at one point one can't exit this system anymore.
If I describe how you are supplied with prostitutes, bribed with cars, money; I tried to write down everything I received in gifts,
everything I was bribed with. I stopped doing so several years ago, more than a decade ago.
It doesn't make it any better, but today I regret everything. But I know that it goes this way with many journalists.
It would make me very happy if journalists stood up and said they won't participate in this any longer, and that they think this
is wrong.
But I see no possibility, because media corporations in any case are doing badly. Where should a journalist find work the next
day? It isn't so that tens of thousands of employers are waiting for you. It is the other way round. Tens of thousands of journalists
are looking for work or commissions.
That is, from pure desperation one is happy to be bribed. If a newsroom stands behind or not an article that in reality is advertising,
doesn't matter, one goes along. I know some, even respected journalists, who want to leave this system.
But imagine if you are working in one of the state channels, that you stand up and tell what you have received. How will that
be received by your colleagues? That you have political ulterior motives etc.
September 30 [2015], a few days ago, Chancellor Merkel invited all the directors in the state channels to her in the Chancellery.
I will claim that she talked with them about how one should report the Chancellors politics. Who of you [in the audience] heard about
this incident? 3-4-5? So a small minority. But this is reality. Merkel started already 6 years ago, at the beginning of the financial
crisis, to invite chief editors ..she invited chief editors in the large media corporations, with the express wish that media should
embellish reality, in a political way. This could have been only claims, one could believe me or not.
But a couple of journalists were there, they told about it. Therefore I repeat: Merkel invited the chief editors several times,
and told them she didn't want the population to be truthfully and openly informed about the problems out there. For example, the background for the financial crisis. If the citizens knew how things were, they would run to the bank and withdraw
their money. So beautifying everything; everything is under control; your savings are safe; just smile and hold hands – everything
will be fine.
In such a way it should be reported. Ladies and gentlemen, what I just said can be documented. These are facts, not a conspiracy
theory.
I formulated it a bit satirically, but I ask myself when I see how things are in this country: Is this the democracy described
in the Constitution? Freedom of speech? Freedom of the press?
Where one has to be afraid if one doesn't agree with the ruling political correctness, if one doesn't want to get in trouble.
Is this the republic our parents and grandparents fought for, that they built?
I claim that we more and more – as citizens – are cowards 'toeing the line', who don't open our mouths.
It is so nice to have plurality and diversity of opinions.
But it is at once clamped down on, today fairly openly.
Of my experiences with journalism, I can in general say that I have quit all media I have to pay for, for the reasons mentioned.
Then the question arises, 'but which pay-media can I trust?'
Naturally there are ones I support. They are definitely political, I'll add. But they are all fairly small. And they won't be
big anytime soon. But I have quit all big media that I used to subscribe to, Der Spiegel, Frankfurter Allgemeine, etc. I would like
to not having to pay the TV-license fee, without being arrested because I won't pay fines. But maybe someone here in the audience
can tell me how to do so without all these problems?
Either way, I don't want to financially support this kind of journalism. I can only give you the advice to get information from
alternative, independent media and all the forums that exist.
I'm not advertising for any of them. Some of you probably know that I write for the publishing house Kopp. But there are so many
portals. Every person is different in political viewpoint, culturally etc. The only thing uniting us, whether we are black or white,
religious or non-religious, right or left, or whatever; we all want to know the truth. We want to know what really happens out there,
and exactly in the burning political questions: asylum seekers, refugees, the financial crisis, bad infrastructure, one doesn't know
how it will continue. Precisely with this background, is it even more important that people get to know the truth.
And it is to my great surprise that I conclude that we in media, as well as in politics, have a guiding line.
To throw more and more dust in the citizens' eyes to calm them down. What is the sense in this? One can have totally different
opinions on the subject of refugees with good reasoning.
But facts are important for you as citizens to decide the future. That is, how many people will arrive? How will it affect my
personal affluence? Or will it affect my affluence at all? Will the pensions shrink? etc. Then you can talk with people about this,
quite openly. But to say that we should open all borders, and that this won't have any negative consequences, is very strange. What
I now say isn't a plug for my books. I know that some of them are on the table in front.
I'm not saying this so that you will buy books. I am saying this for another reason that soon will be clear. I started to write
books on certain subjects 18 years ago. They have sold millions. It is no longer about you buying my books. It is important that
you hear the titles, then you will see a certain line throughout the last ten years. One can have different opinions about this line,
but I have always tried to describe, based on my subjective experiences, formed over many years in the Middle East and Africa.
That there will be migration flows, from people from culture areas that are like; if one could compare a cultural area with an
engine, that one fills petrol in a diesel engine then everyone knows what will happen, the engine is great, diesel is great, but
if there too much petrol, then the engine starts to splutter and stop.
I have tried to make you aware of this, with drastic and less drastic words. What we can expect, and ever faster. The book titles
are SOS Occident; Warning Civil War; No Black,Red, Yellow [the colors in the German flag], Holy War in Europe; Mecca Germany.
I just want to say, when politicians and media today claim no one could have predicted it, everything is a complete surprise;
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is not at all surprising. The migration flows, for years warnings have been coming from international
organizations, politicians, experts, exactly about what happened and it is predictable, if we had a map over North Africa and the
Middle East..
If the West continues to destabilize countries like Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, country by country, Iraq when we toppled Saddam
Hussein, Afghanistan. We as Europeans and Germans have spent tens of billions on a war where we allegedly defend peace and liberty,
at the mountain range Hindu Kush [in Afghanistan]. And here, in front of our own door, we soon have Hindu Kush.
We have no stabilization in Afghanistan. Dozens of German soldiers have lost their lives for nothing. We have a more unstable
situation than ever.
You can have your own opinions. I am only saying that these refugee flows didn't fall from the sky. It is predicable, that if
I bomb and destabilize a country, that people – it is always so in history – it hasn't anything to do with the Middle East or North
Africa. I have seen enough wars in Africa. Naturally they created refugee flows.
But all of us didn't want to see this. We haven't prepared. And now one is reacting in full panic, and what is most disconcerting
with this, is when media and politicians, allegedly from deepest inner conviction, say: 'this was all a complete surprise!'
Are they drunk? What are they smoking? What sort of pills are they eating? That they behave this way?
End transcription
The transcription has been edited for clarity, and may differ from the spoken word. The subtitles and transcription are for the
first 49 minutes of the lecture only. Subtitled and transcribed by Terje Maloy. This article is Creative Commons 4.0 for non-commercial
purposes.
Terje Maloy (
Website ) is a Norwegian citizen, with roots north of the Arctic Circle. Nowadays, he spends a lot of time in Australia, working
in the family business. He has particular interests in liberty, global justice, imperialism, history, media analysis and what Western
governments really are up to. He runs a blog , mostly in Norwegian,
but occasionally in English. He likes to write about general geopolitical matters, and Northern Europe in particular, presenting
perspectives that otherwise barely are mentioned in the dominant media (i.e. most things that actually matter).
Tim Jenkins
From 1:18 minutes, Ulfkotte reveals without question, that the EU Political 'elite's' combined intelligence services work with
& propagate . . .
Terror, Terrorists & Terrorism / a conscious organised Politics of FEAR ! / Freedom of Movement, of fully armed IS Agents
Provocateurs & with a Secret Services get out of jail free card, 'Hände Weg Nicht anfassen', it's 'Hammertime', "U Can't
Touch this", we're armed state operatives travelling to Germany & Austria, " don't mess with my operation !" & all journalists'
hands tied, too.
The suggestions & offers below to translate fully, what Ulfkotte declares publicly, make much sense. It is important to understand
that even an 'Orban' must bow occasionally, to deep state Security State Dictators and the pressures they can exert in so many
ways. Logic . . . or else one's life is made into hell, alive or an 'accidental' death: – and may I add, it is a curiously depressing
feeling when you have so many court cases on the go, that when a Gemeinde/Municipality Clerk is smiling, celebrating and telling
you, (representing yourself in court, with only independent translator & recorder), "You Won the Case, a superior judge has over-ruled
" and the only reply possible is,
"Which case number ?"
life gets tedious & time consuming, demanding extreme patience. Given his illness, surely Ulfkotte and his wife, deserve/d
extra credit & 'hot chocolate'. Makes a change to see & read some real journalism: congrats.@OffG
Excellent Professional Journalism on "Pseudo-Journalist State Actors & Terrorists". If you see a terrorist, guys, at
best just reason with him or her :- better than calling
INTERPOL or Secret Services @theguardian, because you wouldn't want a member of the public, grassing you up to your boss, would
you now ? ! Just tell the terrorist who he really works for . . . Those he resents ! Rather like Ulfkotte had to conclude,
with final resignation. My condolences to his good wife.
Wilmers31
Very good of you to not forget Ulfkotte. If I did not have sickness in the house, I would translate it. Maybe I can do one chapter
and someone else can do another one? What's the publisher saying?
You wouldn't say that if you could speak German, my friend ! ?
From one hour 18 minutes onwards, Ulfkotte details EU-Inter-State Terror Co-operation, with returning IS Operatives on
a Free Pass, fully armed and even Viktor Orban had to give in to the commands of letting Terrorists through Hungary into Germany
& Austria.
But, don't let that revelation bother you, living under a Deep State 'Politic of Fear' in the West and long unedited speeches
gets kinda' boring now, I know a bit like believing in some kinda' dumbfuk new pearl harbour, war on terror &&& all phoney propaganda
fairy story telling, just like on the 11/9/2001, when the real target was WTC 7, to hide elitist immoral endeavours, corruption
& the missing $$$TRILLIONS$$$ of tax payers money, 'mislaid' by the D.o.D. announced directly the day before by Rumsfeld, forgotten
? Before ramping the Surveillance States abilities in placing & employing "Parallel Platforms" on steroids, so that our secret
services can now employ terror & deploy terrorists at will .., against us, see ?
Plus ca change....
I remember on a similar note a 60 Minutes piece just prior to Clinton's humanitarian bombing of Serbian civilian infrastructure
(and long ago deleted, I'm sure) on a German free-lancer staging Kosovo atrocities in a Munich suburb, and having the German MSM
eating it up and asking for more. (WWII guilt assuagement at work, no doubt).
mark
Everybody who works in the MSM, without exception, are bought and paid for whores peddling lies on behalf of globalist corporate
interests.
That is their job.
That is what they do.
They have long since forfeited all credibility and integrity.
They have lied to us endlessly for decades and generations, from the Bayonetted Belgian Babies and Human Bodies Turned Into Soap
of WW1 to the Iraq Incubator Babies and Syrian Gas Attacks of more recent times.
You can no longer take anything at face value.
The default position has to be that every single word they print and every single word that comes out of their lying mouths is
untrue.
If they say it's snowing at the North Pole, you can't accept that without first going there and checking it out for yourself.
You can't accept anything that has not been independently verified.
This applies across the board.
All of the accepted historical narrative, including things like the holocaust.
And current Global Warming "science."
We know we have been lied to again and again and again.
So what else have we been lied to without us realising it?
mark
Come to think of it, I need to apologise to sex workers.
I have known quite a few of them who have quite high ethical and moral standards, certainly compared to the MSM.
And they certainly do less damage.
Vert few working girls have blood on their hands like the MSM.
Compared to them, working girls are the salt of the earth and pillars of the community.
Seamus Padraig
Compared to them, working girls are the salt of the earth and pillars of the community.
I heartily agree. Even if one disapproves morally of prostitution, how can it possibly be worse to sell your body than to sell
your soul?
Oliver
Quite. Checking things out for yourself is the way to go. Forget 'Peer Reviews', just as bent as the journalism Ulfkotte described.
DIY.
Mortgage
So natural, all it seems
Part II:
Bought Science
Part III:
Bought Health Services
mapquest directions
The video you shared with great info. I really like the information you share.
boxnovel
Gary Weglarz
I knew we were in dangerous new territory regarding government censorship when after waiting several years for Ulfkotte's best
selling book to finally be available in English – it suddenly, magically, disappeared completely – a vanishing act – and I couldn't
get so much as a response from, much less an explanation from, the would be publisher. Udo's book came at a time when it could
have made a difference countering the fact-free complete and total "fabrication of reality" by the U.S. and Western powers as
they have waged a brutal and ongoing neocolonial war on the world's poor under the guise of "fighting terrorism."
Udo's voice (in the form of his book) was silenced for a reason – that being that he spoke the truth about our utterly and
completely corrupt Western fantasy world in which we in the West proclaim our – "respect international law" and "respect for human
rights." His work, such as this interview and others he has done, pulled the curtain back on the big lie and exposed our oligarchs,
politicians and the "journalists" they hire as simply a cadre of professional criminals whose carefully crafted lies are used
to soak up the blood and to cover the bodies of the dead, all in order to hide all that mayhem from our eyes, to insure justice
is an impossibility and to make sure we Western citizens sleep well at night, oblivious to our connection to the actual realities
that are this daily regime of pillage and plunder that is our vaunted "neoliberal order."
Ramdan
After watching the first 20 min I couldn't help but remembering this tale:
"The philosopher Diogenes (of Sinope) was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who
lived comfortably by flattering the king. Said Aristippus, 'If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have
to live on lentils.'
To which Diogenes replied, 'Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king"."
which is also the reason why such a large part of humanity lives in voluntary servitude to power structures, living the dream,
the illusion of being free..
Ramdan
"English Translation of Udo Ulfkotte's "Bought Journalists" Suppressed?" at Global Research 2017!!
Just rechecked Amazon. Journalists for Hire: How the CIA Buys the News
by Udo Ulfkotte PH.D. The tag line reads.
Hard cover – currently unavailable; paperback cover – currently unavailable; Kindle edition – ?
Book burning anyone?
nottheonly1
No translation exists for this interview with Udo Ulfkotte on KenFM, the web site of Ken Jebsen. Ken Jebsen has been in the cross
hairs of the CIA and German agencies for his reporting of the truth. He was smeared and defamed by the same people that Dr. Ulfkotte
had written extensively about in his book 'Gekaufte Journalisten' ('Bought Journalists').
The reason why I add this link to the interview lies in the fact that Udo Ulfkotte speaks about an important part of Middle
Eastern and German history – a history that has been scrubbed from the U.S. and German populations. In the Iraq war against Iran
– that the U.S. regime had pushed for in the same fashion the way they had pushed Nazi Germany to invade the U.S.S.R. – German
chemical weapons were used under the supervision of the U.S. regime. The extend of the chemical weapons campaign was enormous
and to the present day, Iranians are born with birth defects stemming from the used of German weapons of mass destruction.
Dr. Ulfkotte rightfully bemoans, that every year German heads of state are kneeling for the Jewish victims of National socialism
– but not for the victims of German WMD's that were used against Iran. He stresses that the act of visual asking for forgiveness
in the case of the Jewish victims becomes hypocrisy, when 40 years after the Nazis reigned, German WMD's were used against Iran.
The German regime was in on the WMD attack on Iran. It was not something that happened because they had lost a couple of thousand
containers with WMDs. They delivered the WMD's to Iraq under U.S. supervision.
Ponder that. And there has never been an apology towards Iran, or compensations. Nada. Nothing. Instead, the vile rhetoric
and demagogery of every U.S. regime since has continued to paint Iran in the worst possible ways, most notably via incessant psychological
projection – accusing Iran of the war crimes and crimes against humanity the U.S. and its Western vassal regimes are guilty of.
Here is the interview that was recorded shortly before Udo Ulfkotte's death:
If enough people support the effort, I am willing to contact KenFM for the authorization to translate the interview and use
it for subtitles to the video. However, I can't do that on my own.
nottheonly1
Correction: the interview was recorded two years before his passing.
Antonym
the U.S. regime had pushed for in the same fashion the way they had pushed Nazi Germany to invade the U.S.S.R.
So Roosevelt pushed Hitler to attack Stalin? Hitler didn't want to go East? Revisionism at it most motive free.
nottheonly1
It would help if you would use your brain just once. 'Pushing' is synonymous for a variety of ways to instigate a desired
outcome. Financing is just one way. And Roosevelt was in no way the benevolent knight history twisters like to present him. You
are outing yourself again as an easliy duped sheep.
But then, with all the assaults by the unintelligence agencies, it does not come as a surprise when facts are twisted.
Antonym
Lebensraum was first popularized in 1901 in Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum
Hitler's "Mein Kampf" ( 1925) build on that: he had no need for any American or other push, it was intended from the
get go. The timing of operation Barbarossa was brilliant though: it shocked Stalin into a temporary limbo as he had
his own aggressive plans.
Casandra2
This excellent article demonstrates how the Controlling Elite manipulates the Media and the Message for purposes of misdirecting
attention and perception of their true intentions and objective of securing Global Ownership (aka New World Order).
This approach has been assiduously applied, across the board, over many years, to the point were they now own and run everything
required to subjugate the 'human race' to the horrors of their psychopathic inclinations. They are presently holding the global
economy on hold until their AI population (social credit) control system/grid is in place before bringing the house down.
Needless to say, when this happens a disunited and frightened Global Population will be at their mercy.
If you wish to gain a full insight of what the Controlling Elite is about, and capable of, I recommend David Icke's latest
publication 'Trigger'. I know he's been tagged a 'nutter' over the past thirty years, but I reckon this book represents the 'gold
standard' in terms of generating awareness as a basis for launching a united global population counter-attack (given a great strategy)
against forces that can only be defined as pure 'EVIL'.
MASTER OF UNIVE
Corporate Journalism is all about corporatism and the continuation of it. If the Intelligence Community needs greater fools
for staffing purposes in the corporate hierarchy they look for anyone that can be compromised via inducements of whatever the
greater fools want. Engaging in compromise allows both parties to have complicit & explicit understanding that corruption
and falsehood are the tools of the trade. To all-of-a-sudden develop a conscience after decades of playing the part of a willing
participant is understandable in light of the guilt complex one must develop after screwing everyone in the world out of the critical
assessment we all need to obtain in order to make decisions regarding our futures.
Bought & paid for corporate Journalists are controlled by the Intelligence Agencies and always have been since at least
the Second World War. The CIA typically runs bribery & blackmail at the state & federal level so that when necessary they have
instant useless eaters to offer up as political sacrifice when required via state run propaganda, & impression management.
Assuming that journalism is an ethical occupation is naďve and a fools' game even in the alternative news domain as all
writers write from bias & a lack of real knowledge. Few writers are intellectually honest or even aware of their own limits as
writers. The writer is a failure and not a hero borne in myth. Writers struggle to write & publish. Bought and paid for writers
don't have a struggle in terms of writing because they are told what to write before they write as automatons for the Intelligence
Community knowing that they sold their collective souls to the Prince of Darkness for whatever trinkets, bobbles, or bling they
could get their greedy hands on at the time.
Developing a conscience late in life is too late.
May all that sell their souls to the Intel agencies understand that pond scum never had a conscience to begin with.
Once pond scum always pond scum.
MOU
nottheonly1
What is not addressed in this talk is the addictive nature of this sort of public relation writing. Journalism is something different
altogether. I know that, because I consider myself to be a journalist at heart – one that stopped doing it when the chalice was
offered to me. The problem is that one is not part of the cabal one day to another.
It is a longer process in which one is gradually introduced to ever more expensive rewards/bribes. Never too big to overwhelm
– always just about what one would accept as 'motivation' to omit aspects of any issue. Of course, omission is a lie by any other
name, but I can attest to the life style of a journalist that socializes with the leaders of all segments of society.
And I would also write a critique about a great restaurant – never paying a dime for a fantastic dinner. The point though is
that I would not write a good critique for a nasty place for money. I have never written anything but the truth – for which I
received sometimes as much as a bag full of the best rolls in the country.
Twisting the truth for any form of bribes is disgusting and attests of the lowest of any character.
MASTER OF UNIVE
Professional whoring is as old as the hills and twice as dusty. Being ethical is difficult stuff especially when money is
involved. Money is always a prime motivator but vanity works wonders too. Corporatists will offer whatever inducements they can
to get what they want.
All mainstream media voices are selling a media package that is a corporatist lie in and of itself. Truth is less marketable
than lies. Embellished news & journalistic hype is the norm.
If the devil offers inducements be sure to up the ante to outsmart the drunken sot.
This implicates State Department in the attempt to run a false flag operation. If we add that the State Department is the
key organization behind for color revolution against Trump that picture becomes even more disturbing. This is really a neocon
vipers nest.
Notable quotes:
"... This was because the public had already been shown that highly suspicious chemical attacks tended to happen when the Trump administration begins pushing for a reversal of standing US Syria policy, as I noted in April 2017 immediately following the alleged attack in Khan Shaykhun. ..."
"... "I was able to predict Douma in 2018 because it happened already almost exactly 1 year prior, at Khan Shaykhun, April 4, 2017," Cox told me on Twitter earlier today. ..."
"... And, like clockwork, on April 7 2018 dozens of civilians in Douma were killed in an incident which was quickly reported as a Syrian government chemical attack by all the usual establishment narrative managers on Syria , with everyone from the White Helmets to Charles Lister to Eliot Higgins to Julian Röpcke loudly flagging it on social media to draw the attention of mainstream news outlets who were slower to pick up the story. ..."
"... Long before any investigation into this suspicious incident could even be begun, much less completed, the US State Department declared it to have been a chemical weapons attack perpetrated by the Syrian government, saying "the Assad regime must be held accountable", and that Russia "ultimately bears responsibility" for the attack. Which was of course mighty convenient for US geostrategic interests. ..."
"... On the 14th of April 2018, the US, UK and France launched an airstrike on the Syrian government as punishment for using chemical weapons, citing secret "intelligence" which the US government claimed gave them "very high confidence that Syria was responsible." The public has to this day never been permitted to see this intelligence. This all happened before any formal international investigation could take place. ..."
"... The OPCW conducted their investigation, and in July 2018 published an interim report saying that "no organophosphorus nerve agents or their degradation products were detected, either in the environmental samples or in plasma samples from the alleged casualties." This ruled out sarin gas, invalidating earlier reports by Syria war pundits like Charles Lister who claimed that sarin had been used, but it didn't rule out chlorine gas. In March of this year the OPCW issued its final report saying forensics were consistent with chlorine gas use and advancing a ballistics report which strongly implicated the Assad government by implying it was an aerial drop (Syrian opposition militias have no air force). The official Twitter account for the UK Delegation to the OPCW tweeted at the time that the report "confirms chemical weapons used, demonstrating the vital importance of OPCW's work. This confirmed chlorine attack was only the latest example of Asad regime's CW attacks on its own population." ..."
"... In May of this year, a leaked internal document from the OPCW investigation was published by the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media which completely contradicts the findings of the official report published in March. The leaked Engineering Assessment said that "observations at the scene of the two locations, together with subsequent analysis, suggest there is a higher probability both cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being delivered from aircraft," which would implicate the forces on the ground in the incident rather than the Assad government. ..."
"... The OPCW indirectly confirmed the document's authenticity by telling the press that its release had been "unauthorised". Climate Audit's Stephen McIntyre published an excellent thread breaking down how the document invalidates the OPCW's claims which you can read by clicking here . Establishment narrative managers had a very difficult time spinning the fact that the OPCW had taken it upon itself to hide findings from the public which dissented from its official report on an incident which preceded an international act of war upon a sovereign nation, and all the implications that necessarily has for the legitimacy of the organization's other work. ..."
"... "Based on the whistleblower's extensive presentation, including internal emails, text exchanges and suppressed draft reports, we are unanimous in expressing our alarm over unacceptable practices in the investigation of the alleged chemical attack in Douma, near the Syrian capital of Damascus on 7 April 2018. We became convinced by the testimony that key information about chemical analyses, toxicology consultations, ballistics studies, and witness testimonies was suppressed, ostensibly to favor a preordained conclusion ." ..."
"... "The convincing evidence of irregular behaviour in the OPCW investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already had. I could make no sense of what I was reading in the international press. Even official reports of investigations seemed incoherent at best. The picture is certainly clearer now, although very disturbing. " ..."
"... "The interpretation of the environmental analysis results is equally questionable. Many, if not all, of the so-called 'smoking gun' chlorinated organic chemicals claimed to be not naturally present in the environment' (para 2.6) are in fact ubiquitous in the background, either naturally or anthropogenically (wood preservatives, chlorinated water supplies etc). The report, in fact, acknowledges this in Annex 4 para 7, even stating the importance of gathering control samples to measure the background for such chlorinated organic derivatives. Yet, no analysis results for these same control samples (Annex 5), which inspectors on the ground would have gone to great lengths to gather, were reported." ..."
"... "One alternative ascribing the origin of the crater to an explosive device was considered briefly but, despite an almost identical crater (understood to have resulted from a mortar penetrating the roof) being observed on an adjacent rooftop, was dismissed because of ' the absence of primary and secondary fragmentation characteristics'. In contrast, explosive fragmentation characteristics were noted in the leaked study ." ..."
"... "Contrary to what has been publicly stated by the Director General of the OPCW it was evident to the panel that many of the inspectors in the Douma investigation were not involved or consulted in the post-deployment phase or had any contribution to, or knowledge of the content of the final report until it was made public . The panel is particularly troubled by organisational efforts to obfuscate and prevent inspectors from raising legitimate concerns about possible malpractices surrounding the Douma investigation." ..."
The Courage Foundation , an international
protection and advocacy group for whistleblowers, has
published the findings of a panel it
convened last week on the extremely suspicious behavior of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in its
investigation of an alleged chemical attack in Douma, Syria last year. After hearing an extensive presentation from a member of the
OPCW's Douma investigation team, the panel's members (including a world-renowned former OPCW Director General)
report that they are "unanimous in expressing
our alarm over unacceptable practices in the investigation of the alleged chemical attack in Douma, near the Syrian capital of Damascus
on 7 April 2018."
I'll get to the panel and its findings in a moment, but first I should provide some historical background so that readers who
aren't intimately familiar with this ongoing scandal can fully appreciate the significance of this new development.
In late March of last year, President Trump
publicly
stated that the US military would soon be withdrawing troops from Syria, causing some with an ear to the ground like
independent US congressional candidate Steve
Cox to predict that there would shortly be a false flag chemical weapons attack in that nation. This was because the public had
already
been shown that highly suspicious chemical attacks tended to happen when the Trump administration begins pushing for a reversal
of standing US Syria policy, as I
noted in April 2017 immediately following the alleged attack in Khan Shaykhun.
"I was able to predict Douma in 2018 because it happened already almost exactly 1 year prior, at Khan Shaykhun, April 4, 2017,"
Cox told me on Twitter earlier
today.
"Khan Shaykhun also occurred within days of the Trump Admin saying we're leaving Syria."
There was immediate skepticism, partly because
acclaimed journalists like Sy Hersh have
been highlighting plot holes in the official story about chemical weapons in Syria since 2013, partly because Assad would stand nothing
to gain and everything to lose by using a banned yet
highly ineffective
weapon in a battle he'd already essentially
won in that region, and partly because the people controlling things on the ground in Douma were the
Al Qaeda-linked
extremist group Jaysh-al Islam and the incredibly shady
narrative management operation known as the White Helmets. Those groups, unlike the Assad government, most certainly would stand
everything to gain by staging a chemical attack in the desperate hope that it would draw NATO powers into attacking the Syrian government
and perhaps saving their necks.
Long before any investigation into this suspicious incident could even be begun, much less completed,
the US State Department declared it to have
been a chemical weapons attack perpetrated by the Syrian government, saying "the Assad regime must be held accountable", and that
Russia "ultimately bears responsibility" for the attack. Which was of course mighty convenient for US geostrategic interests.
On the 14th of April 2018, the US, UK and France
launched an airstrike on the Syrian government
as punishment for using chemical weapons,
citing secret "intelligence" which the US government claimed gave them "very high confidence that Syria was responsible." The
public has to this day never been permitted to see this intelligence. This all happened before any formal international investigation
could take place.
The OPCW conducted their investigation, and in July 2018
published an interim
report saying that "no organophosphorus nerve agents or their degradation products were detected, either in the environmental
samples or in plasma samples from the alleged casualties." This ruled out sarin gas, invalidating earlier reports by Syria war pundits
like Charles Lister who claimed that
sarin had been used, but it didn't rule out chlorine gas. In March of this year the OPCW
issued its final report saying forensics were consistent with chlorine gas use and advancing a ballistics report which strongly
implicated the Assad government by implying it was an aerial drop (Syrian opposition militias have no air force). The official Twitter
account for the UK Delegation to the OPCW tweeted
at the time that the report "confirms chemical weapons used, demonstrating the vital importance of OPCW's work. This confirmed
chlorine attack was only the latest example of Asad regime's CW attacks on its own population."
In May of this year, a leaked
internal document from the OPCW investigation was
published by the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media which completely contradicts the findings of the official report
published in March. The leaked Engineering Assessment
said that "observations at the scene of the two locations, together with subsequent analysis, suggest there is a higher probability
both cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being delivered from aircraft," which would implicate the
forces on the ground in the incident rather than the Assad government.
The OPCW
indirectly confirmed the document's authenticity by telling the press that its release had been "unauthorised". Climate Audit's
Stephen McIntyre published an excellent thread breaking down how the document invalidates the OPCW's claims which you can read by
clicking here . Establishment narrative
managers
had a very difficult time spinning the fact that the OPCW had taken it upon itself to hide findings from the public which dissented
from its official report on an incident which preceded an international act of war upon a sovereign nation, and all the implications
that necessarily has for the legitimacy of the organization's other work.
Throughout this time, critical thinkers like myself have been aggressively smeared as deranged conspiracy theorists, war crimes
deniers and genocide deniers for expressing skepticism of the establishment-authorized narrative on Douma. Which takes us to today.
The Courage Foundation panel who met with the OPCW whistleblower consists of former OPCW Director General
José Bustani (whose highly successful peacemongering
once saw the lives of his
children threatened by John Bolton during the lead-up to the Iraq invasion in an attempt to remove him from his position), WikiLeaks
editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson , Professor of
International Law Richard Falk , former British Army
Major General John Holmes , Dr Helmut
Lohrer of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, German professor
Dr Guenter Meyer of the Centre for Research on the Arab
World, and former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East Elizabeth Murray of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity.
So these are not scrubs. These are not "conspiracy theorists" or "Russian propagandists". These are highly qualified and reputable
professionals expressing deep concerns in the opaque and manipulative way the OPCW appears to have conducted its investigation into
the Douma incident. Some highlights from their joint
statement and analytical points are
quoted below, with my own emphasis added in bold:
"Based on the whistleblower's extensive presentation, including internal emails, text exchanges and suppressed draft reports,
we are unanimous in expressing our alarm over unacceptable practices in the investigation of the alleged chemical attack in Douma,
near the Syrian capital of Damascus on 7 April 2018. We became convinced by the testimony that key information about chemical
analyses, toxicology consultations, ballistics studies, and witness testimonies was suppressed, ostensibly to favor a preordained
conclusion ."
"The convincing evidence of irregular behaviour in the OPCW investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts
and suspicions I already had. I could make no sense of what I was reading in the international press. Even official reports of
investigations seemed incoherent at best. The picture is certainly clearer now, although very disturbing. "
~ Bustani
"A critical analysis of the
final report of the Douma
investigation left the panel in little doubt that conclusions drawn from each of the key evidentiary pillars of the investigation
(chemical analysis, toxicology, ballistics and witness testimonies,) are flawed and bear little relation to the facts. "
From the section on Chemical Analysis:
"The interpretation of the environmental analysis results is equally questionable. Many, if not all, of the so-called 'smoking
gun' chlorinated organic chemicals claimed to be not naturally present in the environment' (para 2.6) are in fact ubiquitous in
the background, either naturally or anthropogenically (wood preservatives, chlorinated water supplies etc). The report, in fact,
acknowledges this in Annex 4 para 7, even stating the importance of gathering control samples to measure the background for such
chlorinated organic derivatives. Yet, no analysis results for these same control samples (Annex 5), which inspectors on the ground
would have gone to great lengths to gather, were reported."
"Although the report stresses the 'levels' of the chlorinated organic chemicals as a basis for its conclusions (para 2.6),
it never mentions what those levels were -- high, low, trace, sub-trace? Without providing data on the levels of these so-called
'smoking-gun' chemicals either for background or test samples, it is impossible to know if they were not simply due to background
presence . In this regard, the panel is disturbed to learn that quantitative results for the levels of 'smoking gun' chemicals
in specific samples were available to the investigators but this decisive information was withheld from the report ."
"The final report also acknowledges that the tell-tale chemicals supposedly indicating chlorine use, can also be generated
by contact of samples with sodium hypochlorite, the principal ingredient of household bleaching agent (para 8.15). This game-changing
hypothesis is, however, dismissed (and as it transpires, incorrectly) by stating no bleaching was observed at the site of investigation.
(' At both locations, there were no visible signs of a bleach agent or discoloration due to contact with a bleach agent' ). The
panel has been informed that no such observation was recorded during the on-site inspection and in any case dismissing the hypothesis
simply by claiming the non -observation of discoloration in an already dusty and scorched environment seems tenuous and unscientific
."
From the section on Toxicology:
"The toxicological studies also reveal inconsistencies, incoherence and possible scientific irregularities. Consultations with
toxicologists are reported to have taken place in September and October 2018 (para 8.87 and Annex 3), but no mention is made of
what those same experts opined or concluded. Whilst the final toxicological assessment of the authors states ' it is not possible
to precisely link the cause of the signs and symptoms to a specific chemical ' (para 9.6) the report nonetheless concludes there
were reasonable grounds to believe chlorine gas was the chemical (used as a weapon)."
"More worrying is the fact that the panel viewed documented evidence that showed other toxicologists had been consulted in
June 2018 prior to the release of the interim report. Expert opinions on that occasion were that the signs and symptoms observed
in videos and from witness accounts were not consistent with exposure to molecular chlorine or any reactive-chlorine-containing
chemical. Why no mention of this critical assessment, which contradicts that implied in the final report, was made is unclear
and of concern. "
From the section on Ballistic Studies:
"One alternative ascribing the origin of the crater to an explosive device was considered briefly but, despite an almost identical
crater (understood to have resulted from a mortar penetrating the roof) being observed on an adjacent rooftop, was dismissed because
of ' the absence of primary and secondary fragmentation characteristics'. In contrast, explosive fragmentation characteristics
were noted in the leaked study ."
From the section titled "Exclusion of inspectors and attempts to obfuscate":
"Contrary to what has been publicly stated by the Director General of the OPCW it was evident to the panel that many of the
inspectors in the Douma investigation were not involved or consulted in the post-deployment phase or had any contribution to,
or knowledge of the content of the final report until it was made public . The panel is particularly troubled by organisational
efforts to obfuscate and prevent inspectors from raising legitimate concerns about possible malpractices surrounding the Douma
investigation."
"... All that changed with the conversion of the federal government to a national-security state and with the adoption of a pro-empire, pro-intervention foreign policy. When that happened, the U.S. government assumed the duty to fix the wrongs of the world. ..."
"... That's when U.S. officials began thinking in terms of empire and using empire-speak. Foreign regimes became "allies," "partners," and "friends." Others became "opponents," "rivals," or "enemies." Events thousands of miles away became threats to "national security." ..."
"... The results of U.S. imperialism and interventionism have always been perverse, not only for foreigners but also for Americans. That's how Americans have ended up with out-of-control federal spending and debt that have left much of the middle class high and dry, unable to support themselves in their senior years, unable to save a nest egg for financial emergencies, and living paycheck to paycheck. Empire and interventionism do not come cheap. ..."
"... There is but one solution to all this chaos and mayhem -- the dismantling, not the reform, of the Pentagon, the military-industrial complex, the vast empire of foreign and domestic military bases, and the NSA, along with an immediate end to all foreign interventionism. A free, peaceful, prosperous, and harmonious society necessarily entails the restoration of a limited-government republic and a non-interventionist foreign policy to our land. ..."
The chaos arising from U.S. interventionism in Syria provides an excellent opportunity to explore the interventionist mind.
Consider the terminology being employed by interventionists: President Trump's actions in Syria have left a "power vacuum," one
that Russia and Iran are now filling. The United States will no longer have "influence" in the region. "Allies" will no longer be
able to trust the U.S. to come to their assistance. Trump's actions have threatened "national security." It is now possible that
ISIS will reformulate and threaten to take over lands and even regimes in the Middle East.
This verbiage is classic empire-speak. It is the language of the interventionist and the imperialist.
Amidst all the interventionist chaos in the Middle East, it is important to keep in mind one critically important fact: None of
it will mean a violent takeover of the U.S. government or an invasion and conquest of the United States. The federal government will
go on. American life will go on. There will be no army of Muslims, terrorists, Syrians, ISISians, Russians, Chinese, drug dealers,
or illegal immigrants coming to get us and take over the reins of the IRS.
Why is that an important point? Because it shows that no matter what happens in Syria or the rest of the Middle East, life will
continue here in the United States. Even if Russia gets to continue controlling Syria, that's not going to result in a conquest of
the United States. The same holds true if ISIS, say, takes over Iraq. Or if Turkey ends up killing lots of Kurds. Or if Syria ends
up protecting the Kurds. Or if Iran continues to be controlled by a theocratic state. Or if the Russians retake control over Ukraine.
It was no different than when North Vietnam ended up winning the Vietnamese civil war. The dominoes did not fall onto the United
States and make America Red. It also makes no difference if Egypt continues to be controlled by a brutal military dictatorship. Or
that Cuba, North Korea, and China are controlled by communist regimes. Or that Russia is controlled by an authoritarian regime. Or
that Myanmar (Burma) is controlled by a totalitarian military regime. America and the federal government will continue standing.
America was founded as a limited government republic, one that did not send its military forces around the world to slay monsters.
That's not to say that bad things didn't happen around the world. Bad things have always happened around the world. Dictatorships.
Famines. Wars. Civil wars. Revolutions. Empires. Torture. Extra-judicial executions. Tyranny. Oppression. The policy of the United
States was that it would not go abroad to fix or clear up those types of things.
All that changed with the conversion of the federal government to a national-security state and with the adoption of a pro-empire,
pro-intervention foreign policy. When that happened, the U.S. government assumed the duty to fix the wrongs of the world.
That's when U.S. officials began thinking in terms of empire and using empire-speak. Foreign regimes became "allies," "partners,"
and "friends." Others became "opponents," "rivals," or "enemies." Events thousands of miles away became threats to "national security."
That's when U.S. forces began invading and occupying other countries, waging wars of aggression against them, intervening in foreign
wars, revolutions, and civil wars, initiating coups, destroying democratic regimes, establishing an empire of domestic and foreign
military bases, and bombing, shooting, killing, assassinating, spying on, maiming, torturing, kidnapping, injuring, and destroying
people in countries all over the world.
The results of U.S. imperialism and interventionism have always been perverse, not only for foreigners but also for Americans.
That's how Americans have ended up with out-of-control federal spending and debt that have left much of the middle class high and
dry, unable to support themselves in their senior years, unable to save a nest egg for financial emergencies, and living paycheck
to paycheck. Empire and interventionism do not come cheap.
The shift toward empire and interventionism has brought about the destruction of American liberty and privacy here at home. That's
what the assassinations, secret surveillance, torture, and indefinite detentions of American citizens are all about -- to supposedly
protect us from the dangers produced by U.S. imperialism and interventionism abroad. One might call it waging perpetual war for freedom
and peace, both here and abroad.
There is but one solution to all this chaos and mayhem -- the dismantling, not the reform, of the Pentagon, the military-industrial
complex, the vast empire of foreign and domestic military bases, and the NSA, along with an immediate end to all foreign interventionism.
A free, peaceful, prosperous, and harmonious society necessarily entails the restoration of a limited-government republic and a non-interventionist
foreign policy to our land.
Only a few months ago, the Democrats' drive to the White House began with the loftiest of ideals, albeit a hodgepodge from trans
toilet "rights" to a 100 percent makeover of the health care system. It is now all about vengeance, clumsy and grossly partisan at
that, gussied up as "saving democracy." Our media is dominated by angry Hillary refighting 2016 and "joking" about running again,
with Adam Schiff now the face of the party for 2020. The war of noble intentions has devolved into Pelosi's March to the Sea. Any
chance for a Democratic candidate to reach into the dark waters and pull America to where she can draw breath again and heal has
been lost.
Okay, deep breath myself. A couple of times a week, I walk past the
café where Allen Ginsberg, the Beat poet, often wrote.
His most famous poem, Howl , begins, "I saw the best minds of my generation
destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked." The walk is a good leveler, a reminder that madness (Trump Derangement in modern
terminology) is not new in politics.
But Ginsberg wrote in a time when one could joke about coded messages -- before the Internet came into being to push tailored
ticklers straight into people's brains. I'll take my relief in knowing that almost everything Trump and others write, on Twitter
and in the Times , is designed simply to get attention and getting our attention today requires ever louder and crazier stuff.
What will get us to look up anymore? Is that worth playing with fire over?
It is easy to lose one's sense of humor over all this. It is easy to end up like Ginsberg at the end of his poem, muttering
to strangers at what a mess this had all become: "Real holy laughter in the river! They saw it all! the wild eyes! the holy yells!
They bade farewell! They jumped off the roof! To solitude!" But me, I don't think it's funny at all.
"... How did the United States become so involved in Ukraine's torturous and famously corrupt politics? The short answer is NATO expansion <= maybe something different? I like pocketbook expansion.. NATO Expansion provides cover and legalizes the private use of Presidential directed USA resources to enable a few to make massively big profits at the expense of the governed in the target area. ..."
"... Hypothesis 1: NATO supporters are more corrupt than Ukraine officials. ..."
"... Hypothesis 2: NATO expansion is a euphemism for USA/EU/ backed private party plunder to follow invade and destroy regime change activities designed to dispossess local Oligarchs of the wealth in NATO targeted nations? Private use of public force for private gain comes to mind. ..."
"... A lot of intelligence agency manipulation and private pocketbook expanding corruption can be hidden behind NATO expansion.. Please prove to me that Biden and the hundreds of other plunders became so deeply involved in Ukraine because of NATO expansion? ..."
"... As it is right now, the most likely outcome of the Western initiative in Ukraine will be substantially lower living standards than there would be otherwise for most Ukrainians. ..."
"... The US actions in Ukraine are typical, not exceptional. Acting as an Empire, the US always installs the worst possible scum in power in its vassals, particularly in newly acquired ones. ..."
"... Has he forgotten the historical conversation of Nuland and Payatt picking the next president of Ukraine "Yats is our guy" and "Yats" actually emerging as the president a week later ? None of these facts are in any way remotely compatible with passive role professor Cohen ascribes to the US. ..."
"... We don't know what happens next, but we know the following: Ukraine will not be in EU, or Nato. It will not be a unified, prosperous country. It will continue losing a large part of its population. And oligarchy and 'corruption' is going to stay. ..."
"... Another Maidan would most likely make things even worse and trigger a complete disintegration. Those are the wages of stupidity and desperation – one can see an individual example with AP, but they all seem like that. ..."
Thanks for your sharing you views about Prof Cohen, a most interesting and principled
man.
Only after reading the article did I realize that the UR (that's you) also provided the
Batchelor Show podcast. Thanks.
I've been listening to these broadcasts over their entirety, now going on for six or so
years. What's always struck me is Cohen's level-headeness and equanimity. I've also detected
affection for Kentucky, his native state. Not something to be expected from a Princeton / NYU
academic nor an Upper West Side resident.
And once again expressing appreciation for the UR!
How did the United States become so involved in Ukraine's torturous and famously corrupt
politics?
The short answer is NATO expansion <= maybe something different? I like pocketbook
expansion..
NATO Expansion provides cover and legalizes the private use of Presidential directed USA
resources to enable a few to make massively big profits at the expense of the governed in the
target area.
Behind NATO lies the reason for Bexit, the Yellow Jackets, the unrest in Iraq and Egypt,
Yemen etc.
Hypothesis 1: NATO supporters are more corrupt than Ukraine officials. Hypothesis 2: NATO expansion is a euphemism for USA/EU/ backed private party plunder to
follow invade and destroy regime change activities designed to dispossess local Oligarchs of
the wealth in NATO targeted nations? Private use of public force for private gain comes to
mind.
I think [private use of public force for private gain] is what Trump meant when Trump said
to impeach Trump for investigating the Ukraine matter amounts to Treason.. but it is the
exactly the activity type that Hallmarks CIA instigated regime change.
A lot of intelligence agency manipulation and private pocketbook expanding corruption can
be hidden behind NATO expansion.. Please prove to me that Biden and the hundreds of other
plunders became so deeply involved in Ukraine because of NATO expansion?
The key question is what is the gain in separating Ukraine from Russia, adding it to NATO,
and turning Russia and Ukraine into enemies. And what are the most likely results, e.g. can
it ever work without risking a catastrophic event?
There are the usual empire-building and weapons business reasons, but those should
function within a rational framework. As it is right now, the most likely outcome of the
Western initiative in Ukraine will be substantially lower living standards than there would
be otherwise for most Ukrainians. And an increase in tensions in the region with
inevitable impact on the business there. So what exactly is the gain and for whom?
The Washington-led attempt to fast-track Ukraine into NATO in 2013–14 resulted in
the Maidan crisis, the overthrow of the country's constitutionally elected president Viktor
Yanukovych, and to the still ongoing proxy civil war in Donbass.
Which exemplifies the stupidity and arrogance of the American
military/industrial/political Establishment -- none of that had anything to do with US
national security (least of all antagonizing Russia) -- how fucking hypocritical is it to
presume the Monroe Doctrine, and then try to get the Ukraine into NATO? -- none of it would
have been of any benefit whatsoever to the average American.
According to a recent govt study, only 12% of Americans can read above a 9th grade level.
This effectively mean (((whoever))) controls the MSM controls the world. NOTHING will change
for the better while the (((enemy))) owns our money supply.
There was NO "annexation" of Crimea by Russia. Crimea WAS annexed, but by Ukraine.
Russia and Crimea re-unified. Crimea has been part of Russia for long than America has
existed – since it was taken from the Ottoman Empire over 350 yrs ago. The vast
majority of the people identify as Russian, and speak only Russian.
To annex, the verb, means to use armed force to seize sovereign territory and put it under
the control of the invading forces government. Pretty much as the early Americans did to
Northern Mexico, Hawaii, etc. Russia used no force, the Governors of Crimea applied for
re-unification with Russia, Russia advised a referendum, which was held, and with a 96%
turnout, 97% voted for re-unification. This was done formally and legally, conforming with
all the international mandates.
It is very damaging for anyone to say that Russia "annexed" Crimea, because when people
read, quickly moving past the world, they subliminally match the word to their held
perception of the concept and move on. Thus they match the word "annex" to their conception
of the use of Armed Force against a resistant population, without checking.
All Cohen is doing here is reinforcing the pushed, lying Empire narrative, that Russia
invaded and used force, when the exact opposite is true!!
@Carlton
Meyer One wonders if Mr. Putin, as he puts his head on the pillow at night, fancies that
he should have rolled the Russian tanks into Kiev, right after the 2014 US-financed coup of
Ukraine's elected president, which was accomplished while he was pre-occupied with the Sochi
Olympics, and been done with it. He had every justification to do so, but perhaps feared
Western blowback. Well, the blowback happened anyway, so maybe Putin was too cautious.
The new Trump Admin threw him under the bus when it installed the idiot Nikki Haley as UN
Ambassador, whose first words were that Russia must give Crimea back. With its only major
warm water port located at Sevastopol, that wasn't about to happen, and the US Deep State
knew it.
Given how he has been so unfairly treated by the media, and never given a chance to enact
his Russian agenda, anyone who thinks that Trump was 'selected' by the deep state has rocks
for brains. The other night, on Rick Sanchez's RT America show, former US diplomat, and
frequent guest Jim Jatras said that he would not be too surprised if 20 GOP Senators flipped
and voted to convict Trump if the House votes to impeach.
The deep state can't abide four more years of the bombastic, Twitter-obsessed Trump, hence
this Special Ops Ukraine false flag, designed to fool a majority of the people. The smooth
talking, more warlike Pence is one of them. The night of the long knives is approaching.
The US actions in Ukraine are typical, not exceptional. Acting as an Empire, the US
always installs the worst possible scum in power in its vassals, particularly in newly
acquired ones.
The "logic" of the Dem party is remarkable. Dems don't even deny that Biden is corrupt,
that he blatantly abused the office of Vice-President for personal gain. What's more, he was
dumb enough to boast about it publicly. Therefore, let's impeach Trump.
These people don't give a hoot about the interests of the US as a country, or even as an
Empire. Their insatiable greed for money and power blinds them to everything. By rights,
those who orchestrated totally fake Russiagate and now push for impeachment, when Russiagate
flopped miserably, should be hanged on lampposts for high treason. Unfortunately, justice
won't be served. So, we have to be satisfied with an almost assured prospect of this
impeachment thing to flop, just like Russiagate before it. But in the process incalculable
damage will be done to our country and its institutions.
Those who support the separation of Kosovo from Serbia without Serbian consent cannot
argue against separation of Crimea from Ukraine without the consent of Kiev regime.
On the other hand, those who believe that post-WWII borders are sacrosanct have to
acknowledge that Crimea belongs to Russia (illegally even by loose Soviet standards
transferred to Ukraine by Khrushchev in 1956), Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Soviet Union
should be restored, and Germany should be re-divided.
At least now I know why Ukraine is so essential to American national security. It's so even
more of my and my families' taxes can pay for a massive expansion of Nato, which means
American military bases in Ukraine. Greenland to the borders of China.
We're encircling the earth, like those old cartoons about bankers.
@Ron
Unz I had to stop listening after the 10th min. where the good professor (without any
push-back from the interviewer) says:
Victor Yanukovich was overthrown by a street coup . at that moment, the United States
and not only the United States but the Western European Governments had to make a decision
would they acknowledge the overthrow of Yannukovic as having been legitimate, and therefore
accept whatever government emerged, and that was a fateful moment within 24hours, the
governments, including the government of president Obama endorsed what was essentially a
coup d'etat against Yanukovich.
Has the good Professor so quickly forgotten about Victoria Nuland distributing cookies
with John McCain in the Maidan as the coup was still unfolding? Her claim at the think tank
in DC where she discusses having spent $30million (if I remember correctly) for foisting the
Ukraine coup ?
Has he forgotten the historical conversation of Nuland and Payatt picking the next
president of Ukraine "Yats is our guy" and "Yats" actually emerging as the president a week
later ? None of these facts are in any way remotely compatible with passive role professor
Cohen ascribes to the US.
These are not simple omissions but willful acts of misleading of fools. The good
professor's little discussed career as a resource for the secret services has reemerged after
seemingly having been left out in the cold during the 1st attempted coup against Trump.
No, the real story is more than just a little NATO expansion as the professor does
suggest, but more directly, the attempted coup that the US is still trying to stage in Russia
itself, in order to regain control of Russia's vast energy resources which Putin forced the
oligarchs to disgorge. The US desperately wants to achieve this in order to be able to
ultimately also control China's access to those resources as well.
In the way that Iraq was supposed to be a staging post for an attack on Iran, Ukraine is
the staging post for an attack on Russia.
The great Russian expert stirred miles very clear of even hinting at such scenarios, even
though anyone who's thought about US world policies will easily arrive at this logical
conclusion.
What about the theft of Ukraine's farmland and the enserfing of its rural population? Isn't
this theft and enserfing of Ukrainians at least one major reason the US government got
involved, overseeing the transfer of this land into the hands of the transnational banking
crime syndicate? The Ukraine, with its rich, black soil, used to be called the breadbasket of
Europe.
Consider the fanatical intervention on the part of Victoria Nuland and the Kagans under
the guise of working for the State Dept to facilitate the theft. In a similar fashion,
according to Wayne Madsen, the State Dept. has a Dept of Foreign Asset Management, or some
similar name, that exists to protect the Chabad stranglehold on the world diamond trade, and,
according to Madsen, the language spoken and posters around the offices are in Hebrew, which
as a practical matter might as well be the case at the State Dept itself.
According to an article a few years ago at Oakland Institute, George Rohr's NCH Capital,
which latter organization has funded over 100 Chabad Houses on US campuses, owns over 1
million acres of Ukraine farmland. Other ownership interests of similarly vast tracts of
Ukraine farmland show a similar pattern of predation. At one point, it was suggested that the
Yinon Plan should be understood to include the Ukraine as the newly acquired breadbasket of
Eretz Israel. It may also be worth pointing out that now kosher Ivy League schools'
endowments are among the worst pillagers of native farmland and enserfers of the indigenous
populations they claim to protect.
@Mikhail
Well, if we really go into it, things become complicated. What Khmelnitsky united with Russia
was maybe 1/6th or 1/8th of current Ukraine. Huge (4-5 times greater) areas in the North and
West were added by Russian Tsars, almost as great areas in the South and East taken by Tsars
from Turkey and affiliated Crimean Khanate were added by Lenin, a big chunk in the West was
added by Stalin, and then in 1956 moron Khrushchev "gifted" Crimea (which he had no right to
do even by Soviet law). So, about 4/6th of "Ukraine" is Southern Russia, 1/6th is Eastern
Poland, some chunks are Hungary and Romania, and the remaining little stub is Ukraine proper.
@anon
American view always was: "yes, he is a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch". That
historically applied to many obnoxious regimes, now fully applies to Ukraine. In that Dems
and Reps always were essentially identical, revealing that they are two different puppets run
by the same puppet master.
Trump is hardly very intelligent, but he has some street smarts that degenerate elites
have lost. Hence their hatred of him. It is particularly galling for the elites that Trump
won in 2016, and has every chance of winning again in 2020 (unless they decide to murder him,
like JFK; but that would be a real giveaway, even the dumbest sheeple would smell the
rat).
@follyofwar
The only reason I can imagine that Putin/Russia would want to "take over" Ukraine and have
this political problem child back in the family might be because of Ukraine's black soil.
But it is probably not worth the aggravation.
Russia is building up its agricultural sector via major greenhouse installations and other
innovations.
@AP
Well, you are a true simpleton who repeats shallow conventional views. You don't ever seem to
think deeper about what you write, e.g. if Yanukovitch could beat anyone in a 1-on-1 election
than he obviously wasn't that unpopular and that makes Maidan illegal by any standard. You
say he could beat Tiahnybok, who was one of the leaders of Maidan, how was then Maidan
democratic? Or you don't care for democracy if people vote against your preferences?
Trade with Russia is way down and it is not coming back. That is my point – there
was definitely a way to do this better. It wasn't a choice of 'one or the other' –
actually EU was under the impression that Ukraine would help open up the Russian market. Your
either-or wasn't the plan, so did Kiev lie to EU? No wonder Ukraine has a snowball chance in
hell of joining EU.
@Skeptikal
Russia moved to the first place in the world in wheat exports, while greatly increasing its
production of meat, fowl, and fish. Those who supplied these commodities lost Russian market
for good. In fact, with sanctions, food in Russia got a lot better, and food in Moscow got
immeasurably better: now it's local staff instead of crap shipped from half-a-world away.
Funny thing is, Russian production of really good fancy cheeses has soared (partially with
the help of French and Italian producers who moved in to avoid any stupid sanctions).
So, there is no reason for Russia to take Ukraine on any conditions, especially
considering Ukraine's exorbitant external debt. If one calculates European demand for
transplantation kidneys and prostitutes, two of the most successful Ukrainian exports,
Ukraine will pay off its debt – never. Besides, the majority of Russians learned to
despise Ukraine due to its subservient vassalage to the US (confirmed yet again by the
transcript of the conversation between Trump and Ze), so the emotional factor is also
virtually gone. Now the EU and the US face the standard rule of retail: you broke it, you own
it. That infuriates Americans and EU bureaucrats more than anything.
@Sergey
Krieger "Demography statistic won't support fairy tales by solzhenicin and his kind."
-- What's your point? Your post reads like an attempt at saying that Kaganovitch was white
like snow and that it does not matter what crimes were committed in the Soviet Union because
of the "demography statistic" and because you, Sergey Krieger, are a grander person next to
Solzhenitsyn and "his kind." By the way, had not A. I. S. returned to Russia, away from the
coziness of western life?
S.K.: "You should start research onto mass dying of population after 1991 and subsequent
and ongoing demographic catastroph in Russia under current not as "brutal " as soviet
regime."
@AP
Maidan was an illegal coup that violated Ukrainian constitution (I should say all of them,
there were too many) and lots of other laws. And that's not the worst part of it. But it
already happened, there is no going back for Ukraine. It's a "yes or no" thing, you can't be
a little bit pregnant. We can either commiserate with Ukraine or gloat, but it committed
suicide. Some say this project was doomed from the start. I think Ukraine had a chance and
blew it.
@AnonFromTN
I usually refrain from labelling off-cycle changes in government as revolutions or coups
– it clearly depends on one's views and can't be determined.
In general, when violence or military is involved, it is more likely it was a coup. If a
country has a reasonably open election process, violently overthrowing the current government
would also seem like a coup, since it is unnecessary. Ukraine had both violence and a coming
election that was democratic. If Yanukovitch would prevent or manipulate the elections, one
could make a case that at that point – after the election – the population could
stage a ' revolution '.
AP is a simpleton who repeats badly thought out slogans and desperately tries to save some
face for the Maidan fiasco – so we will not change his mind, his mind is done with
changes, it is all about avoiding regrets even if it means living in a lie. One can almost
feel sorry for him, if he wasn't so obnoxious.
Ukraine has destroyed its own future gradually after 1991, all the elites there failed,
Yanukovitch was just the last in a long line of failures, the guy before him (Yushenko?) left
office with a 5% approval. Why wasn't there a revolution against him? Maidan put a cherry on
that rotting cake – a desperate scream of pain by people who had lost all hope and so
blindly fell for cheap promises by the new-old hustlers.
We don't know what happens next, but we know the following: Ukraine will not be in EU,
or Nato. It will not be a unified, prosperous country. It will continue losing a large part
of its population. And oligarchy and 'corruption' is going to stay.
Another Maidan would most likely make things even worse and trigger a complete
disintegration. Those are the wages of stupidity and desperation – one can see an
individual example with AP, but they all seem like that.
@AP
You intentionally omitted the second part of what I wrote: 'a reasonably democratic
elections', neither 18th century American colonies, nor Russia in 1917 or Romania in 1989,
had them. Ukraine in 2014 did.
So all your belly-aching is for nothing. The talk about 'subverting' and doing a
preventive 'revolution' on Maidan to prevent 'subversion' has a very Stalinist ring to it. If
you start revolutionary violence because you claim to anticipate that something bad might
happen, well, the sky is the limit and you have no rules.
You are desperately trying to justify a stupid and unworkable act. As we watch the
unfolding disaster and millions leaving Ukraine, this "Maidan was great!!!" mantra will sound
even more silly. But enjoy it, it is not Somalia, wow, I guess as long as a country is not
Somalia it is ok. Ukraine is by far the poorest large country in Europe. How is that a
success?
@Beckow
True believers are called that because they willfully ignore facts and logic. AP is a true
believer Ukie. Ukie faith is their main undoing. Unfortunately, they are ruining the country
with their insane dreams. But that cannot be helped now. The position of a large fraction of
Ukrainian population is best described by a cruel American saying: fool me once, shame on
you, fool me twice, shame on me.
@AnonFromTN
You are right, it can't be helped. Another saying is that it takes two to lie: one who lies,
and one to lie to. The receiver of lies is also responsible.
What happened in Ukraine was: Nuland&Co. went to Ukraine and lied to them about '
EU, 'Marshall plan', aid, 'you will be Western ', etc,,,'. Maidanistas swallowed it
because they wanted to believe – it is easy to lie to desperate people. Making promises
is very easy. US soft power is all based on making promises.
What Nuland&Co. really wanted was to create a deep Ukraine-Russia hostility and to
grab Crimea, so they could get Russian Navy out and move Nato in. It didn't work very well,
all we have is useless hostility, and a dysfunctional state. But as long as they serve
espresso in Lviv, AP will scream that it was all worth it, 'no Somalia', it is 'all normal',
almost as good as 2013 . Right.
@AP
I don't disagree with what you said, but my point was different:
lower living standards than there would be otherwise for most Ukrainians
Without the unnecessary hostility and the break in business relations with Russia the
living standards in Ukraine would be higher. That, I think, noone would dispute. One can
trace that directly to the so-far failed attempt to get Ukraine into Nato and Russia out of
its Crimea bases. There has been a high cost for that policy, so it is appropriate to ask:
why? did the authors of that policy think it through?
@AP
I don't give a flying f k about Yanukovitch and your projections about what 'would be growth'
under him. He was history by 2014 in any case.
One simple point that you don't seem to grasp: it was Yanuk who negotiated the association
treaty with EU that inevitably meant Ukraine in Nato and Russia bases out of Crimea (after a
decent interval). For anyone to call Yanuk a 'pro-Russian' is idiotic – what we see
today are the results of Yanukovitch's policies. By the way, the first custom restrictions on
Ukraine's exports to Russia happened in summer 2013 under Y.
If you still think that Yanukovitch was in spite of all of that somehow a 'Russian
puppet', you must have a very low opinion of Kremlin skills in puppetry. He was not, he was
fully onboard with the EU-Nato-Crimea policy – he implemented it until he got
outflanked by even more radical forces on Maidan.
@Beckow
Well, exactly like all Ukrainian presidents before and after him, Yanuk was a thief. He might
have been a more intelligent and/or more cautious thief that Porky, but a thief he was.
Anyway, there is no point in crying over spilled milk: history has no subjunctive mood.
Ukraine has dug a hole for itself, and it still keeps digging, albeit slower, after a clown
in whole socks replaced a clown in socks with holes. By now this new clown is also a
murderer, as he did not stop shelling Donbass, although so far he has committed fewer crimes
than Porky.
There is no turning back. Regardless of Ukrainian policies, many things it used to sell
Russia won't be bought any more: Russia developed its own shipbuilding (subcontracted some to
South Korea), is making its own helicopter and ship engines, all stages of space rockets,
etc. Russia won't return any military or high-tech production to Ukraine, ever. What's more,
most Russians are now disgusted with Ukraine, which would impede improving relations even if
Ukraine gets a sane government (which is extremely unlikely in the next 5 years).
Ukraine's situation is best described by Russian black humor saying: "what we fought for
has befallen us". End of story.
@Peter
Akuleyev How many millions? It is same story. Ukraine claims more and more millions dead
from so called Hilodomor when in Russia liberals have been screaming about 100 million deaths
in russia from bolsheviks. Both are fairy tales. Now you better answer what is current
population of ukraine. The last soviet time 1992 level was 52 million. I doubt you got even
40 million now. Under soviet power both ukraine and russia population were steadily growing.
Now, under whose music you are dancing along with those in Russia that share your views when
die off very real one is going right under your nose.
By now this new clown is also a murderer, as he did not stop shelling Donbass, although
so far he has committed fewer crimes than Porky.
Have you noticed that the Republicans, while seeming to defend Trump, never challenge the
specious assertion that delaying arms to Ukraine was a threat to US security? At first I
thought this was oversight. Silly me. Keeping the New Cold War smoldering is more important
to those hawks.
Tulsi Gabbard flipping to support the impeachment enquiry was especially disappointing.
I'm guessing she was under lots of pressure, because she can't possibly believe that arming
the Ukies is good for our security. If I could get to one of her events, I'd ask her direct,
what's up with that. Obama didn't give them arms at all, even made some remarks about not
inflaming the situation. (A small token, after his people managed the coup, spent 8 years
demonizing Putin, and presided over origins of Russiagate to make Trump's [stated] goal of
better relations impossible.)
Not really. Ukies are wonnabe Nazis, but they fall way short of their ideal. The original
German Nazis were organized, capable, brave, sober, and mostly honest. Ukie scum is
disorganized, ham-handed, cowardly, drunk (or under drugs), and corrupt to the core. They are
heroes only against unarmed civilians, good only for theft, torture, and rape. When it comes
to the real fight with armed opponents, they run away under various pretexts or surrender.
Nazis should sue these impostors for defamation.
Yanukovych signed an internationally brokered power sharing agreement with his main
rivals, who then violated it. Yanukovych up to that point was the democratically elected
president of Ukraine.
Since his being violently overthrown, people have been unjustly jailed, beaten and killed
for politically motivated reasons having to do with a stated opposition to the
Euromaidan.
Yanukovych refrained from using from using considerably greater force, when compared to
others if put in the same situation, against a mob element that included property damage and
the deaths of law enforcement personnel.
In the technical legal sense, there was a legit basis to jail the likes of Tymoshenko. If
I correctly recall Yushchenko offered testimony against Tymoshenko. Rather laughable that
Poroshenko appointed the non-lawyer Lutsenko into a key legal position.
@Beckow
The undemocratic aspect involving Yanukovych's overthrow included the disproportionate number
of Svoboda members appointed to key cabinet positions. At the time, Svoboda was on record for
favoring the dissolution of Crimea's autonomous status
@AP
Grest comment #159 by Beckow. Really, I'm more concerned with the coup against POTUS that's
happening right now, since before he took office. The Ukraine is pivotal, from the Kiev
putschists collaborating with the DNC, to the CIA [pretend] whistleblowers who now subvert
Trump's investigation of those crimes.
Tragic and pitiful, the Ukrainians jumped from a rock to a hard place. Used and abandoned
by the Clinton-Soros gang, they appeal to the next abusive Sugar-Daddy. Isn't this FRANCE 24
report fairly objective?
Revisited: Five years on, what has Ukraine's Maidan Revolution achieved?
@AP
This from BBC is less current. (That magnificent bridge -the one the Ukies tried to sabotage-
is now in operation, of course.) I'm just trying to use sources that might not trigger you.
@AP
"Whenever people ask me how to figure out the truth about Ukraine, I always recommend they
watch the film Ukraine on Fire by director @lopatonok and executive produced by
@TheOliverStone. The sequel Revealing Ukraine will be out soon proud to be in it."
– Lee Sranahan (Follow @stranahan for Ukrainegate in depth.)
" .what has really changed in the life of Ukrainians?"
@Malacaay
Baltics, Ukrainians and Poles were part of the Polish Kingdom from 1025-1569 and the
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 1569-1764.
This probably explains their differences with Russia.
Russia had this area in the Russian Empire from 1764-1917. Russia called this area the
Pale of Settlement. Why? This Polish Kingdom since 1025 welcomed 25000 Jews in, who later
grew to millions by the 19th century. They are the Ashkenazis who are all over the world
these days. The name Pale was for Ashkenazis to stay in that area and not immigrate to the
rest of Russia.
The reasoning for this was not religious prejudice but the way the Ashkenazis treated the
peasants of the Pale. It was to protect the Russian peasants. This did not help after 1917. A
huge invasion of Ashkenazis descended all over Russia to take up positions all over the
Soviet Union.
Ukraine US is like the Pale again. It has a Jewish President and a Jewish Prime
Minister.
Ukraine and Poland were both controlled by Tartars too. Ukraine longer than Russia. Russia
ended the Tartar rule of Crimea in 1783. The Crimean Tartars lived off raiding Ukraine,
Poland, and parts of Russia for Slav slaves. Russia ended this Slav slave trade in 1783.
"... It's a major unanticipated consequence of the digital "revolution." It has gotten us stuck looking backward at events, obsessively replaying them, while working overtime to spin them favorably for one team or the other, at the expense of actually living in real time and dealing with reality as it unspools with us. If life were a ballgame, we'd only be watching jumbotron replays while failing to pay attention to the action on the field. ..."
"... The stupendous failure of the Mueller Investigation only revealed what can happen when extraordinary bad faith, dishonesty, and incompetence are brought to this project of reinventing "truth" -- of who did what and why -- while it provoked a counter-industry of detecting its gross falsifications. ..."
"... Perhaps you can see why unleashing the CIA, NSA, and the FBI on political enemies by Mr. Obama and his cohorts has become such a disaster. When that scheme blew up, the intel community went to the mattresses, as the saying goes in Mafia legend and lore. The "company" found itself at existential risk. Of course, the CIA has long been accused of following an agenda of its own simply because it had the means to do it. It had the manpower, the money, and the equipment to run whatever operations it felt like running, and a history of going its own way out of sheer institutional arrogance, of knowing better than the crackers and clowns elected by the hoi-polloi. The secrecy inherent in its charter was a green light for limitless mischief and some of the agency's directors showed open contempt for the occupants of the White House. Think: Allen Dulles and William Casey. And lately, Mr. Brennan. ..."
Here's one big reason that America is driving itself batshit crazy : the explosion of computerized records, emails, inter-office
memos, Twitter trails, Facebook memorabilia, iPhone videos, YouTubes, recorded conversations, and the vast alternative universe of
storage capacity for all this stuff makes it seem possible to constantly go back and reconstruct reality. All it has really done
is amplified the potential for political mischief to suicide level.
It's a major unanticipated consequence of the digital "revolution." It has gotten us stuck looking backward at events, obsessively
replaying them, while working overtime to spin them favorably for one team or the other, at the expense of actually living in real
time and dealing with reality as it unspools with us. If life were a ballgame, we'd only be watching jumbotron replays while failing
to pay attention to the action on the field.
Before all this, history was left largely to historians, who curated it from a range of views for carefully considered introduction
to the stream of human culture, and managed this process at a pace that allowed a polity to get on with its business at hand in the
here-and-now -- instead of incessantly and recursively reviewing events that have already happened 24/7. The more electronic media
has evolved, the more it lends itself to manipulation, propaganda, and falsification of whatever happened five minutes, or five hours,
or five weeks ago.
This is exactly why and how the losing team in the 2016 election has worked so hard to change that bit of history. The stupendous
failure of the Mueller Investigation only revealed what can happen when extraordinary bad faith, dishonesty, and incompetence are
brought to this project of reinventing "truth" -- of who did what and why -- while it provoked a counter-industry of detecting its
gross falsifications.
This dynamic has long been systematically studied and applied by institutions like the so-called "intelligence community," and
has gotten so out-of-hand that its main mission these days appears to be the maximum gaslighting of the nation -- for the purpose
of its own desperate self-defense. The "Whistleblower" episode is the latest turn in dishonestly manipulated records, but the most
interesting feature of it is that the release of the actual transcript of the Trump-Zelensky phone call did not affect the "narrative"
precooked between the CIA and Adam Schiff's House Intel Committee. They just blundered on with the story and when major parts of
the replay didn't add up, they retreated to secret sessions in the basement of the US capitol.
Perhaps you can see why unleashing the CIA, NSA, and the FBI on political enemies by Mr. Obama and his cohorts has become
such a disaster. When that scheme blew up, the intel community went to the mattresses, as the saying goes in Mafia legend and lore.
The "company" found itself at existential risk. Of course, the CIA has long been accused of following an agenda of its own simply
because it had the means to do it. It had the manpower, the money, and the equipment to run whatever operations it felt like running,
and a history of going its own way out of sheer institutional arrogance, of knowing better than the crackers and clowns elected by
the hoi-polloi. The secrecy inherent in its charter was a green light for limitless mischief and some of the agency's directors showed
open contempt for the occupants of the White House. Think: Allen Dulles and William Casey. And lately, Mr. Brennan.
The recently-spawned NSA has mainly added the capacity to turn everything that happens into replay material, since it is suspected
of recording every phone call, every email, every financial transaction, every closed-circuit screen capture, and anything else its
computers can snare for storage in its Utah Data Storage Center. Now you know why the actions of Edward Snowden were so significant.
He did what he did because he was moral enough to know the face of malevolence when he saw it. That he survives in exile is a miracle.
As for the FBI, only an exceptional species of ineptitude explains the trouble they got themselves into with the RussiaGate fiasco.
The unbelievable election loss of Mrs. Clinton screwed the pooch for them, and the desperate acts that followed only made things
worse. The incompetence and mendacity on display was only matched by Mr. Mueller and his lawyers, who were supposed to be the FBI's
cleanup crew and only left a bigger mess -- all of it cataloged in digital records.
Now, persons throughout all these agencies are waiting for the hammer to fall. If they are prosecuted, the process will entail
yet another monumental excursion into the replaying of those digital records. It could go on for years. So, the final act in the
collapse of the USA will be the government choking itself to death on replayed narratives from its own server farms.
In the meantime, events are actually tending in a direction that will eventually deprive the nation of the means to continue most
of its accustomed activities including credible elections, food distribution, a reliable electric grid, and perhaps even self-defense.
"... George W. Bush's presidency wasn't just morally bankrupt. In a superior reality, the Hague would be sorting out whether he is guilty of war crimes. Since our international institutions have failed to punish, or even censure him, surely the only moral response from civil society should be to shun him. But here is Ellen DeGeneres hanging out with him at a Cowboys game: ..."
"... This is what we say to children who don't want to sit next to the class misfit at lunch. It is not -- or at least it should not -- be the way we talk about a man who used his immense power to illegally invade another country where we still have troops 16 years later. His feet should bleed wherever he walks and Iraqis should get to throw shoes at him until the end of his days. ..."
"... DeGeneres isn't a role model for civility. Her friendship with Bush simply embodies the grossest form of class solidarity. From a lofty enough vantage point, perhaps Bush's misdeeds really look like minor partisan differences. Perhaps Iraq seems very far away, and so do the poor of New Orleans, when the stage of your show is the closest you get to anyone without power." ..."
"... There is no reason that anyone should treat George Bush with respect. ..."
"Comedian Ellen DeGeneres loves to tell everyone to be kind. It's a loose word, kindness; on her show, DeGeneres customarily
uses it to mean a generic sort of niceness. Don't bully. Befriend people! It's a charming thought, though it has its limits
as a moral ethic. There are people in the world, after all, whom it is better not to befriend. Consider, for example, the person
of George W. Bush. Tens of thousands of people are dead because his administration lied to the American public about the presence
of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and then, based on that lie, launched a war that's now in its 16th year. After Hurricane
Katrina struck and hundreds of people drowned in New Orleans, Bush twiddled his thumbs for days. Rather than fire the officials
responsible for the government's life-threateningly lackluster response to the crisis, he praised them, before flying over
the scene in Air Force One. He opposed basic human rights for LGBT people, and reproductive rights for women, and did more
to empower the American Christian right than any president since Reagan.
George W. Bush's presidency wasn't just morally bankrupt. In a superior reality, the Hague would be sorting out whether
he is guilty of war crimes. Since our international institutions have failed to punish, or even censure him, surely the only
moral response from civil society should be to shun him. But here is Ellen DeGeneres hanging out with him at a Cowboys game:
And here is Ellen DeGeneres explaining why it's good and normal to share laughs, small talk, and nachos with a man who has
many deaths on his conscience:
Here's the money quote from her apologia:
"We're all different. And I think that we've forgotten that that's okay that we're all different," she told her studio
audience. "When I say be kind to one another, I don't mean be kind to the people who think the same way you do. I mean be
kind to everyone."
This is what we say to children who don't want to sit next to the class misfit at lunch. It is not -- or at least it
should not -- be the way we talk about a man who used his immense power to illegally invade another country where we still
have troops 16 years later. His feet should bleed wherever he walks and Iraqis should get to throw shoes at him until the end
of his days.
Nevertheless, many celebrities and politicians have hailed DeGeneres for her radical civility:
There's almost no point to rebutting anything that Chris Cillizza writes. Whatever he says is inevitably dumb and wrong,
and then I get angry while I think about how much money he gets to be dumb and wrong on a professional basis. But on this occasion,
I'll make an exception. The notion that DeGeneres's friendship with Bush is antithetical to Trumpism fundamentally misconstrues
the force that makes Trump possible. Trump isn't a simple playground bully, he's the president. Americans grant our commanders-in-chief
extraordinary deference once they leave office. They become celebrities, members of an apolitical royal class. This tendency
to separate former presidents from the actions of their office, as if they were merely actors in a stage play, or retired athletes
from a rival team, contributes to the atmosphere of impunity that enabled Trump. If Trump's critics want to make sure that
his cruelties are sins the public and political class alike never tolerate again, our reflexive reverence for the presidency
has to die.
DeGeneres isn't a role model for civility. Her friendship with Bush simply embodies the grossest form of class solidarity.
From a lofty enough vantage point, perhaps Bush's misdeeds really look like minor partisan differences. Perhaps Iraq seems
very far away, and so do the poor of New Orleans, when the stage of your show is the closest you get to anyone without power."
...I am all in favor of Tulsi Gabbard's anti-war stance, but this comment shows me she is too childish to hold any power.
Tulsi Gabbard
Verified account @TulsiGabbard
22h22 hours ago
.@TheEllenShow msg of being kind to ALL is so needed right now. Enough with the divisiveness. We can't let politics tear
us apart. There are things we will disagree on strongly, and things we agree on -- let's treat each other with respect, aloha,
& work together for the people.
There is no reason that anyone should treat George Bush with respect.
This is deep state operation, Russiagate II, pure and simple
Stephen Miller proved to be formidable debater. His jeremiad against the Deep State at 12:55 was brilliant. Former South
Carolina Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy says people have stopped sharing information with the House Intelligence Committee because
Chair Adam Schiff is the most deeply partisan member who is "leaking like a sieve"
The problem with Pelosi bold move is that she does not have votes for impeachment, but the dirt uncovered might sink any
Democrat changes for 2020
Notable quotes:
"... Stephen Miller is amazing at wrestling and smacking down this Democratic Operative Chris Wallace ..."
"... Wallace is a minion of the globalists. ..."
"... Stephen Miller is CORRECT -- there is no more integrity and confidence in government affairs when it can be turned into ammunition against the President of the United States. Chris Wallace really ought to work for CNN. ..."
"... Chris Wallace Incorrect. We have the Docs that expose the corruption on the part of the Biden. We have his legal team basically threatening the new prosectutor saying in lawyer speak "Hey you saw how we got the last prosecutor fired? I'd suggest you cooperate with us or you will get fired next" .450 pages from Biden's son legal team at Burisma, Ukrainian Embassy Official Docs and State Department Docs. ..."
"... Also last time I checked Donald Trump is the head of the executive branch he can direct anyone to go find anything, and I haven't seen one person show me where he can't. ..."
Stephen Miller is CORRECT -- there is no more integrity and confidence in government
affairs when it can be turned into ammunition against the President of the United States.
Chris Wallace really ought to work for CNN.
Chris Wallace Incorrect. We have the Docs that expose the corruption on the part of the
Biden. We have his legal team basically threatening the new prosectutor saying in lawyer
speak "Hey you saw how we got the last prosecutor fired? I'd suggest you cooperate with us or
you will get fired next" .450 pages from Biden's son legal team at Burisma, Ukrainian Embassy
Official Docs and State Department Docs.
Wallace you sir you are a paritsan hack. Anyone can
read the docs too thats whats sad. I'm only 70 pages in and its bad for the Biden's jailtime
bad.
Also last time I checked Donald Trump is the head of the executive branch he can direct
anyone to go find anything, and I haven't seen one person show me where he can't.
If commissioners for a New York-area Fire Department, which responded to the attacks
called for a new investigation into the events of September 11 then official story is officially dead.
Notable quotes:
"... Evidence continues to mount that the official narrative itself is the irrational narrative of September 11, and it becomes ever more clear that the media remains committed to preventing legitimate questions about that day from receiving the scrutiny they deserve. ..."
"... For instance, in late July, commissioners for a New York-area Fire Department, which responded to the attacks and lost one of their own that day, called for a new investigation into the events of September 11. On July 24, the board of commissioners for the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District, which serves a population of around 30,000 near Queens, voted unanimously in their call for a new investigation into the attacks. ..."
"... Commissioner Christopher Gioia, who drafted and introduced the resolution, told those present at the meeting's conclusion that getting all of the New York fire districts onboard was their plan anyway. ..."
"... "We're a tight-knit community and we never forget our fallen brothers and sisters. You better believe that when the entire fire service of New York State is on board, we will be an unstoppable force," Gioia said. "We were the first fire district to pass this resolution. We won't be the last," he added. ..."
"... While questioning the official conclusions of the first federal investigation into 9/11 has been treated as taboo in the American media landscape for years, it is worth noting that even those who led the commission have said that the investigation was "set up to fail" from the start and that they were repeatedly misled and lied to by federal officials in relation to the events of that day. ..."
"... For instance, the chair and vice-chair of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, wrote in their book Without Precedent that not only was the commission starved of funds and its powers of investigation oddly limited, but that they were obstructed and outright lied to by top Pentagon officials and officials with the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA). ..."
"... Though the official story regarding the collapse of WTC 7 cites "uncontrolled building fires" as leading to the building's destruction, a majority of Americans who have seen the footage of the 47-story tower come down from four different angles overwhelmingly reject the official story, based on a new YouGov poll released on Monday. ..."
"... That poll found that 52 percent of those who saw the footage were either sure or suspected that the building's fall was due to explosives and was a controlled demolition, with 27 percent saying they didn't know what to make of the footage. Only 21 percent of those polled agreed with the official story that the building collapsed due to fires alone. Prior to seeing the footage, 36 percent of respondents said that they were unaware that a third building collapsed on September 11 and more than 67 percent were unable to name the building that had collapsed. ..."
"... Ted Walter, Director of Strategy and Development for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, told MintPress that the lack of awareness about WTC 7 among the general public "goes to show that the mainstream media has completely failed to inform the American people about even the most basic facts related to 9/11. On any other day in history, if a 47-story skyscraper fell into its footprint due to 'office fires,' everyone in the country would have heard about it." ..."
"... The Americans who felt that the video footage of WTC 7's collapse did not fit with the official narrative and appeared to show a controlled demolition now have more scientific evidence to fall back on after the release of a new university study found that the building came down not due to fire but from "the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building." The extensive four-year study was conducted by the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Alaska and used complex computer models to determine if the building really was the first steel-framed high-rise ever to have collapsed solely due to office fires. ..."
"... The only reason it remains taboo to ask questions about the official narrative, whose own authors admit that it is both flawed and incomplete, is that the dominant forces in the American media and the U.S. government have successfully convinced many Americans that doing so is not only dangerous but irrational and un-American. ..."
Evidence continues to mount that the official narrative itself is the irrational
narrative of September 11, and it becomes ever more clear that the media remains committed to
preventing legitimate questions about that day from receiving the scrutiny they
deserve.
Today the event that defined the United States' foreign policy in the 21st century, and
heralded the destruction of whole countries, turns 18. The events of September 11, 2001 remains
etched into the memories of Americans and many others, as a collective tragedy that brought
Americans together and brought as well a general resolve among them that those responsible be
brought to justice.
While the events of that day did unite Americans in these ways for a time, the different
trajectories of the official relative to the independent investigations into the September 11
attacks have often led to division in the years since 2001, with vicious attacks or outright
dismissal being levied against the latter.
Yet, with 18 years having come and gone -- and with the tireless efforts from victims'
families, first responders, scientists and engineers -- the tide appears to be turning, as new
evidence continues to emerge and calls for new investigations are made. However, American
corporate media has remained largely silent, preferring to ignore new developments that could
derail the "official story" of one of the most iconic and devastating attacks to ever occur on
American soil.
For instance, in late July, commissioners for a New York-area Fire Department, which
responded to the attacks and lost one of their own that day,
called for a new investigation into the events of September 11. On July 24, the board of
commissioners for the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District, which serves a population of
around 30,000 near Queens, voted unanimously in their call for a new investigation into the
attacks.
While the call for a new investigation from a NY Fire Department involved in the rescue
effort would normally seem newsworthy to the media outlets who often rally Americans to "never
forget," the commissioners' call for a new investigation was met with total silence from the
mainstream media. The likely reason for the dearth of coverage on an otherwise newsworthy vote
was likely due to the fact that the resolution that called for the new investigation contained
the following clause:
Whereas, the overwhelming evidence presented in said petition demonstrates beyond any
doubt that pre-planted explosives and/or incendiaries -- not just airplanes and the ensuing
fires -- caused the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings, killing the vast
majority of the victims who perished that day;"
In the post-9/11 world, those who have made such claims, no matter how well-grounded their
claims may be, have often been derided and attacked as "conspiracy theorists" for questioning
the official claims that the three World Trade Center buildings that collapsed on September 11
did so for any reason other than being struck by planes and from the resulting fires. Yet, it
is much more difficult to launch these same attacks against members of a fire department that
lost a fireman on September 11 and many of whose members were involved with the rescue efforts
of that day, some of whom still suffer from chronic illnesses as a result.
Rescue workers climb on piles of rubble at the World Trade Center in New York, Sept. 13,
2001. Beth A. Keiser | AP
Another likely reason that the media monolithically avoided coverage of the vote was out of
concern that it would lead more fire departments to pass similar resolutions, which would make
it more difficult for such news to avoid gaining national coverage. Yet, Commissioner
Christopher Gioia, who drafted and introduced the resolution, told those present at the
meeting's conclusion that getting all of the New York fire districts onboard was their plan
anyway.
"We're a tight-knit community and we never forget our fallen brothers and sisters. You
better believe that when the entire fire service of New York State is on board, we will be an
unstoppable force," Gioia said. "We were the first fire district to pass this resolution. We
won't be the last," he added.
While questioning the official conclusions of the first federal investigation into 9/11 has
been treated as taboo in the American media landscape for years, it is worth noting that even
those who led the commission have said that the investigation was "set up to fail" from the
start and that they were repeatedly misled and lied to by federal officials in relation to the
events of that day.
For instance, the chair and vice-chair of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton,
wrote in their book Without
Precedent that not only was the commission starved of funds and its powers of
investigation oddly limited, but that they were obstructed and outright lied to by top Pentagon
officials and officials with the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA). They and other commissioners
have outright said
that the "official" report on the attacks is incomplete, flawed and unable to answer key
questions about the terror attacks.
Despite the failure of American corporate media to report these facts, local legislative
bodies in New York, beginning with the fire districts that lost loved ones and friends that
day, are leading the way in the search for real answers that even those that wrote the
"official story" say were deliberately kept from them.
Persuasive scientific evidence continues to roll in
Not long after the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District called for a new 9/11
investigation, a groundbreaking university study added even more weight to the commissioners'
call for a new look at the evidence regarding the collapse of three buildings at the World
Trade Center complex. While most Americans know full well that the twin towers collapsed on
September 11, fewer are aware that a third building -- World Trade Center Building 7 -- also
collapsed. That collapse occurred seven hours after the twin towers came down, even though WTC
7, or "Building 7," was never struck by a plane.
It was not until nearly two months after its collapse that reports revealed that the CIA
had a "secret office" in WTC 7 and that, after the building's destruction, "a special CIA team
scoured the rubble in search of secret documents and intelligence reports stored in the
station, either on paper or in computers." WTC 7 also housed offices for the Department of
Defense, the Secret Service, the New York Mayor's Office of Emergency Management and the bank
Salomon Brothers.
Though the official story regarding the collapse of WTC 7 cites "uncontrolled building
fires" as leading to the building's destruction, a majority of Americans who have seen the
footage of the 47-story tower come down from four different angles overwhelmingly reject
the official story, based on a new
YouGov poll released on Monday.
That poll found that 52 percent of those who saw the footage were either sure or suspected
that the building's fall was due to explosives and was a controlled demolition, with 27 percent
saying they didn't know what to make of the footage. Only 21 percent of those polled agreed
with the official story that the building collapsed due to fires alone. Prior to seeing the
footage, 36 percent of respondents said that they were unaware that a third building collapsed
on September 11 and more than 67 percent were unable to name the building that had
collapsed.
Ted Walter, Director of Strategy and Development for Architects and Engineers for 9/11
Truth, told MintPress that the lack of awareness about WTC 7 among the general public
"goes to show that the mainstream media has completely failed to inform the American people
about even the most basic facts related to 9/11. On any other day in history, if a 47-story
skyscraper fell into its footprint due to 'office fires,' everyone in the country would have
heard about it."
The fact that the media chose not to cover this, Walter asserted, shows that "the mainstream
media and the political establishment live in an alternative universe and the rest of the
American public is living in a different universe and responding to what they see in front of
them," as reflected by the results of the recent YouGov poll.
Another significant finding of the YouGov poll was that 48 percent of respondents supported,
while only 15 percent opposed, a new investigation into the events of September 11. This shows
that not only was the Franklin Square Fire District's recent call for a new investigation in
line with American public opinion, but that viewing the footage of WTC 7's collapse raises more
questions than answers for many Americans, questions that were not adequately addressed by the
official investigation of the 9/11 Commission.
The Americans who felt that the video footage of WTC 7's collapse did not fit with the
official narrative and appeared to show a controlled demolition now have more scientific
evidence to fall back on after the release of a new university study found that the building
came down not due to fire but from "the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the
building." The extensive four-year study was conducted by the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at the University of Alaska and used complex computer models to
determine if the building really was the first steel-framed high-rise ever to have collapsed
solely due to office fires.
The study, currently available as a draft , concluded that "uncontrolled building fires"
did not lead the building to fall into its footprint -- tumbling more than 100 feet at the rate
of gravity free-fall for 2.5 seconds of its seven-second collapse -- as has officially been
claimed. Instead, the study -- authored by Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, Dr. Feng Xiao and Dr. Zhili
Quan -- found that "fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the
conclusions of NIST [National Institute of Standards and Technology] and private engineering
firms that studied the collapse," while also concluding "that the collapse of WTC 7 was a
global [i.e., comprehensive] failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in
the building."
This "near-simultaneous failure of every column" in WTC 7 strongly suggests that explosives
were involved in its collapse, which is further supported by the statements made by
Barry Jennings, the then-Deputy Director of Emergency Services Department for the New York City
Housing Authority. Jennings
told a reporter the day of the attack that he and Michael Hess, then-Corporation Counsel
for New York City, had heard and seen explosions in WTC 7 several hours prior to its collapse
and later repeated those claims to filmmaker Dylan Avery. The first responders who helped
rescue Jennings and Hess also claimed to have heard explosions in WTC 7. Jennings died in 2008,
two days prior the release of the official NIST report blaming WTC 7's collapse on fires. To
date, no official cause of death for Jennings has been given.
Still "crazy" after all these years?
Eighteen years after the September 11 attacks, questioning the official government narrative
of the events of those days still remains taboo for many, as merely asking questions or calling
for a new investigation into one of the most important events in recent American history
frequently results in derision and dismissal.
Yet, this 9/11 anniversary -- with a new study demolishing the official narrative on WTC 7,
with a new poll showing that more than half of Americans doubt the government narrative on WTC
7, and with firefighters who responded to 9/11 calling for a new investigation -- is it still
"crazy" to be skeptical of the official story?
Firefighters hose down the smoldering remains of 7 World Trade Center Tuesday, Sept. 18,
2001, in New York. Ryan Remiorz | AP
Even in years past, when asking difficult questions about September 11 was even more "off
limits," it was often first responders, survivors and victims' families who had asked the most
questions about what had really transpired that day and who have led the search for truth for
nearly two decades -- not wild-eyed "conspiracy theorists," as many have claimed.
The only reason it remains taboo to ask questions about the official narrative, whose own
authors admit that it is both flawed and incomplete, is that the dominant forces in the
American media and the U.S. government have successfully convinced many Americans that doing so
is not only dangerous but irrational and un-American.
However, as evidence continues to mount that the official narrative itself is the irrational
narrative, it becomes ever more clear that the reason for this media campaign is to prevent
legitimate questions about that day from receiving the scrutiny they deserve, even smearing
victims' families and ailing first responders to do so. For too long, "Never Forget" has been
nearly synonymous with "Never Question."
Yet, failing to ask those questions -- even when more Americans than ever now favor a new
investigation and discount the official explanation for WTC 7's collapse -- is the ultimate
injustice, not only to those who died in New York City on September 11, but those who have been
killed in their names in the years that have followed.
Whitney Webb is a MintPress News journalist based in Chile. She has contributed to
several independent media outlets including Global Research, EcoWatch, the Ron Paul Institute
and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has made several radio and television appearances and
is the 2019 winner of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in
Journalism.
Leroy Hulsey et al. of the University of Alaska Fairbanks released their draft report on WTC7
on September 3rd. These are the major findings and conclusions:
" The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC
7 on
9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the
collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global
failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.
This conclusion is based primarily upon the finding that the simultaneous failure of
all
core columns over 8 stories followed 1.3 seconds later by the simultaneous failure of all
exterior columns over 8 stories produces almost exactly the behavior observed in videos of
the collapse, whereas no other sequence of failures that we simulated produced the observed
behavior."
So World Trade Tower 7 was an engineered demolition. This is something that the 9/11
"conspiracy theorists" believed all along. Now a major engineering study confirms it.
...The infuriating thing about 9/11 and the multitude of lesser false flags which both
preceded and followed it is that, although most Americans know it was as phoney as a three
and a half dollar fed reserve note, everyone seems content to put up with the extremely
phoney "war on terror" it was designed to create and which has already destroyed a hand full
of countries in the world, caused the murder of upwards of two million people, mostly using
U.S. military, and turned the U.S. into a ruthlessly insane police state wherein everyone is
made to obey patently unlawful statutes in the name of "emergency" while the ruling elite has
quit obeying any laws at all while gathering a massive military presence to cow the now
restless and resentful public. – See more at:Christopher Bollyn: The Man Who Solved
9/11
@The Alarmist An aerospace engineer. Good for you. Maybe you need a refresher course with
some architects and building engineers. Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth is a good
place to start.
As for steel losing 90% of its strength at half its melting temperature -- that does not
imply that heat not will stack on steel. The whole building was a steel radiator. And the
fires in building 7 were very small so just how do small fires get to half the melting
temperature of steel when the radiator effect is bleeding what little heat these fires have
from a certain spot.
Lets see the steel buildings you claim were demolished by fires, because I have heard many
architects and engineers say the number is zero. We are talking a total collapse of the
buildings not just a partial collapse. Let's see them.
Eighteen years after the September 11 attacks, questioning the official government
narrative of the events of those days still remains taboo for many
This topic illustrates a few things about humans and their societies that many of us do
not realize, or are too afraid to realize. It's bigger than just the cognitive dissonance,
though this is part of it. Admittedly it is uncomfortable for most people to think about such
things Ignorance is bliss, and it is much easier to follow the herd.
But
Humans have been selectively bred and conditioned for obedience to authority for at least
the last 10,000 years. Stanley Milgram made the ramifications of this clear when he showed us
some of the dangers this fact presents for our world. Couple Milgram's findings with those of
Solomon Asch's conformity experiments and it starts becoming clear why a large part, about
30%, of the population will never be able to question the official orthodoxy regarding this
"New Pearl Harbor".
Many people simply do not have the mental ability to question those in a perceived
position of authority. These people are used to following orders. They are trained very well.
These are the people who will electrocute a stranger just because a man in a white coat says
to. These are the people who will throw a grenade into your babies crib while storming your
home in the middle of the night because some junkie informant told them they bought drugs
there in exchange for cash or a lighter sentence. These are the people who will not believe
their lying eyes when it contradicts the words of their masters or if it risks going against
the apparent consensus of a group of strangers.
I call them authoritarian followers. They love punishing members of the outgroup. They
love following rules no matter how arbitrary, nonsensical or detrimental. They expect others
to follow too.
We all know September 11, 2001, was an inside/outside job. Cui bono? The axis of kindness.
The U.S./Nato, Saudi Arabia and Israel committed the events of September 11, 2001 so they
could escalate their wars in the middle east to redraw the map for Greater Israel while
securing the oil in the middle east and the trillions in minerals in Afghanistan. The
military industrial complex needs endless wars to justify their one trillion plus dollar
annual budget and all the power that comes with it. Some people, like lucky Larry
Silverstein, made billions off the transaction. There is plenty of profiteering and graft
that comes with waging forever war.
The same people who profited from the event are the same people who planned and executed
the event. They are also the people who had the tools to make it happen. Fortunately for the
criminals who committed the crimes of that day a large part of the population will line up to
ridicule anyone who has the audacity to question the official narrative.
So buy police brutality bonds and pay your victory tax. Your work will set you free.
@Adam Smith It's so unbelievably rare to run into a sincere description of the average
fellow. Because one cam't lie to himself about the others less than he does about himself (he
can't know the others more than he can know himself), so usually evident features of people
(thus of mainstream culture, history, journalistic narratives, ) must he denied because
evident features of the self must be denied.
It's co-operation.
And then, aren't they a social species? You have surely observed that a group of them
functions in ways very close to the ant colony, the bee hive, and so on. So many more billion
neurons but what rules the mind is still so close to what rules it in the other social
species.
The thing to consider is that for God knows how many thousands of years in mankind's
history, whenever two differently sized came to a confrontation, belonging in the largest
equated survival, in the smallest death.
Then there is the intragroup confrontations and dangers: here flattering the pack leaders
best equated to better chances of survival + a more comfortable life. On the other hand,
injuring their sense of power had the same outcome that it has for the ordinary bee or ant to
do the same to the colony's or hive's leader.
This has embedded a couple of instincts, which truth and fairness can't be where they are,
at the deepest level of the regular human mind.
Some minds are different, but they don't matter, first of all they don't matter
numerically.
So official accounts of historic events are no more and no less truth-free of the accounts
people make-up of their own lives' essential events.
If you assess the average divorce-asking woman's narrative on her marriage and why she wants
to break it up and the average account of, say, World War 2 in the average school book, the %
of untruth will be circa the same.
What happens at the higher levels follows from the nature of the majority.
They love following rules no matter how arbitrary, nonsensical or detrimental. They
expect others to follow too.
Following rules as long as nobody above them tells them to make an exception.
They expect not all others, but only those below them in the power pole, to follow rules.
If they see/realize/know someone above them has broken a rule, they are awesomely good at,
wbile they have seen/realized/learned the fact, not having seen/realized/learned it.
This kind of mind can't afford unity and individuality, of course. There are always
inconsistencies, and even contradictory things believed at the same time.
And boy, how do the other authorities/authoritarian followers (depending whom they are
dealingwith) who make up the psych professions praise that kind of person! How do they master
selective blindness/forgetfulness/ignorance.
It's obvious from most reader comments that the educational systems in America (and
elsewhere) have completely decayed. "Cognitive dissonance" is just another cowardly way of
accepting lies as truths Most of you are lying to yourselves and expecting others to buy into
hype and bullshit.
Anyone who's worked with cutting steel plate knows that 5 inch thick steel plating (as
used in most lower columns of the towers) requires a perfect mixture of acetylene and oxygen
just to get the cutting area hot enough to apply the oxygen burst that cuts along the line.
Any cooling of the plate and it's no cigar. There is no way air craft fuel (kerosene) and
normal building materials can get anywhere near the melting point of steel, much less cause
complete structural failure of a perfectly engineered steel beamed structure.
Christopher Bollyn and many other dedicated journalists have connected all the relevant
dots, yet the unwashed continue to hide behind their collage degrees and talk complete
nonsense.
The first and second laws of thermodynamics should be mastered before graduating from
eighth grade People need to quit lying about the efficacy of truth
I am an agnostic on whether the twin towers were brought down by supplemental explosives. My
question is, what is gained by actually bringing the buildings down? If the attacks were to
serve as a pretext for war in the middle east, wouldn't the acts of hijacking the planes and
crashing them have been sufficient without the risks involved in planting explosives and
being being detected?
The only reasons I can offer are financial, such as the insurance payments, voided
contracts, shorting stocks etc. and perhaps destruction of evidence in criminal or civil
cases.
What is interesting is the 9/11 Commission's conclusion regarding the financing of 9/11: "
the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11
attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance."
Then why do we have all the financial transaction laws?
"Thirteen drones moved according to common combat battle deployment, operated by a single
crew. During all this time the American Poseidon-8 reconnaissance plane patrolled the
Mediterranean Sea area for eight hours," he noted. Read also Three layers of Russian air defense at Hmeymim air base in
Syria When the drones met with the electronic countermeasures of the Russian systems, they
switched to a manual guidance mode, he said. "Manual guidance is carried out not by some
villagers, but by the Poseidon-8, which has modern equipment. It undertook manual control," the
deputy defense minister noted.
"When these 13 drones faced our electronic warfare screen, they moved away to some distance,
received the corresponding orders and began to be operated out of space and receiving help in
finding the so-called holes through which they started penetrating. Then they were destroyed,"
Fomin reported.
"This should be stopped as well: in order to avoid fighting with the high-technology weapons
of terrorists and highly-equipped terrorists it is necessary to stop supplying them with
equipment," the deputy defense minister concluded.
The Russian Defense Ministry earlier said that on January 6 militants in Syria first
massively used drones in the attack on the Russian Hmeymim airbase and the Russian naval base
in Tartus. The attack was successfully repelled: seven drones were downed, and control over six
drones was gained through electronic warfare systems. The Russian Defense Ministry stressed
that the solutions used by the militants could be received only from a technologically advanced
country and warned about the danger of repeating such attacks in any country of the
world.
The forum
The eighth Beijing Xiangshan Forum on security will run until October 26 in Beijing. It was
organized by the Chinese Ministry of Defense, China Association for Military Science (CAMS) and
China Institute for International Strategic Studies (CIISS). Representatives for defense
ministries, armed forces and international organizations, as well as former military officials,
politicians and scientists from 79 countries are taking part in the forum.
This article raises serious questions about
Snowden's authenticity. Although the level of damage he has done make suggestion that he is apart of CIA operation
against NSA much less plausible. He did some damage by publicizing operations like Prism. No question about it.
And it is diffuclt to treat Snowden like another variation of Lee Harvey Oswald defection
to the USSR.
But it is true that several steps that he took after supposed exfiltration of the documents were highly suspicious: As author pointed out WaPo
and Guardian are essentially intelligence agencies controlled outlets, so there is no chance that publication can't be completely blocked.
Another good point is that in any large corporation there is system of logs and they suppoedly are analysed, althout the level
of qualification in doing so varies greatly.
And if reports are created automatically that not not mean that they are ver read. Another valid point is that even if you are system administrator, you have
great powers over all your users. But at the same time your power is compartmentalized: you have access only to few selected computer that constitute the set of servers you manage.
And you usually access then via special jumpserver, which logs everything you do. In no way you have access to any server and any
database in the organization; you
might not even know that some servers exist. Actually access to critical databases is very tightly controlled.
The author also pointed to an interesting question about difficulties of exfiltration of data on encrypted Windows computers. I
think that copy to the UCB drive from encrypted drive to SD or USB drive might still be permitted for sysadmins, as it might be required for some operations.
But SD accepted might be special, issued by NSA, not retai and they should be accounted for. Still the point that Yvonne Lorenzo raised is very interesting: how you bypass existing protections on you computer to copy information
of SD card ?
On another issue, why did Snowden provide his files to known house organs of Intelligence Agencies, specifically the Washington
Post and The Guardian, and not give them to Wikileaks?
Notable quotes:
"... How many reading my words work at a large entity, not necessarily government, let us say a Fortune 1000 or higher? Do you have the ability to copy data unimpeded onto any external device? Can you surf the Internet at will? Or is everything you do on the computer network under constant, real-time scrutiny? ..."
"... Edward Snowden would have us believe that the Eye of Sauron didn't notice he was looking at gigabytes of data unrelated to his job function and using his computer to copy the data to external devices over a lengthy period of time. Are his supporters alleging he is so clever he could disappear from the "Eye of Sauron's" view and be unnoticed? If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you in Crimea. ZeroHedge reported " IRS Agent Charged In Leak Of Michael Cohen Transactions To Michael Avenatti ." ..."
"... However, don't believe it takes nine months to identify such an unauthorized intrusion. Don't think every keystroke isn't monitored in real-time. So my question is: would the NSA, which has much more sensitive data (especially compromising information on the governing class) than tax returns and financial transactions have inferior capabilities than the IRS as to maintaining data security? Are we to believe the NSA lacks a "digital trail" when it comes to classified documents? ..."
"... On another issue, why did Snowden provide his files to known house organs of Intelligence Agencies, specifically the Washington Post and The Guardian, and not give them to Wikileaks to allow a publicly available searchable database? ..."
"... While other outlets -- such as the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post and the New York Times -- also possess much (though not all) of the archive, the Intercept was the only outlet with the (full) archive that had continued to publish documents, albeit at a remarkably slow pace, in recent years. In total, fewer than 10 percent of the Snowden documents have been published since 2013. Thus, the closing of the publication's Snowden archive will likely mean the end of any future publications, unless Greenwald's promise of finding "the right partner that has the funds to robustly publish" is fulfilled ..."
"... Do you believe Putin's intelligence agencies don't communicate to him how Washington "organized crime" really operates, as Whitney Webb has disclosed, now on the pages of Unz.com ? What difference does any compromised President make to the policies and goals of the occupational government of the United States (obvious to any reader of this and similar websites)? ..."
"... Why is an alleged humanitarian such a Russophobe? ..."
"... Has Snowden ever challenged the September 11 narrative, ludicrous as it is, and him being an "engineer?" ..."
"... STO equals Special Technical Operations It's highly unlikely Mr. Snowden had any access to these. ..."
"... ECI = Exceptionally Controlled Information. I do not believe Mr. Snowden had any access to these ECI controlled networks). VRK = Very Restricted Knowledge. I do not believe Mr. Snowden had any access to these VRK controlled networks. ..."
"... So what they did, is they took a few documents and they downgraded [he classification level of the documents] – just a few – and gave them to them to placate this basic whitewash investigation. ..."
"... Journalist Margie Burns asked some good questions back in June that have not yet been answered. She wondered about the 29-year old Snowden who had been a U.S. Army Special Forces recruit, a covert CIA operative, and an NSA employee in various capacities, all in just a few, short years. Burns asked "How, exactly, did Snowden get his series of NSA jobs? Did he apply through regular channels? Was it through someone he knew? Who recommended him? Who were his references for a string of six-figure, high-level security jobs? Are there any safeguards in place so that red flags go up when a subcontractor jumps from job to job, especially in high-level clearance positions?" ..."
"... In December, whistleblower Sibel Edmonds broke the news that Omidyar's Paypal Corporation was implicated in the as-yet-unreleased NSA documents from Snowden. Moreover, Edmonds had allegedly been contacted by an NSA official who alleged that "a deal was made in early June, 2013 between the journalists involved in this recent NSA scandal and U.S. government officials, which was then sealed by secrecy and nondisclosure agreements by all parties involved." ..."
"... No, no one is accusing Wikileaks of conspiring with Russia, just Robert Mueller. I really appreciate Snowden calling Julian Assange a liar, for he has consistently denied there was a "state actor." ..."
"... "Terrorism is a real problem" Snowden said. Is it credible that Snowden, who presented himself as donating funds to Ron Paul, has never read any alternative news sites? Is it credible that Snowden believes that terrorists and this would include the good "moderate terrorists" in Syria are armed and act on their own initiative, and is ignorant of the role of the governments of America, Israel, and Saudi Arabia in using them to achieve their ends as proxy armies? ..."
"... Does Snowden then think this report, " America Created Al-Qaeda and the ISIS Terror Group" is false? Does that mindset make Snowden a champion for liberty or a tool for more control of the American population? For example, is it credible that this alleged genius supports the narrative of the September 11 attacks World Trade Center attacks? ..."
"... Tor lists on its own website sponsors that include Google, the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, ONR via Naval Research Laboratory (past sponsor) and DARPA. ..."
"... Perhaps Snowden is only a Soros and Hillary Clinton supporting liberal -- but then why would he have done what he did? His character is of any government employee of the "surface state" who swallows false narratives whole. ..."
"... The logging of user and information accessed is sure added to the file. But real time supervision? No. A eye of sauron? Please. The system isnt there to prevent crime, its to track down the criminal and deeds later. And yes everything takes a very long time on the public side. ..."
"... 'Edward Snowden' who first 'leaked' to the CIA's Washington Post, in fact to Bush VP Dick Cheney's biographer Bart Gellman then the Deep State realised that was too stupid, so they switched to Rothschild employee & ex-gay-pornography-seller Glenn Greenwald, former proprietor of 'hairystuds', at the Guardian, an intel-agency rag which lies about nearly everything ..."
"... NeonRevolt once floated the theory that Snowden was an FBI or CIA plant who whistleblew solely because he had the mission to undermine NSA operations by exposing their equipment/techniques and turning public opinion against them. ..."
"... inter-service rivalry and sabotage between spy agencies is absolutely a thing, and reviewing the inconsistencies of Snowden's stunt, its aftermath, and his personal views with that potential background in mind suddenly makes things make much more sense, in my mind at least. ..."
"... If we accept the later, that he's a plant, then it raises a further question: was the short term loss, associated with his revelations, ie highlighting the utterly disturbing degree of Gov surveillance over US citizens (etc) worth the long term profit of having an established, authoritive psy-op's agent able to influence/distort etc any debate or narrative concerning the US State /elites. On this side the author notes Snowmen's views on Tor, 9/11, Russia etc which clearly advantage the US State's own views on these subjects. ..."
"... Consider that nothing Snowden revealed was news. It was all old hat for anyone who'd been paying attention, and for up to ten years. Sure Snowden made it mainstream for what good it did but nothing he said was a secret anymore. In fact, I thought even at the time his actions were nothing less than a 'threat and warning' from the intel services that they had this much on everyone. Just imagine all those national leaders, politicians from all states being pout on notice. All your secrets are ours! What a powerful global message to deliver and in such a loud and clear fashion. ..."
"... The lack of deviation from official bullshit on 9/11 is on its own however reason enough to toss this guy out. ..."
"... To my mind "9/11, attitude to", is a sort of touch-stone for telling genuine dissidents from fake and both Snowden and Assange fail on that test ..."
"... Snowden is not a classic defector so it makes sense for him to keep his distance from Russian society so as not to be inadvertently compromised or used by their intelligence services. He's obviously under surveillance there, I know we all are but he's much more aware of it, so that doesn't make it easy for him but he's definitely safer there than he'd be in France or Germany. I just don't think he planned well ahead when he became a whistle-blower or was clear about what he was trying to achieve. He's not the top level type of spy we're accustomed to reading about who betray their country for money or to serve another they believe in more than their own. If he has been on active duty as a CIA asset all along I can't see that he has achieved much of use to them other than in some inter-agency rivalry game. But it's natural for Russians to be suspicious of him – they're suspicious by nature – and rightly so, but it doesn't make his life easy there. ..."
"... 9/11 is the "litmus test" and it appears that both Assange and Snowden have failed it. ..."
"... Snowden keeping "distance" to Russia, and not openly defending them seems reasonable to me. You can imagine the smear campaign back home if he would side with Russia against the U.S. on almost anything. "The Russians got to him" or "He was always their man". ..."
"... He is trying to keep his neutrality and credibility and his target audience isn't the average Unz reader, but rather some mainstream educated middle/upper class blokes. Easily scared away from his views if they become too controversial and too far from the established narrative. ..."
"... If I had been in the position like 'Snowden', after first having been granted asylum, my priority would have been to study the language. I would gtuess that he can order food or drink, do basic greetings, and not much else. ..."
"... I agree. Shilling for the Israelis regarding 911 is a deal breaker for me. They had me going about these 2 guys for a while, but when I heard that they had ridiculed 911 truthers I smelled a rat. And after this article I agree they are shills for the status quo. Reasonable people can not doubt that 911 was a false flag operation. There's just too much bullshit there. ..."
"... I think the idea Snowden is a "plant" is a bit far out there. If he is; the real purpose of the exercise is what exactly? ..."
"... I also don't get why some commenters think Julian Assange isn't who he claims to be. His Wikileaks has published great volume of highly embarrassing material for the U.S. The embassy cables come to mind – bringing to light evidence contrary to Washington narrative on many events. ..."
"... There is another thing; Just after he established Wikileaks he came to Iceland and met with journalists and few politicians. The result from that visit was he met one Kristinn Hrafnsson, long time journalist in Iceland with excellent track record and credibility. Since Assange got in trouble, accused of sexual harassment from Swedish woman and finally escaped into the Ecuador embassy in London, Hrafnsson has been spokesman for Wikileaks. ..."
"... "It all comes down to 9/11.Everything that has happened has happened based on a lie . Everyone in Government ; everyone in the media , in entertainment , in organized religion , in the public ,in the public eye who accepts and promotes the official story is either a traitor or a tool . Everyone who does not stand forth and speak truth to power is a coward , a liar and complicit in mass-murder . Everyone everywhere can be measured by this Litmus Test ." ..."
Have you ever had the pleasure of dealing with an agent of the Federal government? For example, have you been audited by the IRS?
Did you notice what the "Agent" does to gain access to his (or her) computer -- by inserting a "Smart ID" into a slot? Did you ask
how your personal information is protected from disclosure or theft? What is to prevent the Agent from copying files to a thumb drive
and taking them home?
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12), issued by President George W. Bush on August 27, 2004, mandated the
establishment of a standard for identification of Federal government employees and contractors. HSPD-12 requires the use of
a common identification credential for both logical and physical access to federally controlled facilities and information systems.
The Department of Commerce and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) were tasked with producing a standard for
secure and reliable forms of identification. In response, NIST published Federal Information Processing Standard Publication
201 (FIPS 201), Personal Identity Verification (PIV) of Federal Employees and Contractors, issued on February 25, 2005, and a
number of special publications that provide more detail on the implementation of the standard.
Both Federal agencies and enterprises have implemented FIPS 201-compliant ID programs and have issued PIV cards. The FIPS
201 PIV card is a smart card with both contact and contactless interfaces that is now being issued to all Federal employees and
contractors
Additional information about FIPS 201 can be found on the Government Identity/Credentialing Resources page, from NIST, and
from the Secure Technology Alliance Access Control Council.
If you engage the IRS employee in conversation, remembering the adage you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, you'll
learn the computer cannot be compromised -- all data on the device are encrypted; the only access to it is via the Smart ID. Data
can be copied to an external "thumb drive" but everything copied will be encrypted; any file on that thumb drive is only readable
by that specific device. Wouldn't this be true of NSA devices as well? Why does Snowden never discuss dealing with such encryption:
how would it be possible?
In the Oliver Stone movie Snowden , as well as in any of Snowden's descriptions of how he accessed the NSA computers, did
you note either the depiction or reference to this universal Smart ID? How could Snowden be exempt from its requirement? Why wasn't
its use, which is public knowledge, shown or discussed? Per the above, the Smart ID is deployed in all government agencies: there
are no exceptions. And while the financial portion (think of all those Goldman Sachs alumni at the U.S. Department of the Treasury)
is likely the most powerful part of the financial-military-industrial-media-congressional complex that is the central power of the
federal government, do you think that IRS systems are different and superior in security to what was employed by a contractor working
for Booze-Allen Hamilton at the NSA?
How many reading my words work at a large entity, not necessarily government, let us say a Fortune 1000 or higher? Do you
have the ability to copy data unimpeded onto any external device? Can you surf the Internet at will? Or is everything you do on the
computer network under constant, real-time scrutiny?
Did Edward Snowden, who has publicly criticized Google, mention Google is deployed as a search engine throughout the federal "intranet"?
And can he catch a link to the Washington Post on the NSA homepage too? Or would he testify and can it be verified that NSA does
not use Google (for example to obtain the PowerPoint he revealed) for searching for internal documents and procedures? Can anyone
reading my words answer the questions I've posed so far and answer accurately and honestly with confirmatory evidence?
Edward Snowden would have us believe that the Eye of Sauron didn't notice he was looking at gigabytes of data unrelated to
his job function and using his computer to copy the data to external devices over a lengthy period of time. Are his supporters alleging
he is so clever he could disappear from the "Eye of Sauron's" view and be unnoticed? If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell
you in Crimea. ZeroHedge reported "
IRS Agent Charged In Leak Of Michael Cohen Transactions To Michael Avenatti ." From the article:
John C. Fry, an analyst in the San Francisco IRS office who had worked for the agency since 2008, was charged with disclosing
Cohen's Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) – nine months after we reported that it wouldn't be difficult to track down the leaker
due to a digital trail left behind from accessing the system.
However, don't believe it takes nine months to identify such an unauthorized intrusion. Don't think every keystroke isn't
monitored in real-time. So my question is: would the NSA, which has much more sensitive data (especially compromising information
on the governing class) than tax returns and financial transactions have inferior capabilities than the IRS as to maintaining data
security? Are we to believe the NSA lacks a "digital trail" when it comes to classified documents?
On another issue, why did Snowden provide his files to known house organs of Intelligence Agencies, specifically the Washington
Post and The Guardian, and not give them to Wikileaks to allow a publicly available searchable database? As Roger Stone has
noted, the odious Nixon was taken down principally by the CIA media front The Washington Post because he sought detente with Russia
and another presidential assassination would have been too obvious. Notice the situation regarding the Snowden treasure trove as
investigative journalist Whitney Webb writes about it here: "
Silencing the Whistle: The Intercept Shutters
Snowden Archive, Citing Cost ."
According to a timeline of events written by Poitras that was shared and published by journalist and former Intercept columnist
Barrett Brown, both Scahill and Greenwald were intimately involved in the decision to close the Snowden archive.
While other outlets -- such as the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post and the New York Times -- also possess much (though
not all) of the archive, the Intercept was the only outlet with the (full) archive that had continued to publish documents, albeit
at a remarkably slow pace, in recent years. In total, fewer than 10 percent of the Snowden documents have been published since
2013. Thus, the closing of the publication's Snowden archive will likely mean the end of any future publications, unless Greenwald's
promise of finding "the right partner that has the funds to robustly publish" is fulfilled
Yet, as Poitras pointed out, the research department accounted for a minuscule 1.5 percent of First Look Media's budget. Greenwald's
claim that the archive was shuttered owing to its high cost to the company is also greatly undermined by the fact that he, along
with several other Intercept employees -- Reed and Scahill among them -- receive massive salaries that dwarf those of journalists
working for similar nonprofit publications.
Greenwald, for instance, received $1.6 million from First Look Media, of which Omidyar is the sole shareholder, from 2014 to
2017. His yearly salary peaked in 2015, when he made over $518,000. Reed and Scahill both earn well over $300,000 annually from
First Look. According to journalist Mark Ames, Scahill made over $43,000 per article at the Intercept in 2014. Other writers at
the site, by comparison, have a base salary of $50,000, which itself is higher than the national average for journalists.
And what about Snowden himself, the pontificator, the man who can speak on television or to the media with evidence of training?
Practice yourself -- see how well you can answer questions and speak publicly to a TV camera. How did he get his training? Who trained
him? Why? How is it that the legacy media, which
applauds
the slow, painful execution of Julian Assange , be in rapture over Snowden's new book tour and provide ample coverage? Is Assange
being murdered in part to prevent his providing exculpatory evidence that Russia never hacked the DNC and it was a leak?
I have provided two videos below for the reader to consider and compare.
Look at how Bill Binney, a true techno-nerd speaks and compare the difference between him with the polished interviews given by
Snowden who borders on pomposity. Also, to his favor Binney is doing his best to debunk the Russia hacking narrative of the DNC;
Snowden makes his thoughts about Russia and Russians clear
in his latest interview with Der Spiegel promoting his new book about himself:
DER SPIEGEL: Do you have Russian friends?
Snowden: I try to keep a distance between myself and Russian society, and this is completely intentional. I live my life
with basically the English-speaking community. I'm the president of the Freedom of the Press Foundation. And, you know, I'm
an indoor cat. It doesn't matter where I am -- Moscow, Berlin, New York -- as long as I have a screen to look into.
DER SPIEGEL: Western authorities accuse the Russian government on a regular basis of being one of the biggest disrupters
in the digital world. Are they right?
Snowden: Russia is responsible for a lot of negative activity in the world, you can say that right and fairly. Did Russia
interfere with elections? Almost certainly. But do the United States interfere in elections? Of course. They've been doing
it for the last 50 years. Any country bigger than Iceland is going to interfere in every crucial election, and they're going to
deny it every time, because this is what intelligence services do. This is explicitly why covert operations and influence divisions
are created, and their purpose as an instrument of national power is to ask: How can we influence the world in a direction that
improves our standing relative to all the other countries?
I am pleased to have played a small role in getting Stephen F. Cohen's work published on Unz.com. He and others have effectively
debunked Russian involvement in the manipulation of America elections and the conclusions of the Mueller report. To paraphrase a
point Professor Cohen made in his most recent article posted here, which is simply common sense: We are to believe Trump is Putin's
puppet yet Putin simultaneously encouraged the preparation of a dossier to destroy him. Does that make sense to any one with half
a brain? Do you believe Putin's intelligence agencies don't communicate to him how Washington "organized crime" really operates,
as Whitney Webb has disclosed, now on the pages of Unz.com
? What difference does any compromised President make to the policies and goals of the occupational government of the United States
(obvious to any reader of this and similar websites)?
Do you notice how Snowden never challenges any government narrative, whether it's on Russia as a villain, and not as a victim
of war initiated by Washington? Why is an alleged humanitarian such a Russophobe? Is this how he repays the nation that
granted him asylum? Has he only compassion in the abstract, and is a genius but too stupid to consider the consequences of America
going to war with Russia and in fact exacerbating the tension by his false and inflammatory statements about Russian conduct in the
2016 elections, for which there are no facts and evidence?
And then there's the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings. Of course Snowden at NSA had no access to information on
how and why it was done, but as Dmitri Orlov has written:
I suppose I am a "conspiracy theorist" too. Whenever I write something that questions the veracity of some official narrative,
someone (probably a troll) pops up and asks me what I think of 9/11. Here is what I typically reply:
I totally believe that it was possible to knock down three steel-framed buildings using two flying aluminum cans loaded
with kerosene, luggage and meat. I have proven that this is possible by throwing two beer cans at three chain-link fences.
All three fences were instantly swallowed up by holes in the ground that mysteriously opened up right under them and in which
they were instantaneously incinerated into fine oxide powder that coated the entire neighborhood. Anybody who does not believe
my experimental results is obviously a tin-foil-hat crackpot conspiracy theorist.
Lots of people read this and ran away bleating; a few people bust a gut laughing because this is (trust me on this!) actually
quite funny. Some people took offense at someone ridiculing an event in which thousands of people died. (To protect their tender
sensibilities they should consider emigrating to a country that isn't run by a bunch of war criminals.)
But if you do see the humor in this, then you may be up to the challenge, which is to pull out a useful signal (a typical
experimentalist's task) out of a mess of unreliable and contradictory data. Only then would you be in a position to persuasively
argue -- not prove, mind you! -- that the official story is complete and utter bullshit.
Note that everything beyond that point, such as arguing what "the real story" is, is strictly off-limits. If you move beyond
that point you open yourself up to well-organized, well-funded debunking. But if all you produce is a very large and imposing
question mark, then the only way to attack it is by producing certainty -- a very tall order! In conspiracy theory, as in
guerrilla warfare, you don't have to win. You just have to not lose long enough for the enemy to give up.
Has Snowden ever challenged the September 11 narrative, ludicrous as it is, and him being an "engineer?" And this last
point is the reason I'm writing these words: I don't have to come up with the "real story" on who Edward Snowden is and what his
true motives are. I am asking questions that point out the discrepancies in Snowden's statements and conduct and his alleged sanctity.
In this article, "
EXCLUSIVE REPORT: NSA Whistleblower: Snowden Never Had Access to the JUICIEST Documents Far More Damning "
WASHINGTON'S BLOG: Glenn Greenwald – supposedly, in the next couple of days or weeks – is going to disclose, based on NSA documents
leaked by Snowden, that the NSA is spying on all sorts of normal Americans and that the spying is really to crush dissent. [Background
here, here and here.]
Does Snowden even have documents which contain the information which you've seen?
RUSSELL TICE: The answer is no.
WASHINGTON'S BLOG: So you saw handwritten notes. And what Snowden was seeing were electronic files ?
RUSSELL TICE: Think of it this way. Remember I told you about the NSA doing everything they could to make sure that the
information from 40 years ago – from spying on Frank Church and Lord knows how many other Congressman that they were spying on
– was hidden?
Now do you think they're going to put that information into PowerPoint slides that are easy to explain to everybody what
they're doing?
They would not even put their own NSA designators on the reports [so that no one would know that] it came from the NSA.
They made the reports look like they were Humint (human intelligence) reports. They did it to hide the fact that they were NSA
and they were doing the collection. That's 40 years ago. [The NSA and other agencies are still doing "parallel construction",
"laundering" information to hide the fact that the information is actually from mass NSA surveillance.]
Now, what NSA is doing right now is that they're taking the information and they're putting it in a much higher security level.
It's called "ECI" – Exceptionally Controlled Information – and it's called the black program which I was a specialist in, by the
way.
I specialized in black world – DOD and IC (Intelligence Community) – programs, operations and missions in "VRKs", "ECIs", and
"SAPs", "STOs". SAP equals Special Access Program. It's highly unlikely Mr. Snowden had any access to these. STO equals Special
Technical Operations It's highly unlikely Mr. Snowden had any access to these.
Now in that world – the ECI/VRK world – everything in that system is classified at a higher level and it has its own computer
systems that house it. It's totally separate than the system which Mr. Snowden was privy to, which was called the "JWICS": Joint
Worldwide Intelligence Communications System. The JWICS system is what everybody at NSA has access to. Mr Snowden had Sys Admin
[systems administrator] authority for the JWICS.
And you still have to have TS/SCI clearance [i.e. Top Secret/ Sensitive Compartmented Information – also known as "code word"
– clearance] to get on the JWICS. But the ECI/VRK systems are much higher [levels of special compartmentalized clearance] than
the JWICS. And you have to be in the black world to get that [clearance].
ECI = Exceptionally Controlled Information. I do not believe Mr. Snowden had any access to these ECI controlled networks).
VRK = Very Restricted Knowledge. I do not believe Mr. Snowden had any access to these VRK controlled networks.
These programs typically have, at the least, a requirement of 100 year or until death, 'till the person first being "read in"
[i.e. sworn to secrecy as part of access to the higher classification program] can talk about them. [As an interesting sidenote,
the Washington Times reported in 2006 that – when Tice offered to testify to Congress about this illegal spying – he was informed
by the NSA that the Senate and House intelligence committees were not cleared to hear such information.]
It's very compartmentalized and – even with stuff that they had – you might have something at NSA, that there's literally 40
people at NSA that know that it's going on in the entire agency.
When the stuff came out in the New York Times [the first big spying story, which broke in 2005] – and I was a source of information
for the New York Times – that's when President Bush made up that nonsense about the "terrorist surveillance program." By the way,
that never existed. That was made up.
There was no such thing beforehand. It was made up to try to placate the American people.
The NSA IG (Inspector General) – who was not cleared for this – all of a sudden is told he has to do an investigation on this;
something he has no information or knowledge of.
So what they did, is they took a few documents and they downgraded [he classification level of the documents] – just a
few – and gave them to them to placate this basic whitewash investigation.
Snowden's Failure To Understand the Most Important Documents
RUSSELL TICE: Now, if Mr. Snowden were to find the crossover, it would be those documents that were downgraded to the NSA's
IG.
The stuff that I saw looked like a bunch of alphanumeric gobbledygook. Unless you have an analyst to know what to look for
– and believe me, I think that what Snowden's done is great – he's not an intelligence analyst. So he would see something like
that, and he wouldn't know what he's looking at.
But that would be "the jewels". And the key is, you wouldn't know it's the jewels unless you were a diamond miner and you knew
what to look for. Because otherwise, there's a big lump of rock and you don't know there's a diamond in there.
I worked special programs. And the way I found out is that I was working on a special operation, and I needed information from
NSA from another unit. And when I went to that unit and I said "I need this information", and I dealt with [satellite spy operations],
and I did that in the black world. I was a special operations officer. I would literally go do special missions that were in the
black world where I would travel overseas and do spooky stuff.
Did we really need Snowden to have told us that the Internet, federally controlled, does not allow anyone a modicum of privacy
and the government after implementing the Patriot Act considers ordinary Americans the enemy?
Journalist Margie Burns asked some good questions back in June that have not yet been answered. She wondered about the
29-year old Snowden who had been a U.S. Army Special Forces recruit, a covert CIA operative, and an NSA employee in various capacities,
all in just a few, short years. Burns asked "How, exactly, did Snowden get his series of NSA jobs? Did he apply through regular
channels? Was it through someone he knew? Who recommended him? Who were his references for a string of six-figure, high-level
security jobs? Are there any safeguards in place so that red flags go up when a subcontractor jumps from job to job, especially
in high-level clearance positions?"
Five months later, journalists Mark Ames and Yasha Levine investigated some of the businesses in which Greenwald's benefactor
Omidyar had invested. They found that the actual practices of those businesses were considerably less humanitarian than the outward
appearance of Omidyar's ventures often portray. The result was that Omidyar took down references to at least one of those businesses
from his website.
In December, whistleblower Sibel Edmonds broke the news that Omidyar's Paypal Corporation was implicated in the as-yet-unreleased
NSA documents from Snowden. Moreover, Edmonds had allegedly been contacted by an NSA official who alleged that "a deal was made
in early June, 2013 between the journalists involved in this recent NSA scandal and U.S. government officials, which was then
sealed by secrecy and nondisclosure agreements by all parties involved."
It would appear that Snowden's whistleblowing has been co-opted by private corporate interests. Are those involved with privatization
of the stolen documents also colluding with government agencies to frame and direct national discussions on domestic spying and
other serious matters?
The possibilities are endless, it seems. Presenting documents at a measured rate could be a way to acclimate citizens to
painful realities without stirring the public into a panic or a unified response that might actually threaten the status quo.
And considering that the number of documents has somehow grown from only thousands to nearly two million, it seems possible
that those in control could release practically anything, thereby controlling national dialogue on many topics.
Please read the final paragraph above twice and think about the points raised about acclimating citizens and controlling national
dialog. Is Snowden as much of a "Pied Piper" as QAnon? How did Snowden describe the nature of the CIA and NSA
in this earlier interview with Der Spiegel ?
DER SPIEGEL: But those people see you as their biggest enemy today.
Snowden: My personal battle was not to burn down the NSA or the CIA. I even think they actually do have a useful role in
society when they limit themselves to the truly important threats that we face and when they use their least intrusive means.
**
Snowden: It wasn't that difficult. Everybody is currently pointing at the Russians.
DER SPIEGEL: Rightfully?
Snowden: I don't know. They probably did hack the systems of Hillary Clinton's Democratic Party, but we should have proof
of that. In the case of the hacking attack on Sony, the FBI presented evidence that North Korea was behind it. In this case
they didn't, although I am convinced that they do have evidence. The question is why?
DER SPIEGEL: Mike Pompeo, the new head of the CIA, has accused WikiLeaks, whose lawyers helped you, of being a mouthpiece for
the Russians. Is that not harmful to your image as well?
Snowden: First, we should be fair about what the accusations are. I don't believe the U.S. government or anybody in the
intelligence community is directly accusing Julian Assange or WikiLeaks of working directly for the Russian government. The
allegations I understand are that they were used as a tool basically to wash documents that had been stolen by the Russian government.
And, of course, that's a concern. I don't see that as directly affecting me because I'm not WikiLeaks and there is no question
about the provenance of the documents that I dealt with.
DER SPIEGEL: Currently, there's another American guy out there who is accused of being too close to Putin.
Snowden: Oh (laughs).
DER SPIEGEL: Your president. Is he your president?
Snowden: The idea that half of American voters thought that Donald Trump was the best among us, is something that I struggle
with. And I think we will all be struggling with it for decades to come.
DER SPIEGEL: But isn't there reason to fear terrorism?
Snowden: Sure there is. Terrorism is a real problem. But when we look at how many lives it has claimed in basically
any country that is outside of war zones like Iraq or Afghanistan, it is so much less than, say, car accidents or heart attacks.
Even if Sept. 11 were to happen every single year in the U.S., terrorism would be a much lower threat than so many other things.
No, no one is accusing Wikileaks of conspiring with Russia, just Robert Mueller. I really appreciate Snowden calling Julian Assange
a liar, for he has consistently denied there was a "state actor."
"Terrorism is a real problem" Snowden said. Is it credible that Snowden, who presented himself as donating funds to Ron Paul,
has never read any alternative news sites? Is it credible that Snowden believes that terrorists and this would include the good "moderate
terrorists" in Syria are armed and act on their own initiative, and is ignorant of the role of the governments of America, Israel,
and Saudi Arabia in using them to achieve their ends as proxy armies?
Does Snowden then think this report, "
America Created
Al-Qaeda and the ISIS Terror Group" is false? Does that mindset make Snowden a champion for liberty or a tool for more control
of the American population? For example, is it credible that this alleged genius supports the narrative of the September 11 attacks
World Trade Center attacks? Whom do you trust, the contributors to these very pages or Edward Snowden?
The Tor Project – a private nonprofit known as the "NSA-proof" gateway to the "dark web," turns out to be almost "100% funded
by the US government" according to documents obtained by investigative journalist and author Yasha Levine.
In a recent blog post, Levine details how he was able to obtain roughly 2,500 pages of correspondence via FOIA requests while
performing research for a book. The documents include strategy, contract, budgets and status updates between the Tor project and
its primary source of funding; a CIA spinoff known as the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), which "oversees America's foreign
broadcasting operations like Radio Free Asia and Radio Free Europe."
By following the money, I discovered that Tor was not a grassroots. I was able to show that despite its indie radical
cred and claims to help its users protect themselves from government surveillance online, Tor was almost 100% funded by three
U.S. National Security agencies: the Navy, the State Department and the BBG. Following the money revealed that Tor was not
a grassroots outfit, but a military contractor with its own government contractor number. In other words: it was a privatized
extension of the very same government that it claimed to be fighting.
The documents conclusively showed that Tor is not independent at all. The organization did not have free reign to do
whatever it wanted, but was kept on a very short leash and bound by contracts with strict contractual obligations. It was also
required to file detailed monthly status reports that gave the U.S. government a clear picture of what Tor employees were developing,
where they went and who they saw. -Yasha Levine
The FOIA documents also suggest that Tor's ability to shield users from government spying may be nothing more than hot air.
While no evidence of a "backdoor" exists, the documents obtained by Levine reveal that Tor has "no qualms with privately tipping
off the federal government to security vulnerabilities before alerting the public, a move that would give the feds an opportunity
to exploit the security weakness long before informing Tor users."
Interestingly, Edward Snowden is a big fan of Tor – even throwing a "cryptoparty" while he was still an NSA contractor where
he set up a Tor exit node to show off how cool they are.
In a 2015 interview with The Intercept's (Wikileaks hating) Micah Lee, Snowden said:
LEE: What do you think about Tor? Do you think that everyone should be familiar with it, or do you think that it's only a use-it-if-you-need-it
thing?
SNOWDEN: I think Tor is the most important privacy-enhancing technology project being used today.
"Tor Browser is a great way to selectively use Tor to look something up and not leave a trace that you did it. It can also
help bypass censorship when you're on a network where certain sites are blocked. If you want to get more involved, you can volunteer
to run your own Tor node, as I do, and support the diversity of the Tor network."
Tor lists on its own website sponsors that include Google,
the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, ONR via Naval Research Laboratory (past sponsor) and DARPA.
When Julian Assange was taken from the Ecuadoran embassy, he was carrying a copy of Gore Vidal: History of the National Security
State & Vidal on America. As an older article on Vidal in The Guardian noted, "
Gore Vidal claims 'Bush junta' complicit
in 9/11 ."
Isn't it odd by doing what he did with Vidal's book Assange makes the point the legitimacy of Washington must be challenged, but
Snowden never does, other than offering suggestions for tinkering at the margins, perhaps advising we use DuckDuckGo instead of Google
to give us the illusion of privacy? Did Snowden, for someone who is in front of a computer screen for most of the day, make public
the facts obtained by Whitney Webb in her piece "
How the CIA, Mossad and 'the Epstein Network' Are Exploiting Mass Shootings to Create an Orwellian Nightmare " posted on Unz.com
which goes in depth into the Orwellian hell we are facing, for as Webb concludes:
With companies like Carbyne -- with its ties to both the Trump administration and to Israeli intelligence -- and the Mossad-linked
Gabriel also marketing themselves as "technological" solutions to mass shootings while also doubling as covert tools for mass
data collection and extraction, the end result is a massive surveillance system so complete and so dystopian that even George
Orwell himself could not have predicted it.
Following another catastrophic mass shooting or crisis event, aggressive efforts will likely follow to foist these "solutions"
on a frightened American public by the very network connected, not only to Jeffrey Epstein, but to a litany of crimes and a
frightening history of plans to crush internal dissent and would-be dissenters in the United States.
There is the concept of willful blindness that I think applies to much of what Snowden has done, if not something altogether more
nefarious -- distorations, misrepresenations, and outright lies, in addition to hubris. What is the point I'm making? Perhaps Snowden
is only a Soros and Hillary Clinton supporting liberal -- but then why would he have done what he did? His character is of any government
employee of the "surface state" who swallows false narratives whole.
I only wish the reader fairly and intelligently consider the questions I have raised. For I am encouraging you to think very carefully
before you trust the statements, purpose, motives, and truthfulness of the secular saint, Edward Snowden.
Yvonne Lorenzo makes her home in New England in a house full to bursting with books, including works on classical Greece.
Her interests include gardening, mythology, ancient history, The Electric Universe, and classical music, especially the compositions
of Handel, Mozart, Bach, Haydn, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, and the Bel Canto repertoire. She is the author of the novels the
Son of Thunder and
The Cloak of Freya and has contributed to LewRockwell.com and TheSaker.IS.
Edward Snowden is a typical American fachidiot who, despite their protestations is a striver and bootlick for the Empire.
I genuinely believe that he is puzzled as to why it has turned against him. He deserves his destiny of forever languishing in
political purgatory.
Several years later, practically nobody remembers him here in the US, and possible elsewhere (save for when it is convenient
for the media). Julian Assange was a far more daring, more insightful figure.
(As an aside, I am curious about the author's liking of bel canto . Lot of birdbrain music to my ears; I prefer Wagner,
Strauss, Schreker, and Berg. Also, the older I get, the more I realize that Schoenberg was by far the greater genius than Mahler.)
The logging of user and information accessed is sure added to the file. But real time supervision? No. A eye of sauron? Please.
The system isnt there to prevent crime, its to track down the criminal and deeds later. And yes everything takes a very long time
on the public side.
You know, 16:00 hours the mouse just drops dead from the hand. Public servants don't give a damn if a job is made fast or efficient,
only that procedure if followed and that it is eventually done. Unless priorities are reassigned, stuff left halfway undone in
disarray is no problem when reassigned.
Just as keeping secret private archives of more or less job related data is all standard procedure. That is keep a load of
data in your personal folders and move those into whatever form desired. Security is not very tight. Only in the sense that eventually
every person with hours and access point etc data can be recovered if so ordered to.
So stealing data out of that system shouldn't be terribly hard. Just email it to a private email. Or store on something else
and transport out. For one Hillary was doing the same thing for ages. In that case though "what difference does it make"
There was an interview with Edward in the German magazine Der Spiegel this month, Nr. 18. In it, we get the tale, he copied material
on SD cards, and smugeled them in his mouth, or inside a "magic cube" out of the base on Hawaii, passing "guards". A cube, the
occult symbol, how blatant, just mocking the profane.
On the technical side, I got a story from a German BMW factory. A bunch
of guys on nightshift plugged a USB Harddisk into a PC to watch a movie. Minutes later they received a call from the IT, it had
been recognized remotely. What a charade. It has the taste of Jewish tales, smuggling stuff, tricking guards of an evil system.
Nice to have a piece helping point to the truth, that Glenn Greenwald & Edward Snowden are CIA frauds, as every major government
knows
'Edward Snowden' who first 'leaked' to the CIA's Washington Post, in fact to Bush VP Dick Cheney's biographer Bart Gellman
then the Deep State realised that was too stupid, so they switched to Rothschild employee & ex-gay-pornography-seller Glenn Greenwald,
former proprietor of 'hairystuds', at the Guardian, an intel-agency rag which lies about nearly everything
Despite the Snowden-Assange mutual sniping in their media-star rivalry, Julian Assange is also a CIA-Mossad asset, as Bibi
Netanyahu himself has boasted to Israeli media, regarding aggressively pro-Zionist, anti-Palestinian Julian, equally anti-9-11-truth
along with Eddie Snowden
As loyal CIA assets, neither Assange and Snowden dare to mention USA Virginia fed judge bribery files that have blocked other
extraditions, tho these files would make their own extraditions impossible, if these CIA fakers really cared about their own 'defence'
Zbigniew Brzezinski on 29 Nov 2010, on the US public television PBS News Hour, also admitted Assange was intel, his Wikileaks
'selected'
People trusting Assange are dead, Peter W Smith, Seth Rich; others jailed
You will notice that Assange & Snowden both got famous via CIA – MI6 media, NY Times, UK Guardian, who are never interested
in real dissidents
Assange shared lawyer with Rothschilds, Rothschild sister-in-law posted Assange bail, Assange has ties to George Soros too
Early on, Assange helped Rothschilds destroy rival bank Julius Baer that is 'progressive Wiki-leaking' for you
Assange had a weird childhood with Aussie mind-control cult 'the Family'
Things like 'Assange living at Ecuador Embassy' – 'now in Belmarsh prison' – easily faked, Assange moved in & out for photos
by MI5 MI6, police under national security orders 'Snowden' is not necessarily in Russia either
Assange & Snowden de-legitimise real dissidents, because people say, 'Wikileaks – NY Times – UK Guardian would cover it if
it was true'
NeonRevolt once floated the theory that Snowden was an FBI or CIA plant who whistleblew solely because he had the mission to undermine
NSA operations by exposing their equipment/techniques and turning public opinion against them.
I completely understand if people are leery of the theorycrafting of a Q tracker, but I do believe that this suggestion is plausible.
Setting aside attempts at placing it in context of a Deep State war, inter-service rivalry and sabotage between spy agencies is
absolutely a thing, and reviewing the inconsistencies of Snowden's stunt, its aftermath, and his personal views with that potential
background in mind suddenly makes things make much more sense, in my mind at least.
Interesting, thought-provoking article.
It asks us to balance up competing interests & advantages.
On the one hand we can assume Snowden is "real" or not. That is, he's a genuine whistle blower, or he's a government psy-op's
plant.
If we accept the later, that he's a plant, then it raises a further question: was the short term loss, associated with his revelations,
ie highlighting the utterly disturbing degree of Gov surveillance over US citizens (etc) worth the long term profit of having
an established, authoritive psy-op's agent able to influence/distort etc any debate or narrative concerning the US State /elites.
On this side the author notes Snowmen's views on Tor, 9/11, Russia etc which clearly advantage the US State's own views on these
subjects.
I don't know the answer -- except that this article raises serious questions, suspicions , about
Snowden's authenticity.
Never for a moment considered Snowden any sort of secular saint.
Snowden for the most part only confirmed the downward trajectory of the formerly at least interesting filmmaker, Oliver Stone.
If JFK was worth a laugh (and evidently did get a few people thinking about the phoniness of Dallas '63 for the first time),
Snowden was total chloroform on screen. Sad to see Ollie hit such lows.
This bit is interesting:
When Julian Assange was taken from the Ecuadoran embassy, he was carrying a copy of Gore Vidal: History of the National
Security State & Vidal on America. As an older article on Vidal in The Guardian noted, "Gore Vidal claims 'Bush junta' complicit
in 9/11."
As batty as Vidal may have been, it is a fact he was the first American with any sort of national recognition to speak out
against the National Security State, starting in the Eisenhower years. His fury was partly stoked by their meddling in Central
America, but he stayed at it. Even gave it a mention in a movie he had a gag role in, Bob Roberts , 1992.
His favorite line (variously rendered) was "Harry Truman signed the United States of America into oblivion in February, 1949"
which was when the NSA papers were drawn up, giving us the security state, the CIA and the whole shebang. Anytime before, any
US citizen could demand accounting of any government project, no matter what. Afterward, the rule by secrecy applied.
Vidal had been a WWII veteran and deplored all that came about after. Credit is due for that.
Even if you're not doing anything wrong, you are being watched and recorded. The NSA has built an infrastructure that allows
it to intercept almost everything. With this capability, the vast majority of human communications are automatically ingested
without targeting. If I wanted to see your emails or your wife's phone calls, all I have to do is use intercepts. I can get
your emails, passwords, phone records, credit cards. – Edward Snowden
Snowden, exiled and isolated in Russia, is some sort of USG crypto-agent or something?
I suppose that if you're going to look for outside-the-box commentary and analysis, you're going to get some of this sort of
nonsense. I guess you can't expect to hit a home run every time.
"Edward Snowden is a typical American fachidiot who, despite their protestations is a striver and bootlick for the Empire.
I genuinely believe that he is puzzled as to why it has turned against him. He deserves his destiny of forever languishing
in political purgatory."
And yet this "striver and bootlick for the Empire" is exiled in Russia. So some guy sacrifices an enjoyable and secure life
to go live in Russia and all you can say is that "he deserves his destiny?"
"Several years later, practically nobody remembers him here in the US"
And this is a reflection on him or on the rest of us?
Comfortable living in Moscow, vs. Belmarsh, makes all the difference in the world.
You might be right about Snowden, you might not be, but were Assange living in a Russian city, far out of reach of NeoconiaDC,
Bill Blaney would show him greater respect believe me.
@Horst G Boy howdy, a Rubik's
Cube is now magical, profane, occult, and eerily symbolic, because it's cubical! And geometry class is a satanic false
flag op of oppressive propaganda taught by crypto-Jews! Who else could be interested in IRRATIONAL numbers like π? PYTHAGORAS
WAS A MOSSAD AGENT!
And yet this "striver and bootlick for the Empire" is exiled in Russia. So some guy sacrifices an enjoyable and secure life
to go live in Russia and all you can say is that "he deserves his destiny?"
His "sacrifice" was inadvertent and involuntary. The fact that he seems not to appreciate the sanctuary offered to him by Russia
-- has he not repeatedly expressed the desire to go elsewhere? -- says a lot. From everything I have read about him, it would
appear that he regards his exile not as something to be borne with dignity, but as something to pout over as does a child who
unexpectedly did not get his way.
Julian Assange, on the other hand, sacrificed much more and did so willingly and courageously. He had no illusions about the
consequences that he would face for his beliefs and actions.
And this is a reflection on him or on the rest of us?
Both. Nobody remembers anything here in the US anyway, least of all people and events which do not flatter the national mythos.
In the case of this would-be patriot -- the scion of a family that grew fat at the government teat, and who himself has made a
tidy profit from his exile -- his unofficial damnatio memoriæ is deserved.
Maybe you ought to give Snowden some credit for his military service too. Fair is fair.
Snowden enlisted in the United States Army Reserve on May 7, 2004, and became a Special Forces candidate through its 18X
enlistment option.[39] He did not complete the training.[12] After breaking both legs in a training accident,[40] he was discharged
on September 28, 2004.[41]
@Brabantian Is Seth Rich dead
? OpDeepState.com : "The 'murder' of Seth Rich – Everything we thought we knew is wrong !" by Lisa Phillips . "The MOSSAD infiltrated
Clinton's campaign with a Sayanim contractor – Seth Rich – this OP took Hillary right out of the race ."
Tor is a great tool, if you know how to use it correctly. The US gov't know people don't know how to use it correctly, and sets
up exit nodes to spy on idiots, like this:
In 2007 Egerstad set up just five Tor exit nodes and used them to intercept thousands of private emails, instant messages
and email account credentials.
Amongst his unwitting victims were the Australia, Japanese, Iranian, India and Russia embassies, .
Dan Egerstad proved then that exit nodes were a fine place to spy on people and his research convinced him in 2007, long
before Snowden, that governments were funding expensive, high bandwidth exit nodes for exactly that purpose.
Tor is a fine security project and an excellent component in a strategy of defence in depth but it isn't (sadly) a cloak
of invisibility.
Exit nodes, just like fake Wi-Fi hotspots, are an easy and tempting way for attackers to silently insert themselves into
a network.
By running an exit node they can sit there as an invisible man-in-the-middle on a system that people choose when
they want extra privacy and security.
Well, this is refreshing. I agree wholeheartedly about Snowden and have the same reservations. My feelings about Assange, however,
aren't much different. Julian has not challenged the 9/11 narrative either to be fair. I am inclined to see them both as limited
hangouts. Snowden's 'revelations' were all old news to anyone who'd been paying attention for 10 years before his appearance.
Even other whistleblowers, none of whom got any media coverage, had spoken of much of it previously. I see them both as pied pipers
and nothing more. I think Russian intelligence services are perfectly well aware of what Snowden is and have kept him at arms
length themselves. Not much they could do but play along but nothing suggests they ever saw him as any sort of 'coup'
Anyone who still plays along with the 9/11 bullshit narrative isn't worth a damn anyway.
@animalogicConsider that nothing
Snowden revealed was news. It was all old hat for anyone who'd been paying attention, and for up to ten years. Sure Snowden made
it mainstream for what good it did but nothing he said was a secret anymore. In fact, I thought even at the time his actions were
nothing less than a 'threat and warning' from the intel services that they had this much on everyone. Just imagine all those national
leaders, politicians from all states being pout on notice. All your secrets are ours! What a powerful global message to deliver
and in such a loud and clear fashion.
The lack of deviation from official bullshit on 9/11 is on its own however reason enough to toss this guy out. Snowden NEVER
impressed me for a moment and honestly, nor has Assange. I believe they're both working for the other side still. By the way,
Julian Assange has actually denigrated 9/11 truthers a number of times.
@anon It's in the magazine, page
82, quote "Zauberwürfel". Presented by me, for you to get the picture. Maybe you haven't seen enough cubes around, to get that
humor. In real life, copying material on devices will be followed by arrest, no interview, no journey to some exile. This whole
tale is not funny, it's evil on many levels. Your sarcasm is disturbing.
Several years later, practically nobody remembers him here in the US, and possible elsewhere (save for when it is convenient
for the media). Julian Assange was a far more daring, more insightful figure.
I disagree, there are plenty of people who remember him. The problem is they don't care, most Americans would rather watch
America's Got Talent or Dancing With The Stars than do something about our corrupt political system.
2013 Edward Snowden 'leaked stolen documents' (1) 'Leaked' to Dick Cheney friend at CIA WashPost, Rothschild employee Greenwald
(2) Anti-9-11-truth (3) Nothing really new beyond more than 5+ previous NSA whistleblowers (4) Has CIA lawyers, worked with Brzezinski
son, promoted by Brzezinski daughter, fake CV history (5) Known as fake to all major gov intel agencies
@Johnny Walker ReadThis is
absolutely dynamite material, it blows to smithereens any notion that Edward Snowden is anything other than a fraud, a CIA disinfo
op.
So now we can place him alongside Julian Assange and Wikileaks in the rogue's gallery of professional liars. This report
also exposes several other media outlets as being under CIA control, something we have known for some time
I don't know the answer -- except that this article raises serious questions, suspicions , about
Snowden's authenticity.
To my mind "9/11, attitude to", is a sort of touch-stone for telling genuine dissidents from fake and both Snowden and Assange
fail on that test. I don't have a reference for it, but I saw it in correspondence on this site. There was a video of a lecture
given by Assange, where someone asked him about 9/11. He looked extremely embarrassed and then replied that he thought that it
was "not very important" (Sic!) and changed the subject.
I am less sure of this but I think I saw something similar in an interview with Snowden. Perhaps someone else can remind me
of exact references?
This is the same government whose leaders secure their laptops with the secret code "pas$word" and require the producers of computers
to give them full access via day one exploits along with tailor fitted programs that are easier to hack.
That Snowden got away with what he did is not that shocking.
These days Snowden has become a generic term for whistleblowing on the Deep State tech spying, like xerox for copying. I suppose someone here wants to remind us that this was _really_ the first copier, patented in 1879:
The truth or falsity of the original "myth" becames moot at some point.
The Deep State is spying. They do have hardware and software and monkey in the middle hacks. They do trade intelligence with
other spy agencies, domestic and foreign. They lie about it through the Mockingbird media.
_That_ is what is important.
Snowden's bona fides are "inside baseball", and minor league baseball at that.
.gov IT security is a joke–millions of pages of regulations, proclamations, millions of hours of management meetings, goals,
powerpoint slides–ultimately easily outmatched by any determined hackers (whether in mom's basement or an intelligence agency's
basement).
If he was a sys admin, that probably meant he had the rights to install, remove, enable, and disable the various safety guards
and security checks discussed in this article.
@Jonathan Revusky Yvonne Lorenzo
paper suggest suspect issues exist to support Snowden's story but finds Assange's saga to be
based in epic, consistent, continued resistance to the organized forces at work in governments and high profile international
corporations and agencies to keep secret things which expose officials as criminals.
<=the difference is consistency, scope and finger points. Assange has been consistent.. always seeking to make available as
much as he could, always with as much clarity as possible; making the point where he could, that much of what he exposed seems
to be in the domain of organized crime. Assange often exposes high profile persons and tags them with evidence to connect them
to prior and current organized crime or obviously corrupt activities. Assange shows these persons or governments or agencies are
involved in secret diplomatic activities, the secrecy of which seem always to be protected by judicial and legal processes
The Assange story paints a picture that suggest globally organized crime has come into possession and now manages and controls
many well armed domestic governments and that selected agencies of government have been enabling selected private enterprises.
Assange exposes intelligence services of many different nations to be a bank, corporation, and agency inter connects that coordinate
infrastructure destruction, invasion, regime change, and war, and that these events are often followed by opportunistic privatization.
Snowden merely says a few things are wrong and should be corrected. in time the government will fix its own mistakes. I do
not know if Snowden is a Trojan, but nothing Assange has done suggest he is and governments have treated Assange as anything but
one of them. My opinion.
@Nicolás Palacios Navarro I agree
that Assange has suffered much more than Snowden, but why hold that against the latter?
Snowden took a risk to publicize what he thought was important information indicating a dangerous trend in US policy. He wasn't
willing to offer himself up as a lamb to the slaughter, so it's true that his sacrifice is not perhaps the ultimate one. He seems
to have thought he could remain in Hong Kong but didn't realize that China was never going to compromise relations with the US
to protect him. Putin wouldn't have either except that the US was so imperious in demanding his return that Putin really couldn't
save face and give him up, and no doubt he was rankled by US hypocrisy, knowing that had Snowden been a Russian, the US would
never have considered sending him back.
But Snowden DID take action which is more than most of us do. I find your complete lack of empathy kind of weird, to be honest.
Even if Assange is the more virtuous or if one disagrees with Snowden's actions, he has paid a price for principle.
What does his family background have to do with anything?
I'm not inclined to sneer at him, and I don't see how you get to "he deserves what he gets."
So Pamela Anderson lied about visiting Assange in the embassy? If they're faking it, wherever he is he isn't in the public
eye walking down the street or sitting in a Starbucks, so he's leading a prison life anyway behind closed doors somewhere. I suppose
a dedicated agent would do something like that for Queen and country or whatever, but I doubt he's the type. I gather veterans
today are trying to cast Assange as a Mossad agent but then they're the Journal of the Clandestine Community, whatever that is.
Snowden is not a classic defector so it makes sense for him to keep his distance from Russian society so as not to be inadvertently
compromised or used by their intelligence services. He's obviously under surveillance there, I know we all are but he's much more
aware of it, so that doesn't make it easy for him but he's definitely safer there than he'd be in France or Germany. I just don't
think he planned well ahead when he became a whistle-blower or was clear about what he was trying to achieve. He's not the top
level type of spy we're accustomed to reading about who betray their country for money or to serve another they believe in more
than their own. If he has been on active duty as a CIA asset all along I can't see that he has achieved much of use to them other
than in some inter-agency rivalry game. But it's natural for Russians to be suspicious of him – they're suspicious by nature –
and rightly so, but it doesn't make his life easy there.
Good stuff. Snowden was outed by Gordon Duff years ago. Although I'll have to come back to finish this article, it generally appears
to agree with Duff's analysis that none of it adds up. If I may paraphrase Edward Bernays, To read the Washington Post and Guardian or watch TV news is to see America and Western Civilization through the eyes of its
enemy.
The owners of the media own the public forum in America and through it the formation of men's attitudes and the outcome of
elections. The left vs right, CNN vs Fox News, MAGA vs socialism and other contrived theater serves the interests of the media
owners and no other.
Assange tried to destroy the "system", which would have furthered the conditions for completing the ongoing, global
Cultural Marxist Revolution Mao Zedong on steroids.
Snowden, on the other hand, wanted something much less extreme. He wanted to fix and save the "system" by exposing
its excesses in order to bring it back within a quasi-legal, democratic framework.
In response, the "system" was satisfied to teach Snowden a lesson. They were willing to slap Snowden's hand by exiling him
to Western Russia, which is better than rotting in a Siberian labor camp or "max" prison in the United States.
Assange, on the other hand, is a reincarnated, digital version of Che Guevara. They want his scalp, recognizing that Assange
(like Che Guevara) will brook no compromise in his revolutionary agitation.
Good article. Snowden and Assange are agents of disinformation
"I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence
of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud."
@9/11 Inside job Well, the
Real Litmus Test ™ is eternal security vs. conditional salvation. Don't fail, or everything else you've ever said must be
summarily dismissed. Answer well, friendo .
Splitting (also called black-and-white thinking or all-or-nothing thinking) is the failure in a person's thinking to bring
together the dichotomy of both positive and negative qualities of the self and others into a cohesive, realistic whole. It
is a common defense mechanism.
The problem is they don't care, most Americans would rather watch America's Got Talent or Dancing With The Stars than do
something about our corrupt political system.
It appears the author of this piece has not read Snowden's book, Permanent Record . If she had, she would not have asked
questions which are answered, in detail, in Snowden's book. Here are some of the most obvious points.
1. "Why does Snowden never discuss dealing with such encryption: how would it be possible?"
Answer: In his book, Snowden describes the layers of encryption that he used when copying the files from NSA. He also describes
the extraordinary level of access he had as a systems engineer. Further, he mentions his surprise at finding that the NSA did
not practice widespread encryption, in contrast to his experience at CIA, where the hard drives were not only encrypted, but removed
from the computers and placed in a safe each night.
2. "In the Oliver Stone movie Snowden, as well as in any of Snowden's descriptions of how he accessed the NSA computers, did
you note either the depiction or reference to this universal Smart ID? How could Snowden be exempt from its requirement?"
Answer: Movies omit details. In his book, Snowden describes working in the one-person Information Sharing department. As part
of that work, he brought an older, "obsolete" system to his office under the cover story of "compatibility testing" and used this
older system to copy the data.
3. "Did Edward Snowden, who has publicly criticized Google, mention Google is deployed as a search engine throughout the federal
"intranet"?"
Answer: Yes, as a matter of fact, in his book, Snowden does mention that Google provides a custom internal version of their
search engine to the intelligence community.
4. "Edward Snowden would have us believe that the Eye of Sauron didn't notice he was looking at gigabytes of data unrelated
to his job function and using his computer to copy the data to external devices over a lengthy period of time."
Answer: In his book, Snowden describes how he created a "readboard" that collected the documents as part of his work in the
Information Sharing department. He also describes how another systems administrator did notice, and how he addressed this attention
by providing access to his "readboard" to the other administrator, and explained its purpose and value to users. In other words,
the "gigabytes of data" he was looking at were directly related to his job function.
5. "On another issue, why did Snowden provide his files to known house organs of Intelligence Agencies, specifically the Washington
Post and The Guardian, and not give them to Wikileaks to allow a publicly available searchable database?"
Answer: Snowden also discusses this topic in his book. According to Snowden, he did not want to simply release the information,
he wanted the media to remove anything that might cause harm.
6. "And what about Snowden himself, the pontificator, the man who can speak on television or to the media with evidence of
training? Practice yourself -- see how well you can answer questions and speak publicly to a TV camera. How did he get his training?
Who trained him? Why?"
Answer: After 6 years of media attention, it seems reasonable he would gain some expertise in dealing with the media.
My purpose in providing the answers above is not to defend or attack Snowden. Rather, these examples just show that the author
of this piece is a sloppy amateur who did not do her homework. I suspect the author is also woefully ignorant of computer technology.
Anyone curious about these topics should read Permanent Record and decide for themselves.
Your opinion stands. Snowden has de facto been compromised. Being in Russia, and not in control of his environment. Whether
he was from the start, could be. The Tor browser bull- *** t speaks against him all the way. His conventional career start, and
youth also. He is more Macron then a Galloway.
Assange was in for the long term, had thorough knowledge of affairs digital, his youth, his physical courage(there must be
a point where selling out was a possibility) were exemplary all along the (long) and still ongoing slug.
Even his ego, fronting Wikileaks seems to be proportionate as compared to the conventional Jerks &, as Pompeo, Hillary, Trump,
Obama. If one sees how many personnel is dedicated to steer elections and governance public opinion, he certainly looks like a
lonely giant on the civil disobedience, organizational, knowledgeable, energy spent and resilience side. A true example of what
White, and Western European descend stands for. Enlightenment, in system, style, and function. Relevancy, long term goals, dare,
does not come better then that.
@Oscar Peterson I don't have "Agree/Disagree/Etc"
privileges so I say here that I agree with you.
Some of the pompous ingrates trashing Snowden for the flimsiest of reasons still seem to have a high opinion of Thomas Drake,
William Binney, or Kirk Wiebe. They might read this:
Three NSA Veterans Speak Out on Whistleblower
The author, interestingly enough, isn't I.T. professional, but, has very definite opinions about IT security. Dumb.
Just email it to a private email.
Well, firewall logs could reveal your connection to some email server outside ..
Or store on something else and transport out.
Yep. Hehe the girl doesn't actually get how that "encryption" thing works. OSI layers etc.
And, what people really don't get: all security is as good as an average person using it.
As hehe you pointed out:
Hillary was doing the same thing for ages.
Insider doesn't need to tackle technology. All he/she needs is to tackle is a dumb employee.
Anyway .
I could make my home systems quite secure, even against Five Eyes. That would create another set of even worse problems, but
let's leave it out for now.
The problem is my wife and her browsing/computer use habits. Hehe makes sense?
Snowden keeping "distance" to Russia, and not openly defending them seems reasonable to me. You can imagine the smear campaign
back home if he would side with Russia against the U.S. on almost anything. "The Russians got to him" or "He was always their
man".
He is trying to keep his neutrality and credibility and his target audience isn't the average Unz reader, but rather some mainstream
educated middle/upper class blokes. Easily scared away from his views if they become too controversial and too far from the established
narrative.
Last but not least, he is playing very dangerous game, probably without much security from his host country. This probably
limits what he can do, TPTB could probably get to him if they wanted it badly enough.
@PetrOldSack > The Tor browser
bull- *** t speaks against him all the way
No, your stupid bull- *** t lack of understanding about Tor speaks against you all the way. It's not encryption, like you probably
think it is. It's simply a way to use another IP address without having to drive to the nearest Starbucks to use their wifi. You
treat Tor just like any "free" wifi, assuming that your data is being sniffed and collected. If you're going to message, use Signal
(or Telegram.) Always force HTTPS. Use encryption. All Tor does is obfuscate your IP location, which is exactly what Snowden states,
"All Tor does is obfuscate your IP location .
"[Tor] allows you to disassociate your physical location ."
And now Brave Browser has it built in! So easy. Try it. Just don't do anything on Tor that you wouldn't do with a Starbuck's
free wifi in Foggy Bottom.
@Republic How he got taken down
is here
, and it started with the name-fag using his Real Name while e-begging for help to run illegal websites, and ended up with a half-dozen
FBI agents tailing him at his arrest. Even then, Tor made it harder for the FBI to track him, just not impossible.
Tor only does one thing, obfuscate your physical location. That's it. It's not magic. It's a virtual way to sit at the Starbucks
cafe and use their free wifi. Just assume the exit node is owned by the Feds, looking for criminal morons who don't understand
it and think it's "secure" or "encrypted." It's not. Use encryption too.
Stuff like this just confirms Qanon. He said years ago Snowden was a CIA plant in the NSA to reveal this information about their
mass surveillance on purpose. Why ? Maybe it relates to what Michael Hoffman describes as revelation of the method – a process
of revealing the crimes being committed against us by "they" so it breeds apathy and despair in the population when nothing comes
from
The revelation of the crimes
An allegedly very high iq high school from a family with drop out Snowden's tried to join special forces and failed jump school,
he failed a polygraph, got accepted to the CIA though not as a field agent despite his lack of a degree, and was bounced from
the CIA and then got a job with Dell as an outside contractor on the basis of his still intact security clearance, the contractors
were not compartmentalised in the way government employees were.
Then he went to work for defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton,
at an NSA facility in Hawaii. In subsequent interview with journalists, Snowden lied about his doing undercover work for the CIA,
salary and seniority at Booz Allen, being able to spy on the the emails and phone calls of President Obama. Oh, and suffering broken
bones in special forces jump school, he just had shin splints It is very clear how he got access, and why most of the people who
gave him it did not own up.
https://nypost.com/2013/11/08/snowden-duped-coworkers-to-get-passwords/
Snowden duped co-workers to get passwords A handful of agency employees who gave their login details to Snowden were identified,
questioned and removed from their assignments, said a source close to several U.S. government investigations into the damage
caused by the leaks.
Snowden may have persuaded between 20 and 25 fellow workers at the NSA regional operations center in Hawaii
to give him their logins and passwords by telling them they were needed for him to do his job as a computer systems administrator,
a second source said.
Are we to believe the NSA lacks a "digital trail" when it comes to classified documents?
It's only difficult to believe if you think NASA (like the CIA and FBI once were) are only guarded in relation to external
rather than internal security breaches
[A] frightening history of plans to crush internal dissent and would-be dissenters in the United States.
Why would they bother? Those dissenters cannot change anything, while they are whiling away their free time on the internet.
Such activity cannot change anything at all, and so it is to be encouraged from the point of view of any establishment as open
dissent on the net wards off the allegation of totalitarian state. Talk is cheap.
I'm not going to comment on the person or their agenda, rather the process-broadly.
Can you copy encrypted files without knowledge and smuggle them out?
Short answer:
Yes, with a second device and some standard hardware stuff.
They can see the second device if it is plugged in, but they have to look for it.
There is no need to try and copy from the source, copy the output to a second machine that can interpret.
ought to give Snowden some credit for his military service too.
Hell, I'd give the guy credit for his quick sprinting at the NSA. But we haven't established if he was a wiz kid or a plant.
Vidal went into the US Army after Pearl Harbor, at age 17. Even though he'd been his high school representative for the America
First Committee, trying to keep the US out of the war. Due to hypothermia working on army transport ships in the Aleutians, he
was initially misdiagnosed as arthritic and, not being caught in time, ended up first with a titanium leg replacement years later,
then in a wheelchair.
I remain sort of impressed when a young man opposes a fight, then for patriotic reasons, serves anyway (and pays a steep price).
I'm sure we'll get the full story on Snowden sooner or later.
@Saggy A stupid girl who is completely
unfamiliar with the Snowden history. For example, she asks this, "why did Snowden provide his files to The Guardian?"
Because he needed immediate press coverage. He didn't have weeks or even days, he had at most a few hours. His story
had to be in the press the next morning. Both Greenwald and the Guardian reporter were with him at the hotel, worried that
Snowden might even be assassinated if caught by US forces, and worked to get immediate press coverage of his plight to save his
life. Plus, he was in constant contact with Wikileaks'Julian Assange, which she conveniently ignores to promote her lie-based
conspiritard theory.
Without his story getting into the press within a few hours, and without Wikileaks' Julian Assange helping Snowden, he'd be
in prison now, at best, possibly dead.
I say, give the guy a fair trial. He has asked for a fair trial. But the US Gov't has refused to allow his motive to
be considered in the trial. Amazing, isn't it? Since when is motive to not be considered in a criminal trial?
For Snowden, a fair trial means allowing the jury to consider his motivations rather than simply deciding the case
on whether a law was broken.
"They want the jury strictly to consider whether these actions were lawful or unlawful, not whether they were right or wrong,"
Snowden said. "And I'm sorry, but that defeats the purpose of a jury trial."
Tor may still be a good tool, it certainly was, I had great fun using it to troll and set off edit wars on English Wikipedia for
a year or two mid-last decade. One of those edit wars lasted for about three days. I just watched after starting it (but I meant
what I said in the comment that set it off, but not always in the trolling(^-^)v).
In any case, the English-language WP has been madly tracking Tor exit nodes and banning them since about early '07.
Fun while it lasted.
As for the wrong way to use it, that basically means making a connection to any other site, without Tor, while using Tor. I
slipped up on that once or twice when slightly drunk.
I don't even know if using Tor is even legal in Japan now. I do love, however, how Wikipedia is aggressively supressing it.
Some politicians in ruling party were moving to make it illegal a couple of years ago, our polity is so nonsensical that I
have to checck Japanese wiki to see the result.
Any fule knows that Tor original is a U.S.N. programme,
Rappaport started my thinking and I bookmarked his pages long ago and to my horror found the site was taken down. I wonder
why? Glad for this archive. Thank you.
It appears the author of this piece has not read Snowden's book, Permanent Record. If she had, she would not have asked
questions which are answered, in detail, in Snowden's book. Here are some of the most obvious points.
1. "Why does Snowden never discuss dealing with such encryption: how would it be possible?"
Answer: In his book, Snowden describes the layers of encryption that he used when copying the files from NSA. He also describes
the extraordinary level of access he had as a systems engineer. Further, he mentions his surprise at finding that the NSA did
not practice widespread encryption, in contrast to his experience at CIA, where the hard drives were not only encrypted, but
removed from the computers and placed in a safe each night.
2. "In the Oliver Stone movie Snowden, as well as in any of Snowden's descriptions of how he accessed the NSA computers,
did you note either the depiction or reference to this universal Smart ID? How could Snowden be exempt from its requirement?"
Answer: Movies omit details. In his book, Snowden describes working in the one-person Information Sharing department. As
part of that work, he brought an older, "obsolete" system to his office under the cover story of "compatibility testing" and
used this older system to copy the data.
No, I haven't read the book–yet.
As part of a forensic analysis, which none of you were observant enough to understand, the subject is interviewed without knowledge
of the questions in advance. His answers would be evaluated based on facts, for which a forensic IT team with no connections to
government contractors would be part of and gain access to NSA systems. Thus, testimony is considered but it must be verified.
Rand Paul might be one to open an investigation into the inadequacy of NSA security but government investigating itself is suspect.
No such investigation will ever take place.
Note there has been no calls, that I am aware of, for any GAO study of NSA vulnerabilities.
Second, the critics miss the point: providing files to CIA-Five Eye fronts like Guardian and CIA Washington Post is suspect.
As per what I wrote, no one now has access to this data.
I suspect Snowden leaked legitimate information to con the Russians to be on their soil and conduct malfeasance. Prior to Putin
providing S-300s to Syria, Israel had better relations with Russia. I suspect Q is also coordinated by Intel agency friendly to
Likud. Note his mention of John Perry Barlow before his death. He warned of Snowden being sent deliberately to Russia and hence
my concern for CIA doing something stupid.
As to his comments on not supporting Russia, no support is necessary. If he were a decent human being he could simply have
stated, "Election interference notwithstanding the U.S. should pursue non-aggressive posture against Russia. There was no 'Second
Pearl Harbor.' The risk of nuclear war is great and I agree with President Trump to reduce tensions, although I disagree with
his politics."
Instead, see his Tweets supporting the Pussy Hats and "We came, we saw, he died" Hillary Clinton.
In the event, Snowden is irrelevant. The end of Empire is imminent.
Read Martyanov's post on the recent threats America made to Russia here.
I have compassion for Snowden. His end will likely be as Skripals was: disappearance by Western IC which he supports and blame
placed on Russia.
We are free to disagree with one another. I trust nothing a supporter of Empire says.
As to September 11 I wasn't aware of Assange's remarks. This is the touchstone as others have said. Snowden enlisted because
of September 11 false flag. Yeah, right, he is an idiot savant.
Even Ed Asner who no longer wins Emmy awards and is blackballed had the courage to do this video. Trust Snowden? I think not.
Y. Lorenzo (this site will not allow me to post under my name)
p.s. Ron uses Gmail. The nearest military base is a long, long way from my location. A helicopter outfitted with surveillance
bubbles overflew after I submitted this piece.. Coincidence, right?
I will fight for the truth. I receive no compensation for my work and expect none. I support the cause of peace and not Empire.
Thanks for the intelligent supportive comments. Ad hominem attacks mean nothing. Thanks to Ron for posting though he disagrees.
...re. 'Smowden"when he was constantly whining about Russia, getting hhs pole-dancing gf to join him there must have
been a major effort, but he has no gratitude for it.
Really strange. At the time, I thought that Putin's comment 'he is a strange young man' had to do only with questions of loyalty and betrayal,
of course, it was lilekely deeper and more suspicious than that. If I had been in the position like 'Snowden', after first having been granted asylum, my priority would have been to study
the language. I would gtuess that he can order food or drink, do basic greetings, and not much else.
@Republic Snowden's wife is a
former pole dancer, those are for good for something, but its not marrying. Everything about him suggests immaturity, from his
toying with the idea of being a model to his trying to go from frail civilian with a youth spent 24/7 gaming to passing jumps
school. He stole vastly more than he could ever have read, much of it having no bearing on privacy so he has no idea what he might
have compromised. Quoth he:
There is a secrecy agreement, but there is also an oath of service. An oath of service is to support and defend, not an
agency, not even the president, it is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies
– direct quote – foreign and domestic. And this begs the question, what happens when our obligations come into conflict.
If you have meaningful values (ie those that do not charge to suit your personal aggrandisement) you resign, I but instead
of doing that he deliberately got another job contracting with the NSA all the better to steal data.
.In the event, Snowden is irrelevant. The end of Empire is imminent. Read Martyanov's post on the recent threats America made to Russia here .
That was fast, even for this pub.
Ad hominem attacks mean nothing.
You mean being positive about you UNABLE to visualize a byte from a "keypress" moving all the way to the LAN cable with each
timer "click"? You know, buffers, busses, microcode/firmware, interrupts, stack/heap, closed source, encryption/decryption layer
of the OSI stack etc. That's for technology.
As for people, unaware of an average idiot user in any environment using IT, Governments in particular, and the role and power
of sysadmins in such environments?
But confident to write articles what can and can not be done re IT security?
Yeah .
@anon Not sure about Pythagoras,
but there are (very unfortunately) people who might have
fun from combining "Rubik's Cube and highly classified information".
And not necessarily in reality.
You mean being positive about you UNABLE to visualize a byte from a "keypress" moving all the way to the LAN cable with
each timer "click"? You know, buffers, busses, microcode/firmware, interrupts, stack/heap, closed source, encryption/decryption
layer of the OSI stack etc. That's for technology.
Rand Paul might be one to open an investigation into the inadequacy of NSA security but government investigating itself
is suspect. No such investigation will ever take place.
Yes, Rand Paul who while cutting his lawn provoked his own retired doctor neighbor in a gated community into a maddened vicious
rib dislocating attack that cost Paul part of his lung What a brilliant choice to annoy the government.
His end will likely be as Skripals was: disappearance by Western IC which he supports and blame placed on Russia
Skirpal is in America. The British got Skirpal out of Russia, but Russia could have killed him any time because he was homesick
and meeting people from the Russian Embassy. In my opinion the Russians were trying to kill Skirpal's daughter along with him.
They knew she was coming and timed the nerve agent attack so as to 'accidentally' kill her along with the traitor. The knowledge
that you will go after their families is the ultimate deterrent. Unless you are a narcissistic dick like Snowden, who hardly mentions
anything his family did for him except getting a second phone line so he could play some stupid internet game. Snowden actually
says in his book that the internet raised him. It did not get him a job in the CIA despite him having no degree, that was his
mom's NSA and her father's Pentagon connections. Aldrich Ames's father worked for the CIA .
Edward Snowden is a great man – a great American. (Will a Dem president pardon him?) I recently viewed a video on how a poor immigrant family hid Snowden before he secured a flight out of Hong Kong. (He is working
to get them out of Hong Kong, to Canada.) I am curious as to how he got the flight out to Russia?????
This will be my final comment.
My issue is one regarding Snowden's character and integrity, especially as the collapsing Empire under FUBAR Trump is waging
war on the world. Come on, none of the CIA trolls here have read The Saker with Orlov on the fate of the mass murdering Empire?
At this point it is important to explain what exactly a "final collapse" looks like. Some people are under the very mistaken
assumption that a collapsed society or country looks like a Mad Max world. This is not so. The Ukraine has been a failed state
for several years already, but it still exists on the map. People live there, work, most people still have electricity (albeit
not 24/7), a government exists, and, at least officially, law and order is maintained. This kind of collapsed society can go
on for years, maybe decades, but it is in a state of collapse nonetheless, as it has reached all the 5 Stages of Collapse as
defined by Dmitry Orlov in his seminal book "The Five Stages of Collapse: Survivors' Toolkit" where he mentions the following
5 stages of collapse:
Stage 1: Financial collapse. Faith in "business as usual" is lost.
Stage 2: Commercial collapse. Faith that "the market shall provide" is lost.
Stage 3: Political collapse. Faith that "the government will take care of you" is lost.
Stage 4: Social collapse. Faith that "your people will take care of you" is lost.
Stage 5: Cultural collapse. Faith in "the goodness of humanity" is lost.
Sound familiar? Read it and weep. Your pensions are toast.
Or read Chris Hedges America The Farewell Tour.
Snowden's character is proven by his interview with Brian Roberts.
Now, although only 14% of U.S. TLAMs got past Syrian air defenses, hear him was rhapsodic on the "beautiful missiles."
And Snowden is happy to talk to this creep? And asks Rothschild-Kravis puppet Macron to ex-filtrate him to France?
It was in this milieu that he met Henry and Marie-Josée Kravis, in their residence on Park Avenue in New York [1]. The Kravis
couple, unfailing supporters of the US Republican Party, are among the great world fortunes who play politics out of sight
of the Press. Their company, KKR, like Blackstone and the Carlyle Group, is one of the world's major investment funds.
" Emmanuel's curiosity for the 'can-do attitude' was fascinating – the capacity to tell yourself that you can do anything
you set your mind to. He had a thirst for knowledge and a desire to understand how things work, but without imitating or copying
anyone. In this, he remained entirely French ", declares Marie-Josée Drouin (Mrs. Kravis) today [2].
Snowden's revelations about his aspirations for asylum outside of Russia come just days ahead of the upcoming release of
his new memoir which is expected to hit the shelves on US Constitution Day.
Famous American whistleblower and former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, the man responsible for exposing a number of global
surveillance programs run by the US agency, has recently revealed that he would like to obtain asylum in France.
Call it female intuition, Snowden creeps me out.
Those who want to bow before his altar, be my guest. You have free will.
Just realized, isn't this creature the only female author here?
A female creature is writing, as an author, on alt-whatever site, about things she has never been professionally involved in.
With certain hahaha style.
Hahaha ..oh my.
So, what have we got:
1. Unz finally collapsed under "diversity" pressure?
2. There is, sort of a hidden, message here.
@Sean True true .mea culpa. Female
stuff, that is, in general.
Style, though, is unique for the creature here.
Butthurt
whoo-hoo..
Go wave your flag
.CIA trolls here
Read it and weep. Your pensions are toast .
.creep .creeps me out
I mean hahaha .when reading those things it's, almost, as written by a certain type of commentators here. Almost as one of
them, actually. Same "footprint". Especially the first two.
I mean, having that from an author here is, really, a new low for sure.
This is the first time I've seen something like that, and my attitude was mild in this thread compared to some in other threads.
I mean, I was quite hard on some authors here, and never, so far that. "Butthurt" ."whoo-hoo"
I've quite offended a couple of authors here and they never replied with any rude word. And ..my God "whoo-hoo". Haha crazy.
New "quality" seeping here, apparently. Hehe getting with times, I guess. And program.
Understandable.
I've been on this site for quite some time. Read, on average, 20 % of articles and similar number of comments in those articles.
I can't, really, recollect ONE case when an AUTHOR, here, in a comments exchange with a commentator, used the words
"butthurt" and "whoo-hoo". Not once from the, say, authors from the West. Born and raised there, that is. Cultural
thing, I guess.
@foolisholdmanI agree. Shilling
for the Israelis regarding 911 is a deal breaker for me. They had me going about these 2 guys for a while, but when I heard that
they had ridiculed 911 truthers I smelled a rat. And after this article I agree they are shills for the status quo. Reasonable
people can not doubt that 911 was a false flag operation. There's just too much bullshit there.
I think the idea Snowden is a "plant" is a bit far out there. If he is; the real purpose of the exercise is what exactly?
I also don't get why some commenters think Julian Assange isn't who he claims to be. His Wikileaks has published great volume
of highly embarrassing material for the U.S. The embassy cables come to mind – bringing to light evidence contrary to Washington
narrative on many events.
There is another thing; Just after he established Wikileaks he came to Iceland and met with journalists and few politicians.
The result from that visit was he met one Kristinn Hrafnsson, long time journalist in Iceland with excellent track record and
credibility. Since Assange got in trouble, accused of sexual harassment from Swedish woman and finally escaped into the Ecuador
embassy in London, Hrafnsson has been spokesman for Wikileaks.
Since I am familiar with Hrafnsson work for decades, I would be very surprised if he worked with Assagne all this time, and
even took over his job, so to speak, as head of Wikileaks if Assagne wasn't genuine. Hrafnsson has struck me as smart guy and
honest and it's extremely unlikely he would continue if something didn't smell right at Wikileaks. I also want to point out Wikileaks
has been working with, what I consider the few remaining NEWS outlets in Europe. (Including The Guardian before it was bought
few years ago and became worthless).
To Assagne credit he booted Icelandic polititian, one Birgitta Jónsdóttir; who tried to visit him in U.K. prison – and wanted
nothing to do with her. She has been trying to make international name for herself as fighter for human rights and peacemaker
and against corruption and so forth. Unfortunately she is a bag full of hot air and thinks SHE is the center of the universe.
It's all about her and therefore she is of no use for any cause. Julian was right to send her packing.
I can't imagine what the CIA or NSA or other tentacles of the Empire would gain by running Wikileaks. It makes absolutely no
sense to me.
@2stateshmustate "9/11 is the
Litmus Test " By Smoking – Mirrors.Com :
"It all comes down to 9/11.Everything that has happened has happened based on a lie . Everyone in Government ; everyone in
the media , in entertainment , in organized religion , in the public ,in the public eye who accepts and promotes the official
story is either a traitor or a tool . Everyone who does not stand forth and speak truth to power is a coward , a liar and complicit
in mass-murder . Everyone
everywhere can be measured by this Litmus Test ."
Essentially neoliberal MSM were hijacked. Which was easy to do. The current anti-Russian campaign is conducted under
the direct guidance of MI6 and similar agencies
Notable quotes:
"... committee minutes note the secretary saying: "The Guardian was obliged to seek advice under the terms of the DA notice code." The minutes add: "This failure to seek advice was a key source of concern and considerable efforts had been made to address it." ..."
"... These "considerable efforts" included a D-Notice sent out by the committee on 7 June 2013 – the day after The Guardian published the first documents – to all major UK media editors, saying they should refrain from publishing information that would "jeopardise both national security and possibly UK personnel". It was marked "private and confidential: not for publication, broadcast or use on social media". ..."
"... "The FT [Financial Times] and The Times did not mention it [the initial Snowden revelations] and the Telegraph published only a short". It continued by noting that only The Independent "followed up the substantive allegations". It added, "The BBC has also chosen to largely ignore the story." ..."
"... The British security services had carried out more than a "symbolic act". It was both a show of strength and a clear threat. The Guardian was then the only major newspaper that could be relied upon by whistleblowers in the US and British security bodies to receive and cover their exposures, a situation which posed a challenge to security agencies. ..."
"... The increasingly aggressive overtures made to The Guardian worked. The committee chair noted that after GCHQ had overseen the smashing up of the newspaper's laptops "engagement with The Guardian had continued to strengthen". ..."
"... But the most important part of this charm and threat offensive was getting The Guardian to agree to take a seat on the D-Notice Committee itself. The committee minutes are explicit on this, noting that "the process had culminated by [sic] the appointment of Paul Johnson (deputy editor Guardian News and Media) as a DPBAC [i.e. D-Notice Committee] member". ..."
"... The Guardian's deputy editor went directly from the corporation's basement with an angle-grinder to sitting on the D-Notice Committee alongside the security service officials who had tried to stop his paper publishing. ..."
"... In November 2016, The Guardian published an unprecedented "exclusive" with Andrew Parker, the head of MI5, Britain's domestic security service. The article noted that this was the "first newspaper interview given by an incumbent MI5 chief in the service's 107-year history". It was co-written by deputy editor Paul Johnson, who had never written about the security services before and who was still sitting on the D-Notice Committee. This was not mentioned in the article. ..."
"... The MI5 chief was given copious space to make claims about the national security threat posed by an "increasingly aggressive" Russia. Johnson and his co-author noted, "Parker said he was talking to The Guardian rather than any other newspaper despite the publication of the Snowden files." ..."
"... Just two weeks before the interview with MI6's chief was published, The Guardian itself reported on the high court stating that it would "hear an application for a judicial review of the Crown Prosecution Service's decision not to charge MI6's former counterterrorism director, Sir Mark Allen, over the abduction of Abdel Hakim Belhaj and his pregnant wife who were transferred to Libya in a joint CIA-MI6 operation in 2004". ..."
"... The security services were probably feeding The Guardian these "exclusives" as part of the process of bringing it onside and neutralising the only independent newspaper with the resources to receive and cover a leak such as Snowden's. They were possibly acting to prevent any revelations of this kind happening again. ..."
"... The Guardian's coverage of anti-Semitism in Labour has been suspiciously extensive, compared to the known extent of the problem in the party, and its focus on Corbyn personally suggests that the issue is being used politically. While anti-Semitism does exist in the Labour Party, evidence suggests it is at relatively low levels. Since September 2015, when Corbyn became Labour leader, 0.06% of the Labour membership has been investigated for anti-Semitic comments or posts. In 2016, an independent inquiry commissioned by Labour concluded that the party "is not overrun by anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or other forms of racism. Further, it is the party that initiated every single United Kingdom race equality law." ..."
"... A former Guardian journalist similarly told us: "It is significant that exclusive stories recently about British collusion in torture and policy towards the interrogation of terror suspects and other detainees have been passed to other papers including The Times rather than The Guardian." ..."
"... The Guardian had gone in six short years from being the natural outlet to place stories exposing wrongdoing by the security state to a platform trusted by the security state to amplify its information operations. A once relatively independent media platform has been largely neutralised by UK security services fearful of being exposed further. Which begs the question: where does the next Snowden go? DM ..."
The Guardian, Britain's leading liberal newspaper with a global reputation for independent and critical journalism, has been
successfully targeted by security agencies to neutralise its adversarial reporting of the 'security state', according to newly released
documents and evidence from former and current Guardian journalists.
The UK security services targeted The Guardian after the newspaper started publishing the contents of secret US government documents
leaked by National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden in June 2013.
Snowden's bombshell revelations continued for months and were the largest-ever leak of classified material covering the NSA and
its UK equivalent, the Government Communications Headquarters. They revealed programmes of
mass surveillance
operated by both agencies.
According to minutes of meetings of the UK's Defence and Security Media Advisory
Committee, the revelations caused alarm in the British security services and Ministry of Defence.
" This event was very concerning because at the outset The Guardian avoided engaging with the [committee] before publishing the
first tranche of information," state
minutes of a 7 November
2013 meeting at the MOD.
The DSMA Committee, more commonly known as the D-Notice Committee, is run by the MOD, where it meets every six months. A small
number of journalists are also invited to sit on the committee. Its
stated purpose is to "prevent inadvertent public disclosure
of information that would compromise UK military and intelligence operations". It can issue "notices" to the media to encourage them
not to publish certain information.
The committee is currently chaired by the MOD's director-general of security policy Dominic Wilson, who was
previously director of security and intelligence
in the British Cabinet Office. Its secretary is Brigadier Geoffrey Dodds OBE, who
describes himself as an "accomplished, senior
ex-military commander with extensive experience of operational level leadership".
The D-Notice system describes itself as voluntary ,
placing no obligations on the media to comply with any notice issued. This means there should have been no need for the Guardian
to consult the MOD before publishing the Snowden documents.
Yet committee minutes note the secretary saying: "The Guardian was obliged to seek advice under the terms of the DA notice code." The minutes
add: "This failure to seek advice was a key source of concern and considerable efforts had been made to address it."
' Considerable efforts'
These "considerable efforts" included a D-Notice sent out by the committee on 7 June 2013 – the day after The Guardian published
the first documents – to all major UK media editors, saying they should refrain from publishing information that would "jeopardise
both national security and possibly UK personnel". It was
marked "private and confidential: not
for publication, broadcast or use on social media".
Clearly the committee did not want its issuing of the notice to be publicised, and it was nearly successful. Only the right-wing
blog Guido Fawkes made it public.
At the time, according to the committee
minutes , the "intelligence
agencies in particular had continued to ask for more advisories [i.e. D-Notices] to be sent out". Such D-Notices were clearly seen
by the intelligence services not so much as a tool to advise the media but rather a way to threaten it not to publish further Snowden
revelations.
One night, amidst the first Snowden stories being published, the D-Notice Committee's then-secretary Air Vice-Marshal Andrew Vallance
personally called Alan Rusbridger, then editor of The Guardian. Vallance "made clear his concern that The Guardian had failed to
consult him in advance before telling the world",
according to a Guardian journalist who interviewed Rusbridger.
Later in the year, Prime Minister David Cameron again used the D-Notice system as a threat to the media.
" I don't want to have to use injunctions or D-Notices or the other tougher measures," he
said
in a statement to MPs. "I think it's much better to appeal to newspapers' sense of social responsibility. But if they don't
demonstrate some social responsibility it would be very difficult for government to stand back and not to act."
The threats worked. The Press Gazette reported
at the time that "The FT [Financial Times] and The Times did not mention it [the initial Snowden revelations] and the Telegraph
published only a short". It continued by noting that only The Independent "followed up the substantive allegations". It added, "The
BBC has also chosen to largely ignore the story."
The Guardian, however, remained uncowed.
According to the committee
minutes , the fact
The Guardian would not stop publishing "undoubtedly raised questions in some minds about the system's future usefulness". If the
D-Notice system could not prevent The Guardian publishing GCHQ's most sensitive secrets, what was it good for?
It was time to rein in The Guardian and make sure this never happened again.
GCHQ and laptops
The security services ratcheted up their "considerable efforts" to deal with the exposures. On 20 July 2013, GCHQ officials
entered The Guardian's offices at King's Cross in London, six weeks after the first Snowden-related article had been published. At the request of the government and security services, Guardian deputy editor Paul Johnson, along with two others, spent
three hours destroying the laptops containing the Snowden documents.
The Guardian staffers, according to one of the newspaper's reporters,
brought "angle-grinders, dremels – drills with revolving bits – and masks". The reporter added, "The spy agency provided
one piece of hi-tech equipment, a 'degausser', which destroys magnetic fields and erases data."
Johnson
claims
that the destruction of the computers was "purely a symbolic act", adding that "the government and GCHQ knew, because we
had told them, that the material had been taken to the US to be shared with the New York Times. The reporting would go on. The episode
hadn't changed anything."
Yet the episode did change something. As the D-Notice Committee
minutes for November
2013 outlined: "Towards the end of July [as the computers were being destroyed], The Guardian had begun to seek and accept D-Notice
advice not to publish certain highly sensitive details and since then the dialogue [with the committee] had been reasonable and improving."
The British security services had carried out more than a "symbolic act". It was both a show of strength and a clear threat. The
Guardian was then the only major newspaper that could be relied upon by whistleblowers in the US and British security bodies to receive
and cover their exposures, a situation which posed a challenge to security agencies.
The increasingly aggressive overtures made to The Guardian worked. The committee chair
noted that after
GCHQ had overseen the smashing up of the newspaper's laptops "engagement with The Guardian had continued to strengthen".
Moreover, he added
, there were now "regular dialogues between the secretary and deputy secretaries and Guardian journalists". Rusbridger later
testified to the Home Affairs Committee that Air Vice-Marshal Vallance of the D-Notice committee and himself "collaborated"
in the aftermath of the Snowden affair and that Vallance had even "been at The Guardian offices to talk to all our reporters".
But the most important part of this charm and threat offensive was getting The Guardian to agree to take a seat on the D-Notice
Committee itself. The committee minutes are explicit on this,
noting that "the
process had culminated by [sic] the appointment of Paul Johnson (deputy editor Guardian News and Media) as a DPBAC [i.e. D-Notice
Committee] member".
At some point in 2013 or early 2014, Johnson – the same deputy editor who had smashed up his newspaper's computers under the watchful
gaze of British intelligence agents – was approached to take up a seat on the committee. Johnson attended his first meeting in
May 2014 and was
to remain on it until
October 2018
.
The Guardian's deputy editor went directly from the corporation's basement with an angle-grinder to sitting on the D-Notice Committee
alongside the security service officials who had tried to stop his paper publishing.
A new editor
Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger withstood intense pressure not to publish some of the Snowden revelations but agreed to Johnson
taking a seat on the D-Notice Committee as a tactical sop to the security services. Throughout his tenure, The Guardian continued
to publish some stories critical of the security services.
But in March 2015, the situation changed when the Guardian
appointed a new editor, Katharine Viner, who had less experience than Rusbridger of dealing with the security services. Viner
had started out on fashion and entertainment magazine Cosmopolitan and had no history in national security reporting. According
to insiders, she showed much less leadership during the Snowden affair than Janine Gibson in the US (Gibson was another
candidate
to be Rusbridger's successor).
Viner was then editor-in-chief of Guardian Australia, which was
launched just two weeks before the first Snowden
revelations were published. Australia and New Zealand comprise two-fifths of the so-called
"Five Eyes" surveillance alliance exposed by Snowden.
This was an opportunity for the security services. It appears that their seduction began the following year.
In November 2016, The Guardian
published an unprecedented "exclusive" with Andrew Parker, the head of MI5, Britain's domestic security service. The article
noted that this was the "first newspaper interview given by an incumbent MI5 chief in the service's 107-year history". It was co-written
by deputy editor Paul Johnson, who had never written about the security services before and who was still sitting on the D-Notice
Committee. This was not mentioned in the article.
The MI5 chief was given
copious space to make claims about the national security threat posed by an "increasingly aggressive" Russia. Johnson
and his co-author noted, "Parker said he was talking to The Guardian rather than any other newspaper despite the publication of the
Snowden files."
Parker told the two reporters, "We recognise that in a changing world we have to change too. We have a responsibility to talk
about our work and explain it."
Four months after the MI5 interview, in March 2017, the Guardian
published another unprecedented "exclusive", this time with Alex Younger, the sitting chief of MI6, Britain's external
intelligence agency. This exclusive was awarded by the Secret Intelligence Service to The Guardian's investigations editor, Nick
Hopkins, who had been appointed 14 months previously.
The interview was the first Younger had given to a national newspaper and was again softball.
Titled "MI6 returns to 'tapping up' in an effort to recruit black and Asian officers", it focused almost entirely on the
intelligence service's stated desire to recruit from ethnic minority communities.
" Simply, we have to attract the best of modern Britain," Younger told Hopkins. "Every community from every part of Britain should
feel they have what it takes, no matter what their background or status."
Just two weeks before the interview with MI6's chief was published, The Guardian itself
reported on the high court stating that it would "hear an application for a judicial review of the Crown Prosecution Service's
decision not to charge MI6's former counterterrorism director, Sir Mark Allen, over the abduction of Abdel Hakim Belhaj and his pregnant
wife who were transferred to Libya in a joint CIA-MI6 operation in 2004".
None of this featured in The Guardian article, which did, however, cover discussions of whether the James Bond actor Daniel Craig
would qualify for the intelligence service. "He would not get into MI6," Younger told Hopkins.
More recently, in August 2019, The Guardian was
awarded yet another exclusive, this time with Metropolitan police assistant commissioner Neil Basu, Britain's most senior
counter-terrorism officer. This was Basu's " first major interview since taking up his post" the previous year and resulted in a
three-part series of articles, one of which was
entitled "Met police examine Vladimir Putin's role in Salisbury attack".
The security services were probably feeding The Guardian these "exclusives" as part of the process of bringing it onside and neutralising
the only independent newspaper with the resources to receive and cover a leak such as Snowden's. They were possibly acting to prevent
any revelations of this kind happening again.
What, if any, private conversations have taken place between Viner and the security services during her tenure as editor are not
known. But in 2018, when Paul Johnson eventually left the D-Notice Committee, its chair, the MOD's Dominic Wilson,
praised Johnson who, he said, had been "instrumental in re-establishing links with The Guardian".
Decline in critical reporting
Amidst these spoon-fed intelligence exclusives, Viner also oversaw the breakup of The Guardian's celebrated investigative team,
whose muck-racking journalists were told to apply for other jobs outside of investigations.
One well-placed source
told the Press Gazette at the time that journalists on the investigations team "have not felt backed by senior
editors over the last year", and that "some also feel the company has become more risk-averse in the same period".
In the period since Snowden, The Guardian has lost many of its top investigative reporters who had covered national security issues,
notably Shiv Malik, Nick Davies, David Leigh, Richard Norton-Taylor, Ewen MacAskill and Ian Cobain. The few journalists who were
replaced were succeeded by less experienced reporters with apparently less commitment to exposing the security state. The current
defence and security editor, Dan Sabbagh,
started
at The Guardian as head of media and technology and has no history of covering national security.
" It seems they've got rid of everyone who seemed to cover the security services and military in an adversarial way," one current
Guardian journalist told us.
Indeed, during the last two years of Rusbridger's editorship, The Guardian published about 110 articles per year tagged as MI6
on its website. Since Viner took over, the average per year has halved and is decreasing year by year.
" Effective scrutiny of the security and intelligence agencies -- epitomised by the Snowden scoops but also many other stories
-- appears to have been abandoned," a former Guardian journalist told us. The former reporter added that, in recent years, it "sometimes
seems The Guardian is worried about upsetting the spooks."
A second former Guardian journalist added: "The Guardian no longer seems to have such a challenging relationship with the intelligence
services, and is perhaps seeking to mend fences since Snowden. This is concerning, because spooks are always manipulative and not
always to be trusted."
While some articles critical of the security services still do appear in the paper, its "scoops" increasingly focus on issues
more acceptable to them. Since the Snowden affair, The Guardian does not appear to have published any articles based on an intelligence
or security services source that was not officially sanctioned to speak.
The Guardian has, by contrast,
published a steady stream of exclusives on the major official enemy of the security services, Russia, exposing Putin,
his friends and the work of its intelligence services and military.
In the Panama Papers leak in April 2016, which revealed how companies and individuals around the world were using an offshore
law firm to avoid paying tax, The Guardian's front-page launch scoop was authored by Luke Harding, who has received many security
service
tips focused on the "Russia threat", and was
titled "Revealed:
the $2bn offshore trail that leads to Vladimir Putin".
Three sentences into the piece, however, Harding notes that "the president's name does not appear in any of the records" although
he insists that "the data reveals a pattern – his friends have earned millions from deals that seemingly could not have been secured
without his patronage".
There was a much
bigger story
in the Panama Papers which The Guardian chose to downplay by leaving it to the following day. This concerned the father of
the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, who "ran an offshore fund that avoided ever having to pay tax in Britain by hiring a small
army of Bahamas residents – including a part-time bishop – to sign its paperwork".
We understand there was some argument between journalists about not leading with the Cameron story as the launch splash. Putin's
friends were eventually deemed more important than the Prime Minister of the country where the paper published.
Getting Julian Assange
The Guardian also appears to have been engaged in a campaign against the WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange, who had been a collaborator
during the early WikiLeaks revelations in 2010.
One 2017 story came from investigative reporter Carole Cadwalladr, who writes for The Guardian's sister paper The Observer,
titled "When Nigel Farage met Julian Assange". This concerned the visit of former UKIP leader Nigel Farage to the Ecuadorian embassy
in March 2017,
organised by the radio station LBC, for whom Farage worked as a presenter. Farage's producer at LBC accompanied Farage
at the meeting, but this was not mentioned by Cadwalladr.
Rather, she posited that this meeting was "potentially a channel of communication" between WikiLeaks, Farage and Donald Trump,
who were all said to be closely linked to Russia, adding that these actors were in a "political alignment" and that " WikiLeaks is,
in many ways, the swirling vortex at the centre of everything".
Yet Cadwalladr's one official on-the-record source for this speculation was a "highly placed contact with links to US intelligence",
who told her, "When the heat is turned up and all electronic communication, you have to assume, is being intensely monitored, then
those are the times when intelligence communication falls back on human couriers. Where you have individuals passing information
in ways and places that cannot be monitored."
It seems likely this was innuendo being fed to The Observer by an intelligence-linked individual to promote disinformation to
undermine Assange.
In 2018, however, The Guardian's attempted vilification of Assange was significantly stepped up. A new string of articles began
on 18 May 2018 with
one alleging Assange's "long-standing relationship with RT", the Russian state broadcaster. The series, which has been
closely
documented elsewhere, lasted for several months, consistently alleging with little or the most minimal circumstantial
evidence that Assange had ties to Russia or the Kremlin.
One story, co-authored again by Luke Harding,
claimed that "Russian diplomats held secret talks in London with people close to Julian Assange to assess whether they
could help him flee the UK, The Guardian has learned". The former consul in the Ecuadorian embassy in London at this time, Fidel
Narvaez, vigorously denies the existence of any such "escape plot" involving Russia and is involved in a complaint process with The
Guardian for insinuating he coordinated such a plot.
This apparent mini-campaign ran until November 2018, culminating in a front-page
splash , based on anonymous sources, claiming that Assange had three secret meetings at the Ecuadorian embassy with Trump's
former campaign manager Paul Manafort.
This "scoop" failed all tests of journalistic credibility since it would have been impossible for anyone to have entered the highly
secured Ecuadorian embassy three times with no proof. WikiLeaks and others have strongly argued that the story was
manufactured
and it is telling that The Guardian has since failed to refer to it in its subsequent articles on the Assange case. The Guardian,
however, has still not retracted or apologised for the story which remains on its website.
The "exclusive" appeared just two weeks after Paul Johnson had been congratulated for "re-establishing links" between The Guardian
and the security services.
The string of Guardian articles, along with the vilification and smear stories about Assange elsewhere in the British media, helped
create the conditions for
a deal between Ecuador, the UK and the US to expel Assange from the embassy in April. Assange now sits in Belmarsh maximum-security
prison where he faces extradition to the US, and life in prison there, on charges under the Espionage Act.
Acting for the establishment
Another major focus of The Guardian's energies under Viner's editorship has been to attack the leader of the UK Labour Party,
Jeremy Corbyn.
The context is that Corbyn appears to have recently been a target of the security services. In 2015, soon after he was elected
Labour leader, the Sunday Times
reported a
serving general warning that "there would be a direct challenge from the army and mass resignations if Corbyn became prime minister".
The source told the newspaper: "The Army just wouldn't stand for it. The general staff would not allow a prime minister to jeopardise
the security of this country and I think people would use whatever means possible, fair or foul, to prevent that."
On 20 May 2017, a little over two weeks before the 2017 General Election, the Daily Telegraph was
fed the story that "MI5 opened a file on Jeremy Corbyn amid concerns over his links to the IRA". It formed part of a Telegraph
investigation claiming to reveal "Mr Corbyn's full links to the IRA" and was sourced to an individual "close to" the MI5 investigation,
who said "a file had been opened on him by the early nineties".
The Metropolitan Police Special Branch was also said to be monitoring Corbyn in the same period.
Then, on the very eve of the General Election, the Telegraph gave space to an
article from Sir Richard Dearlove, the former director of MI6, under a headline: "Jeremy Corbyn is a danger to this nation.
At MI6, which I once led, he wouldn't clear the security vetting."
Further, in September 2018, two anonymous senior government sources
told The Times that Corbyn had been "summoned" for a "'facts of life' talk on terror" by MI5 chief Andrew Parker.
Just two weeks after news of this private meeting was leaked by the government, the Daily Mail
reported another leak, this time revealing that "Jeremy Corbyn's most influential House of Commons adviser has been barred
from entering Ukraine on the grounds that he is a national security threat because of his alleged links to Vladimir Putin's 'global
propaganda network'."
The article concerned Andrew Murray, who had been working in Corbyn's office for a year but had still not received a security
pass to enter the UK parliament. The Mail reported, based on what it called "a senior parliamentary source", that Murray's application
had encountered "vetting problems".
Murray later heavily suggested that the security services had leaked the story to the Mail. "Call me sceptical if you must, but
I do not see journalistic enterprise behind the Mail's sudden capacity to tease obscure information out of the [Ukrainian security
service]," he wrote
in the New Statesman. He added, "Someone else is doing the hard work – possibly someone being paid by the taxpayer. I doubt
if their job description is preventing the election of a Corbyn government, but who knows?"
Murray told us he was approached by the New Statesman after the story about him being banned from Ukraine was leaked. "However,"
he added, "I wouldn't dream of suggesting anything like that to The Guardian, since I do not know any journalists still working there
who I could trust."
The Guardian itself has run a remarkable number of news and comment articles criticising Corbyn since he was elected in 2015 and
the paper's clearly hostile stance has been widely
noted .
Given its appeal to traditional Labour supporters, the paper has probably done more to undermine Corbyn than any other. In particular,
its massive coverage of alleged widespread anti-Semitism in the Labour Party has helped to disparage Corbyn more than other smears
carried in the media.
The Guardian's coverage of anti-Semitism in Labour has been suspiciously extensive, compared to the known extent of the problem
in the party, and its focus on Corbyn personally suggests that the issue is being used politically. While anti-Semitism does exist in the Labour Party, evidence suggests it is at relatively low levels. Since September 2015, when
Corbyn became Labour leader, 0.06% of the Labour membership has been
investigated for anti-Semitic comments or posts. In 2016, an independent inquiry commissioned by Labour
concluded
that the party "is not overrun by anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or other forms of racism. Further, it is the party that initiated
every single United Kingdom race equality law."
Analysis of two YouGov surveys, conducted in 2015 and 2017,
shows that anti-Semitic views held by Labour voters declined substantially in the first two years of Corbyn's tenure and
that such views were significantly more common among Conservative voters.
Despite this, since January 2016, The Guardian has published 1,215 stories mentioning Labour and anti-Semitism, an average of
around one per day, according to a search on Factiva, the database of newspaper articles. In the same period, The Guardian published
just 194 articles mentioning the Conservative Party's much more serious problem with Islamophobia. A YouGov poll in 2019, for example,
found that nearly half of the Tory Party membership would prefer not to have a Muslim prime minister.
At the same time, some stories which paint Corbyn's critics in a negative light have been suppressed by The Guardian. According
to someone with knowledge of the matter, The Guardian declined to publish the results of a months-long critical investigation by
one of its reporters into a prominent anti-Corbyn Labour MP, citing only vague legal issues.
In July 2016, one of this article's authors emailed a Guardian editor asking if he could pitch an investigation about the first
attempt by the right-wing of the Labour Party to remove Corbyn, informing The Guardian of very good inside sources on those behind
the attempt and their real plans. The approach was rejected as being of no interest before a pitch was even sent.
A reliable publication?
On 20 May 2019, The Times newspaper
reported on a Freedom of Information request made by the Rendition Project, a group of academic experts working on torture
and rendition issues, which showed that the MOD had been "developing a secret policy on torture that allows ministers to sign off
intelligence-sharing that could lead to the abuse of detainees".
This might traditionally have been a Guardian story, not something for the Rupert Murdoch-owned Times. According to one civil
society source, however, many groups working in this field no longer trust The Guardian.
A former Guardian journalist similarly told us: "It is significant that exclusive stories recently about British collusion in
torture and policy towards the interrogation of terror suspects and other detainees have been passed to other papers including The
Times rather than The Guardian."
The Times published its scoop under a strong
headline , "Torture: Britain breaks law in Ministry of Defence secret policy". However, before the article was published,
the MOD fed The Guardian the same documents The Times were about to splash with, believing it could soften the impact of the revelations
by telling its side of the story.
The Guardian
posted its own article just before The Times, with a headline that would have pleased the government: "MoD says revised
torture guidance does not lower standards".
Its lead paragraph was a simple summary of the MOD's position: "The Ministry of Defence has insisted that newly emerged departmental
guidance on the sharing of intelligence derived from torture with allies, remains in line with practices agreed in the aftermath
of a series of scandals following the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq." However, an inspection of the documents showed this was clearly
disinformation.
The Guardian had gone in six short years from being the natural outlet to place stories exposing wrongdoing by the security state
to a platform trusted by the security state to amplify its information operations. A once relatively independent media platform has
been largely neutralised by UK security services fearful of being exposed further. Which begs the question: where does the next Snowden
go? DM
The Guardian did not respond to a request for comment.
Daily Maverick will formally launch Declassified – a new UK-focused investigation and analysis organisation run by the
authors of this article – in November 2019.
Matt Kennard is an investigative journalist and co-founder of Declassified . He was previously director of the
Centre for Investigative Journalism in London, and before that a reporter for the Financial Times in the US and UK. He is the author
of two books, Irregular Army and The Racket .
Mark Curtis is a leading UK foreign policy analyst, journalist and the author of six books including Web of
Deceit: Britain's Real Role in the World and Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam .
David Warner Mathisen definitely know what he is talking about due to his long military career... Freefall speed
is documented and is an embarrassment to the official story, because freefall is impossible for a naturally
collapsing building.
Now we need to dig into the role of Larry Silverstein in the
Building 7 collapse.
Notable quotes:
"... Below is a video showing several film sequences taken from different locations and documenting multiple angles of World Trade Center Building 7 collapsing at freefall speed eighteen years ago on September 11, 2001. ..."
"... The four words "Building Seven Freefall Speed" provide all the evidence needed to conclude that the so-called "official narrative" promoted by the mainstream media for the past eighteen years is a lie, as is the fraudulent 9/11 Commission Report of 2004. ..."
"... Earlier this month, a team of engineers at the University of Alaska published their draft findings from a five-year investigation into the collapse of Building 7 ..."
"... This damning report by a team of university engineers has received no attention from the mainstream media outlets which continue to promote the bankrupt "official" narrative of the events of September 11, 2001. ..."
"... its rate of collapse can be measured and found to be indistinguishable from freefall speed, as physics teacher David Chandler explains in an interview here (and as he eventually forced NIST to admit), beginning at around 0:43:00 in the interview. ..."
"... the collapse of the 47-story steel-beam building World Trade Center 7 into its own footprint at freefall speed is all the evidence needed to reveal extensive and deliberate premeditated criminal activity by powerful forces that had the ability to prepare pre-positioned demolition charges in that building ..."
"... Indeed, the evidence is overwhelming, to the point that no one can any longer be excused for accepting the official story. Certainly during the first few days and weeks after the attacks, or even during the first few years, men and women could be excused for accepting the official story (particularly given the level to which the mainstream media controls opinion in the united states). ..."
"... Additionally, I would also recommend the interviews which are archived at the website of Visibility 9-11 , which includes valuable interviews with Kevin Ryan but also numerous important interviews with former military officers who explain that the failure of the military to scramble fighters to intercept the hijacked airplanes, and the failure of air defense weapons to stop a jet from hitting the Pentagon (if indeed a jet did hit the Pentagon), are also completely inexplicable to anyone who knows anything at all about military operations, unless the official story is completely false and something else was going on that day. ..."
"... In addition to these interviews and the Dig Within blog of Kevin Ryan, I would also strongly recommend everybody read the article by Dr. Gary G. Kohls entitled " Why Do Good People Become Silent About the Documented Facts that Disprove the Official 9/11 Narrative? " which was published on Global Research a few days ago, on September 6, 2019. ..."
"... on some level, we already know we have been bamboozled, even if our conscious mind refuses to accept what we already know. ..."
"... Previous posts have compared this tendency of the egoic mind to the blissfully ignorant character of Michael Scott in the television series The Office (US version): see here for example, and also here . ..."
"... The imposition of a vast surveillance mechanism upon the people of this country (and of other countries) based on the fraudulent pretext of "preventing terrorism" (and the lying narrative that has been perpetuated with the full complicity of the mainstream media for the past eighteen years) is in complete violation of the human rights which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights and which declare: ..."
"... David Warner Mathisen graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point and became an Infantry officer in the 82nd Airborne Division and the 4th Infantry Division. He is a graduate of the US Army's Ranger School and the 82nd Airborne Division's Jumpmaster Course, among many other awards and decorations. He was later selected to become an instructor in the Department of English Literature and Philosophy at West Point and has a Masters degree from Texas A&M University. ..."
Below is a video showing several film sequences
taken from different locations and documenting multiple angles of World Trade Center Building 7 collapsing at freefall speed eighteen
years ago on September 11, 2001.
The four words "Building Seven Freefall Speed" provide all the evidence needed to conclude that the so-called "official narrative"
promoted by the mainstream media for the past eighteen years is a lie, as is the fraudulent 9/11 Commission Report of 2004.
Earlier this month, a team of engineers at the University of Alaska
published their draft findings from a five-year investigation into the collapse of Building 7, which was not hit by any airplane
on September 11, 2001, and concluded that fires could not possibly have caused the collapse of that 47-story steel-frame building
-- rather, the collapse seen could have only been caused by the near-simultaneous failure of every support column (43 in number).
This damning report by a team of university engineers has received no attention from the mainstream media outlets which continue
to promote the bankrupt "official" narrative of the events of September 11, 2001.
Various individuals at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) tried to argue that the collapse of Building
7 was slower than freefall speed, but its rate of collapse can be measured and found to be indistinguishable from freefall speed,
as physics teacher David Chandler explains in an
interview
here (and as he eventually forced NIST to admit), beginning at around 0:43:00 in the interview.
Although the collapse of the 47-story steel-beam building World Trade Center 7 into its own footprint at freefall speed is all
the evidence needed to reveal extensive and deliberate premeditated criminal activity by powerful forces that had the ability to
prepare pre-positioned demolition charges in that building prior to the flight of the aircraft into the Twin Towers of the World
Trade Center (Buildings One and Two), as well as the power to cover up the evidence of this criminal activity and to deflect questioning
by government agencies and suppress the story in the mainstream news, the collapse of Building 7 is by no means the only evidence
which points to the same conclusion.
Indeed, the evidence is overwhelming, to the point that no one can any longer be excused for accepting the official story. Certainly
during the first few days and weeks after the attacks, or even during the first few years, men and women could be excused for accepting
the official story (particularly given the level to which the mainstream media controls opinion in the united states).
However, eighteen years later there is simply no excuse anymore -- except for the fact that the ramifications of the admission
that the official story is a flagrant fraud and a lie are so distressing that many people cannot actually bring themselves to consciously
admit what they in fact already know subconsciously.
For additional evidence, I strongly recommend the work of the indefatigable Kevin Robert Ryan , whose blog at Dig Within should be required reading for every man and woman in the united
states -- as well as those in the rest of the world, since the ramifications of the murders of innocent men, women and children on
September 11, 2001 have led to the murders of literally millions of other innocent men, women and children around the world since
that day, and the consequences of the failure to absorb the truth of what actually took place, and the consequences of the
failure to address the lies that are built upon the fraudulent explanation of what took place on September 11, continue to
negatively impact men and women everywhere on our planet.
Additionally, I would also recommend the interviews which are archived at the website of Visibility 9-11 , which includes valuable interviews with Kevin Ryan
but also numerous important interviews with former military officers who explain that the failure of the military to scramble fighters
to intercept the hijacked airplanes, and the failure of air defense weapons to stop a jet from hitting the Pentagon (if indeed a
jet did hit the Pentagon), are also completely inexplicable to anyone who knows anything at all about military operations, unless
the official story is completely false and something else was going on that day.
I would also strongly recommend listening very carefully to the series of five interviews with Kevin Ryan on Guns and Butter with Bonnie Faulkner, which can be found in the
Guns and Butterpodcast archive here . These interviews,
from 2013, are numbered 287, 288, 289, 290, and 291 in the archive.
I would in fact recommend listening to nearly every interview in that archive of Bonnie Faulkner's show, even though I do not
of course agree with every single guest nor with every single view expressed in every single interview. Indeed, if you carefully
read Kevin Ryan's blog which was linked above, you will find a
blog post by Kevin Ryan dated June 24, 2018 in which he
explicitly names James Fetzer along with Judy Woods as likely disinformation agents working to discredit and divert the efforts of
9/11 researchers. James Fetzer appears on Guns and Butter several times in the archived interview page linked above.
That article contains a number of stunning quotations about the ongoing failure to address the now-obvious lies we are being told
about the attacks of September 11. One of these quotations, by astronomer Carl Sagan (1934 – 1996), is particularly noteworthy --
even though I certainly do not agree with everything Carl Sagan ever said or wrote. Regarding our propensity to refuse to acknowledge
what we already know deep down to be true, Carl Sagan said:
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle.
We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even
to ourselves, that we've been taken.
This quotation is from Sagan's 1995 text, The Demon-Haunted World (with which I have points of disagreement, but which
is extremely valuable for that quotation alone, and which I might suggest turning around on some of the points that Sagan was arguing
as well, as a cautionary warning to those who have accepted too wholeheartedly some of Sagan's teachings and opinions).
This quotation shows that on some level, we already know we have been bamboozled, even if our conscious mind refuses to accept
what we already know. This internal division is actually addressed in the world's ancient myths, which consistently illustrate that
our egoic mind often refuses to acknowledge the higher wisdom we have available to us through the reality of our authentic self,
sometimes called our Higher Self. Previous posts have compared this tendency of the egoic mind to the blissfully ignorant character
of Michael Scott in the television series The Office (US version): see
here for example,
and also here .
The important author Peter Kingsley has noted that in ancient myth, the role of the prophet was to bring awareness and acknowledgement
of that which the egoic mind refuses to see -- which is consistent with the observation that it is through our authentic self (which
already knows) that we have access to the realm of the gods. In the Iliad, for example, Dr. Kingsley notes that Apollo sends disaster
upon the Achaean forces until the prophet Calchas reveals the source of the god's anger: Agamemnon's refusal to free the young woman
Chryseis, whom Agamemnon has seized in the course of the fighting during the Trojan War, and who is the daughter of a priest of Apollo.
Until Agamemnon atones for this insult to the god, Apollo will continue to visit destruction upon those following Agamemnon.
Until we acknowledge and correct what our Higher Self already knows to be the problem, we ourselves will be out of step with the
divine realm.
If we look the other way at the murder of thousands of innocent men, women and children on September 11, 2001, and deliberately
refuse to see the truth that we already know deep down in our subconscious, then we will face the displeasure of the Invisible Realm.
Just as we are shown in the ancient myths, the truth must be acknowledged and admitted, and then the wrong that has been done must
be corrected.
In the case of the mass murder perpetrated on September 11, eighteen years ago, that admission requires us to face the fact that
the "terrorists" who were blamed for that attack were not the actual terrorists that we need to be focusing on.
Please note that I am very careful not to say that "the government" is the source of the problem: I would argue that the government
is the lawful expression of the will of the people and that the government, rightly understood, is exactly what these criminal perpetrators
actually fear the most, if the people ever become aware of what is going on. The government, which is established by the Constitution,
forbids the perpetration of murder upon innocent men, women and children in order to initiate wars of aggression against countries
that never invaded or attacked us (under the false pretense that they did so). Those who do so are actually opposed to our government
under the Constitution and can be dealt with within the framework of the law as established by the Constitution, which establishes
a very clear penalty for treason.
When the people acknowledge and admit the complete bankruptcy of the lie we have been told about the attacks of September 11,
the correction of that lie will involve demanding the immediate repeal and dismantling of the so-called "USA PATRIOT Act" which was
enacted in the weeks immediately following September 11, 2001 and which clearly violates the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Additionally, the correction of that lie will involve demanding the immediate cessation of the military operations which were
initiated based upon the fraudulent narrative of the attacks of that day, and which have led to invasion and overthrow of the nations
that were falsely blamed as being the perpetrators of those attacks and the seizure of their natural resources.
The imposition of a vast surveillance mechanism upon the people of this country (and of other countries) based on the fraudulent
pretext of "preventing terrorism" (and the lying narrative that has been perpetuated with the full complicity of the mainstream media
for the past eighteen years) is in complete violation of the human rights which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights and which declare:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
That human right has been grievously trampled upon under the false description of what actually took place during the September
11 attacks. Numerous technology companies have been allowed and even encouraged (and paid, with public moneys) to create technologies
which flagrantly and shamelessly violate "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" and
which track their every move and even enable secret eavesdropping upon their conversation and the secret capture of video within
their homes and private settings, without any probable cause whatsoever.
When we admit and acknowledge that we have been lied to about the events of September 11, which has been falsely used as a supposed
justification for the violation of these human rights (with complete disregard for the supreme law of the land as established in
the Constitution), then we will also demand the immediate cessation of any such intrusion upon the right of the people to "be secure
in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" -- including the cessation of any business models which involve spying on men and
women.
Companies which cannot find a business model that does not violate the Bill of Rights should lose their corporate charter and
the privilege of limited liability, which are extended to them by the people (through the government of the people, by the people
and for the people) only upon the condition that their behavior as corporations do not violate the inherent rights of men and women
as acknowledged in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
It is well beyond the time when we must acknowledge and admit that we have been lied to about the events of September 11, 2001
-- and that we continue to be lied to about the events of that awful day. September 11, 2001 is in fact only one such event in a
long history which stretches back prior to 2001, to other events which should have awakened the people to the presence of a very
powerful and very dangerous criminal cabal acting in direct contravention to the Constitution long before we ever got to 2001 --
but the events of September 11 are so blatant, so violent, and so full of evidence which contradicts the fraudulent narrative that
they actually cannot be believed by anyone who spends even the slightest amount of time looking at that evidence.
Indeed, we already know deep down that we have been bamboozled by the lie of the so-called "official narrative" of September 11.
But until we admit to ourselves and acknowledge to others that we've ignored the truth that we already know, then the bamboozle
still has us .
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog
site, internet forums. etc.
David Warner Mathisen graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point and became an Infantry officer in the 82nd Airborne
Division and the 4th Infantry Division. He is a graduate of the US Army's Ranger School and the 82nd Airborne Division's Jumpmaster
Course, among many other awards and decorations. He was later selected to become an instructor in the Department of English Literature
and Philosophy at West Point and has a Masters degree from Texas A&M University.
David Warner Mathisen graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point and became an Infantry officer in the 82nd Airborne
Division and the 4th Infantry Division. He is a graduate of the US Army's Ranger School and the 82nd Airborne Division's Jumpmaster
Course, among many other awards and decorations. He was later selected to become an instructor in the Department of English Literature
and Philosophy at West Point and has a Masters degree from Texas A&M University.
This is a Marxist critique of neoliberalism. Not necessary right but they his some relevant
points.
Notable quotes:
"... The ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth. But with neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this ideological prop. ..."
"... The ex ante tendency toward overproduction arises because the vector of real wages across countries does not increase noticeably over time in the world economy, while the vector of labor productivities does, typically resulting in a rise in the share of surplus in world output. ..."
"... While the rise in the vector of labor productivities across countries, a ubiquitous phenomenon under capitalism that also characterizes neoliberal capitalism, scarcely requires an explanation, why does the vector of real wages remain virtually stagnant in the world economy? The answer lies in the sui generis character of contemporary globalization that, for the first time in the history of capitalism, has led to a relocation of activity from the metropolis to third world countries in order to take advantage of the lower wages prevailing in the latter and meet global demand. ..."
"... The current globalization broke with this. The movement of capital from the metropolis to the third world, especially to East, South, and Southeast Asia to relocate plants there and take advantage of their lower wages for meeting global demand, has led to a desegmentation of the world economy, subjecting metropolitan wages to the restraining effect exercised by the third world's labor reserves. Not surprisingly, as Joseph Stiglitz has pointed out, the real-wage rate of an average male U.S. worker in 2011 was no higher -- indeed, it was marginally lower -- than it had been in 1968. 5 ..."
"... This ever-present opposition becomes decisive within a regime of globalization. As long as finance capital remains national -- that is, nation-based -- and the state is a nation-state, the latter can override this opposition under certain circumstances, such as in the post-Second World War period when capitalism was facing an existential crisis. But when finance capital is globalized, meaning, when it is free to move across country borders while the state remains a nation-state, its opposition to fiscal deficits becomes decisive. If the state does run large fiscal deficits against its wishes, then it would simply leave that country en masse , causing a financial crisis. ..."
"... The state therefore capitulates to the demands of globalized finance capital and eschews direct fiscal intervention for increasing demand. It resorts to monetary policy instead since that operates through wealth holders' decisions, and hence does not undermine their social position. But, precisely for this reason, monetary policy is an ineffective instrument, as was evident in the United States in the aftermath of the 2007–09 crisis when even the pushing of interest rates down to zero scarcely revived activity. 6 ..."
"... If Trump's protectionism, which recalls the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1931 and amounts to a beggar-my-neighbor policy, does lead to a significant export of unemployment from the United States, then it will invite retaliation and trigger a trade war that will only worsen the crisis for the world economy as a whole by dampening global investment. Indeed, since the United States has been targeting China in particular, some retaliatory measures have already appeared. But if U.S. protectionism does not invite generalized retaliation, it would only be because the export of unemployment from the United States is insubstantial, keeping unemployment everywhere, including in the United States, as precarious as it is now. However we look at it, the world would henceforth face higher levels of unemployment. ..."
"... The second implication of this dead end is that the era of export-led growth is by and large over for third world economies. The slowing down of world economic growth, together with protectionism in the United States against successful third world exporters, which could even spread to other metropolitan economies, suggests that the strategy of relying on the world market to generate domestic growth has run out of steam. Third world economies, including the ones that have been very successful at exporting, would now have to rely much more on their home market ..."
"... In other words, we shall now have an intensification of the imperialist stranglehold over third world economies, especially those pushed into unsustainable balance-of-payments deficits in the new situation. By imperialism , here we do not mean the imperialism of this or that major power, but the imperialism of international finance capital, with which even domestic big bourgeoisies are integrated, directed against their own working people ..."
"... In short, the ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth. But with neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this ideological prop. To sustain itself, neoliberal capitalism starts looking for some other ideological prop and finds fascism. ..."
"... The first is the so-called spontaneous method of capital flight. Any political formation that seeks to take the country out of the neoliberal regime will witness capital flight even before it has been elected to office, bringing the country to a financial crisis and thereby denting its electoral prospects. And if perchance it still gets elected, the outflow will only increase, even before it assumes office. The inevitable difficulties faced by the people may well make the government back down at that stage. The sheer difficulty of transition away from a neoliberal regime could be enough to bring even a government based on the support of workers and peasants to its knees, precisely to save them short-term distress or to avoid losing their support. ..."
"... The third weapon consists in carrying out so-called democratic or parliamentary coups of the sort that Latin America has been experiencing. Coups in the old days were effected through the local armed forces and necessarily meant the imposition of military dictatorships in lieu of civilian, democratically elected governments. Now, taking advantage of the disaffection generated within countries by the hardships caused by capital flight and imposed sanctions, imperialism promotes coups through fascist or fascist-sympathizing middle-class political elements in the name of restoring democracy, which is synonymous with the pursuit of neoliberalism. ..."
"... And if all these measures fail, there is always the possibility of resorting to economic warfare (such as destroying Venezuela's electricity supply), and eventually to military warfare. Venezuela today provides a classic example of what imperialist intervention in a third world country is going to look like in the era of decline of neoliberal capitalism, when revolts are going to characterize such countries more and more. ..."
"... Despite this opposition, neoliberal capitalism cannot ward off the challenge it is facing for long. It has no vision for reinventing itself. Interestingly, in the period after the First World War, when capitalism was on the verge of sinking into a crisis, the idea of state intervention as a way of its revival had already been mooted, though its coming into vogue only occurred at the end of the Second World War. 11 Today, neoliberal capitalism does not even have an idea of how it can recover and revitalize itself. And weapons like domestic fascism in the third world and direct imperialist intervention cannot for long save it from the anger of the masses that is building up against it. ..."
The ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth.
But with neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this
ideological prop.
Harry Magdoff's The Age of
Imperialism is a classic work that shows how postwar political decolonization does not
negate the phenomenon of imperialism. The book has two distinct aspects. On the one hand, it
follows in V. I. Lenin's footsteps in providing a comprehensive account of how capitalism at
the time operated globally. On the other hand, it raises a question that is less frequently
discussed in Marxist literature -- namely, the need for imperialism. Here, Magdoff not only
highlighted the crucial importance, among other things, of the third world's raw materials for
metropolitan capital, but also refuted the argument that the declining share of raw-material
value in gross manufacturing output somehow reduced this importance, making the simple point
that there can be no manufacturing at all without raw materials. 1
Magdoff's focus was on a period when imperialism was severely resisting economic
decolonization in the third world, with newly independent third world countries taking control
over their own resources. He highlighted the entire armory of weapons used by imperialism. But
he was writing in a period that predated the onset of neoliberalism. Today, we not only have
decades of neoliberalism behind us, but the neoliberal regime itself has reached a dead end.
Contemporary imperialism has to be discussed within this setting.
Globalization and
Economic Crisis
There are two reasons why the regime of neoliberal globalization has run into a dead end.
The first is an ex ante tendency toward global overproduction; the second is that the
only possible counter to this tendency within the regime is the formation of asset-price
bubbles, which cannot be conjured up at will and whose collapse, if they do appear, plunges the
economy back into crisis. In short, to use the words of British economic historian Samuel
Berrick Saul, there are no "markets on tap" for contemporary metropolitan capitalism, such as
had been provided by colonialism prior to the First World War and by state expenditure in the
post-Second World War period of dirigisme . 2
The ex ante tendency toward overproduction arises because the vector of real wages
across countries does not increase noticeably over time in the world economy, while the vector
of labor productivities does, typically resulting in a rise in the share of surplus in world
output. As Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy argued in Monopoly Capital , following the lead of
Michał Kalecki and Josef Steindl, such a rise in the share of economic surplus, or a shift
from wages to surplus, has the effect of reducing aggregate demand since the ratio of
consumption to income is higher on average for wage earners than for those living off the
surplus. 3
Therefore, assuming a given level of investment associated with any period, such a shift would
tend to reduce consumption demand and hence aggregate demand, output, and capacity utilization.
In turn, reduced capacity utilization would lower investment over time, further aggravating the
demand-reducing effect arising from the consumption side.
While the rise in the vector of labor productivities across countries, a ubiquitous
phenomenon under capitalism that also characterizes neoliberal capitalism, scarcely requires an
explanation, why does the vector of real wages remain virtually stagnant in the world economy?
The answer lies in the sui generis character of contemporary globalization that, for the
first time in the history of capitalism, has led to a relocation of activity from the
metropolis to third world countries in order to take advantage of the lower wages prevailing in
the latter and meet global demand.
Historically, while labor has not been, and is still not, free to migrate from the third
world to the metropolis, capital, though juridically free to move from the latter to the
former, did not actually do so , except to sectors like mines and plantations, which
only strengthened, rather than broke, the colonial pattern of the international division of
labor. 4
This segmentation of the world economy meant that wages in the metropolis increased with labor
productivity, unrestrained by the vast labor reserves of the third world, which themselves had
been caused by the displacement of manufactures through the twin processes of
deindustrialization (competition from metropolitan goods) and the drain of surplus (the
siphoning off of a large part of the economic surplus, through taxes on peasants that are no
longer spent on local artisan products but finance gratis primary commodity exports to
the metropolis instead).
The current globalization broke with this. The movement of capital from the metropolis to
the third world, especially to East, South, and Southeast Asia to relocate plants there and
take advantage of their lower wages for meeting global demand, has led to a desegmentation of
the world economy, subjecting metropolitan wages to the restraining effect exercised by the
third world's labor reserves. Not surprisingly, as Joseph Stiglitz has pointed out, the
real-wage rate of an average male U.S. worker in 2011 was no higher -- indeed, it was
marginally lower -- than it had been in 1968. 5
At the same time, such relocation of activities, despite causing impressive growth rates of
gross domestic product (GDP) in many third world countries, does not lead to the exhaustion of
the third world's labor reserves. This is because of another feature of contemporary
globalization: the unleashing of a process of primitive accumulation of capital against petty
producers, including peasant agriculturists in the third world, who had earlier been protected,
to an extent, from the encroachment of big capital (both domestic and foreign) by the
postcolonial dirigiste regimes in these countries. Under neoliberalism, such protection
is withdrawn, causing an income squeeze on these producers and often their outright
dispossession from their land, which is then used by big capital for its various so-called
development projects. The increase in employment, even in countries with impressive GDP growth
rates in the third world, falls way short of the natural growth of the workforce, let alone
absorbing the additional job seekers coming from the ranks of displaced petty producers. The
labor reserves therefore never get used up. Indeed, on the contrary, they are augmented
further, because real wages continue to remain tied to a subsistence level, even as
metropolitan wages too are restrained. The vector of real wages in the world economy as a whole
therefore remains restrained.
Although contemporary globalization thus gives rise to an ex ante tendency toward
overproduction, state expenditure that could provide a counter to this (and had provided a
counter through military spending in the United States, according to Baran and Sweezy) can no
longer do so under the current regime. Finance is usually opposed to direct state intervention
through larger spending as a way of increasing employment. This opposition expresses itself
through an opposition not just to larger taxes on capitalists, but also to a larger fiscal
deficit for financing such spending. Obviously, if larger state spending is financed by taxes
on workers, then it hardly adds to aggregate demand, for workers spend the bulk of their
incomes anyway, so the state taking this income and spending it instead does not add any extra
demand. Hence, larger state spending can increase employment only if it is financed either
through a fiscal deficit or through taxes on capitalists who keep a part of their income
unspent or saved. But these are precisely the two modes of financing state expenditure that
finance capital opposes.
Its opposing larger taxes on capitalists is understandable, but why is it so opposed to a
larger fiscal deficit? Even within a capitalist economy, there are no sound economic
theoretical reasons that should preclude a fiscal deficit under all circumstances. The root of
the opposition therefore lies in deeper social considerations: if the capitalist economic
system becomes dependent on the state to promote employment directly , then this fact
undermines the social legitimacy of capitalism. The need for the state to boost the animal
spirits of the capitalists disappears and a perspective on the system that is epistemically
exterior to it is provided to the people, making it possible for them to ask: If the state can
do the job of providing employment, then why do we need the capitalists at all? It is an
instinctive appreciation of this potential danger that underlies the opposition of capital,
especially of finance, to any direct effort by the state to generate employment.
This ever-present opposition becomes decisive within a regime of globalization. As long as
finance capital remains national -- that is, nation-based -- and the state is a nation-state,
the latter can override this opposition under certain circumstances, such as in the post-Second
World War period when capitalism was facing an existential crisis. But when finance capital is
globalized, meaning, when it is free to move across country borders while the state remains a
nation-state, its opposition to fiscal deficits becomes decisive. If the state does run large
fiscal deficits against its wishes, then it would simply leave that country en masse ,
causing a financial crisis.
The state therefore capitulates to the demands of globalized finance capital and eschews
direct fiscal intervention for increasing demand. It resorts to monetary policy instead since
that operates through wealth holders' decisions, and hence does not undermine their
social position. But, precisely for this reason, monetary policy is an ineffective instrument,
as was evident in the United States in the aftermath of the 2007–09 crisis when even the
pushing of interest rates down to zero scarcely revived activity. 6
It may be thought that this compulsion on the part of the state to accede to the demand of
finance to eschew fiscal intervention for enlarging employment should not hold for the United
States. Its currency being considered by the world's wealth holders to be "as good as gold"
should make it immune to capital flight. But there is an additional factor operating in the
case of the United States: that the demand generated by a bigger U.S. fiscal deficit would
substantially leak abroad in a neoliberal setting, which would increase its external debt
(since, unlike Britain in its heyday, it does not have access to any unrequited colonial
transfers) for the sake of generating employment elsewhere. This fact deters any fiscal effort
even in the United States to boost demand within a neoliberal setting. 7
Therefore, it follows that state spending cannot provide a counter to the ex ante
tendency toward global overproduction within a regime of neoliberal globalization, which makes
the world economy precariously dependent on occasional asset-price bubbles, primarily in the
U.S. economy, for obtaining, at best, some temporary relief from the crisis. It is this fact
that underlies the dead end that neoliberal capitalism has reached. Indeed, Donald Trump's
resort to protectionism in the United States to alleviate unemployment is a clear recognition
of the system having reached this cul-de-sac. The fact that the mightiest capitalist
economy in the world has to move away from the rules of the neoliberal game in an attempt to
alleviate its crisis of unemployment/underemployment -- while compensating capitalists
adversely affected by this move through tax cuts, as well as carefully ensuring that no
restraints are imposed on free cross-border financial flows -- shows that these rules
are no longer viable in their pristine form.
Some Implications of This Dead End
There are at least four important implications of this dead end of neoliberalism. The first
is that the world economy will now be afflicted by much higher levels of unemployment than it
was in the last decade of the twentieth century and the early years of the twenty-first, when
the dot-com and the housing bubbles in the United States had, sequentially, a pronounced
impact. It is true that the U.S. unemployment rate today appears to be at a historic low, but
this is misleading: the labor-force participation rate in the United States today is lower than
it was in 2008, which reflects the discouraged-worker effect . Adjusting for this lower
participation, the U.S. unemployment rate is considerable -- around 8 percent. Indeed, Trump
would not be imposing protection in the United States if unemployment was actually as low as 4
percent, which is the official figure. Elsewhere in the world, of course, unemployment
post-2008 continues to be evidently higher than before. Indeed, the severity of the current
problem of below-full-employment production in the U.S. economy is best illustrated by capacity
utilization figures in manufacturing. The weakness of the U.S. recovery from the Great
Recession is indicated by the fact that the current extended recovery represents the first
decade in the entire post-Second World War period in which capacity utilization in
manufacturing has never risen as high as 80 percent in a single quarter, with the resulting
stagnation of investment. 8
If Trump's protectionism, which recalls the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1931 and amounts to a
beggar-my-neighbor policy, does lead to a significant export of unemployment from the
United States, then it will invite retaliation and trigger a trade war that will only worsen
the crisis for the world economy as a whole by dampening global investment. Indeed, since the
United States has been targeting China in particular, some retaliatory measures have already
appeared. But if U.S. protectionism does not invite generalized retaliation, it would only be
because the export of unemployment from the United States is insubstantial, keeping
unemployment everywhere, including in the United States, as precarious as it is now. However we
look at it, the world would henceforth face higher levels of unemployment.
There has been some discussion on how global value chains would be affected by Trump's
protectionism. But the fact that global macroeconomics in the early twenty-first century will
look altogether different compared to earlier has not been much discussed.
In light of the preceding discussion, one could say that if, instead of individual
nation-states whose writ cannot possibly run against globalized finance capital, there was a
global state or a set of major nation-states acting in unison to override the objections of
globalized finance and provide a coordinated fiscal stimulus to the world economy, then perhaps
there could be recovery. Such a coordinated fiscal stimulus was suggested by a group of German
trade unionists, as well as by John Maynard Keynes during the Great Depression in the 1930s.
9
While it was turned down then, in the present context it has not even been discussed.
The second implication of this dead end is that the era of export-led growth is by and large
over for third world economies. The slowing down of world economic growth, together with
protectionism in the United States against successful third world exporters, which could even
spread to other metropolitan economies, suggests that the strategy of relying on the world
market to generate domestic growth has run out of steam. Third world economies, including the
ones that have been very successful at exporting, would now have to rely much more on their
home market.
Such a transition will not be easy; it will require promoting domestic peasant agriculture,
defending petty production, moving toward cooperative forms of production, and ensuring greater
equality in income distribution, all of which need major structural shifts. For smaller
economies, it would also require their coming together with other economies to provide a
minimum size to the domestic market. In short, the dead end of neoliberalism also means the
need for a shift away from the so-called neoliberal development strategy that has held sway
until now.
The third implication is the imminent engulfing of a whole range of third world economies in
serious balance-of-payments difficulties. This is because, while their exports will be sluggish
in the new situation, this very fact will also discourage financial inflows into their
economies, whose easy availability had enabled them to maintain current account deficits on
their balance of payments earlier. In such a situation, within the existing neoliberal
paradigm, they would be forced to adopt austerity measures that would impose income deflation
on their people, make the conditions of their people significantly worse, lead to a further
handing over of their national assets and resources to international capital, and prevent
precisely any possible transition to an alternative strategy of home market-based growth.
In other words, we shall now have an intensification of the imperialist stranglehold over
third world economies, especially those pushed into unsustainable balance-of-payments deficits
in the new situation. By imperialism , here we do not mean the imperialism of this or
that major power, but the imperialism of international finance capital, with which even
domestic big bourgeoisies are integrated, directed against their own working people.
The fourth implication is the worldwide upsurge of fascism. Neoliberal capitalism even
before it reached a dead end, even in the period when it achieved reasonable growth and
employment rates, had pushed the world into greater hunger and poverty. For instance, the world
per-capita cereal output was 355 kilograms for 1980 (triennium average for 1979–81
divided by mid–triennium population) and fell to 343 in 2000, leveling at 344.9 in 2016
-- and a substantial amount of this last figure went into ethanol production. Clearly, in a
period of growth of the world economy, per-capita cereal absorption should be expanding,
especially since we are talking here not just of direct absorption but of direct and indirect
absorption, the latter through processed foods and feed grains in animal products. The fact
that there was an absolute decline in per-capita output, which no doubt caused a decline in
per-capita absorption, suggests an absolute worsening in the nutritional level of a substantial
segment of the world's population.
But this growing hunger and nutritional poverty did not immediately arouse any significant
resistance, both because such resistance itself becomes more difficult under neoliberalism
(since the very globalization of capital makes it an elusive target) and also because higher
GDP growth rates provided a hope that distress might be overcome in the course of time.
Peasants in distress, for instance, entertained the hope that their children would live better
in the years to come if given a modicum of education and accepted their fate.
In short, the ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth. But with
neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this ideological
prop. To sustain itself, neoliberal capitalism starts looking for some other ideological prop
and finds fascism. This changes the discourse away from the material conditions of people's
lives to the so-called threat to the nation, placing the blame for people's distress not on the
failure of the system, but on ethnic, linguistic, and religious minority groups, the
other that is portrayed as an enemy. It projects a so-called messiah whose sheer
muscularity can somehow magically overcome all problems; it promotes a culture of unreason so
that both the vilification of the other and the magical powers of the supposed leader
can be placed beyond any intellectual questioning; it uses a combination of state repression
and street-level vigilantism by fascist thugs to terrorize opponents; and it forges a close
relationship with big business, or, in Kalecki's words, "a partnership of big business and
fascist upstarts." 10
Fascist groups of one kind or another exist in all modern societies. They move center stage
and even into power only on certain occasions when they get the backing of big business. And
these occasions arise when three conditions are satisfied: when there is an economic crisis so
the system cannot simply go on as before; when the usual liberal establishment is manifestly
incapable of resolving the crisis; and when the left is not strong enough to provide an
alternative to the people in order to move out of the conjuncture.
This last point may appear odd at first, since many see the big bourgeoisie's recourse to
fascism as a counter to the growth of the left's strength in the context of a capitalist
crisis. But when the left poses a serious threat, the response of the big bourgeoisie typically
is to attempt to split it by offering concessions. It uses fascism to prop itself up only when
the left is weakened. Walter Benjamin's remark that "behind every fascism there is a failed
revolution" points in this direction.
Fascism Then and Now
Contemporary fascism, however, differs in crucial respects from its 1930s counterpart, which
is why many are reluctant to call the current phenomenon a fascist upsurge. But historical
parallels, if carefully drawn, can be useful. While in some aforementioned respects
contemporary fascism does resemble the phenomenon of the 1930s, there are serious differences
between the two that must also be noted.
First, we must note that while the current fascist upsurge has put fascist elements in power
in many countries, there are no fascist states of the 1930s kind as of yet. Even if the fascist
elements in power try to push the country toward a fascist state, it is not clear that they
will succeed. There are many reasons for this, but an important one is that fascists in power
today cannot overcome the crisis of neoliberalism, since they accept the regime of
globalization of finance. This includes Trump, despite his protectionism. In the 1930s,
however, this was not the case. The horrors associated with the institution of a fascist state
in the 1930s had been camouflaged to an extent by the ability of the fascists in power to
overcome mass unemployment and end the Depression through larger military spending, financed by
government borrowing. Contemporary fascism, by contrast, lacks the ability to overcome the
opposition of international finance capital to fiscal activism on the part of the government to
generate larger demand, output, and employment, even via military spending.
Such activism, as discussed earlier, required larger government spending financed either
through taxes on capitalists or through a fiscal deficit. Finance capital was opposed to both
of these measures and it being globalized made this opposition decisive . The
decisiveness of this opposition remains even if the government happens to be one composed of
fascist elements. Hence, contemporary fascism, straitjacketed by "fiscal rectitude," cannot
possibly alleviate even temporarily the economic crises facing people and cannot provide any
cover for a transition to a fascist state akin to the ones of the 1930s, which makes such a
transition that much more unlikely.
Another difference is also related to the phenomenon of the globalization of finance. The
1930s were marked by what Lenin had earlier called "interimperialist rivalry." The military
expenditures incurred by fascist governments, even though they pulled countries out of the
Depression and unemployment, inevitably led to wars for "repartitioning an already partitioned
world." Fascism was the progenitor of war and burned itself out through war at, needless to
say, great cost to humankind.
Contemporary fascism, however, operates in a world where interimperialist rivalry is far
more muted. Some have seen in this muting a vindication of Karl Kautsky's vision of an
"ultraimperialism" as against Lenin's emphasis on the permanence of interimperialist rivalry,
but this is wrong. Both Kautsky and Lenin were talking about a world where finance capital and
the financial oligarchy were essentially national -- that is, German, French, or British. And
while Kautsky talked about the possibility of truces among the rival oligarchies, Lenin saw
such truces only as transient phenomena punctuating the ubiquity of rivalry.
In contrast, what we have today is not nation-based finance capitals, but
international finance capital into whose corpus the finance capitals drawn from
particular countries are integrated. This globalized finance capital does not want the world
to be partitioned into economic territories of rival powers ; on the contrary, it wants the
entire globe to be open to its own unrestricted movement. The muting of rivalry between major
powers, therefore, is not because they prefer truce to war, or peaceful partitioning of the
world to forcible repartitioning, but because the material conditions themselves have changed
so that it is no longer a matter of such choices. The world has gone beyond both Lenin and
Kautsky, as well as their debates.
Not only are we not going to have wars between major powers in this era of fascist upsurge
(of course, as will be discussed, we shall have other wars), but, by the same token, this
fascist upsurge will not burn out through any cataclysmic war. What we are likely to see is a
lingering fascism of less murderous intensity , which, when in power, does not
necessarily do away with all the forms of bourgeois democracy, does not necessarily physically
annihilate the opposition, and may even allow itself to get voted out of power occasionally.
But since its successor government, as long as it remains within the confines of the neoliberal
strategy, will also be incapable of alleviating the crisis, the fascist elements are likely to
return to power as well. And whether the fascist elements are in or out of power, they will
remain a potent force working toward the fascification of the society and the polity, even
while promoting corporate interests within a regime of globalization of finance, and hence
permanently maintaining the "partnership between big business and fascist upstarts."
Put differently, since the contemporary fascist upsurge is not likely to burn itself out as
the earlier one did, it has to be overcome by transcending the very conjuncture that produced
it: neoliberal capitalism at a dead end. A class mobilization of working people around an
alternative set of transitional demands that do not necessarily directly target neoliberal
capitalism, but which are immanently unrealizable within the regime of neoliberal capitalism,
can provide an initial way out of this conjuncture and lead to its eventual transcendence.
Such a class mobilization in the third world context would not mean making no truces with
liberal bourgeois elements against the fascists. On the contrary, since the liberal bourgeois
elements too are getting marginalized through a discourse of jingoistic nationalism typically
manufactured by the fascists, they too would like to shift the discourse toward the material
conditions of people's lives, no doubt claiming that an improvement in these conditions is
possible within the neoliberal economic regime itself. Such a shift in discourse is in
itself a major antifascist act . Experience will teach that the agenda advanced as part of
this changed discourse is unrealizable under neoliberalism, providing the scope for dialectical
intervention by the left to transcend neoliberal capitalism.
Imperialist
Interventions
Even though fascism will have a lingering presence in this conjuncture of "neoliberalism at
a dead end," with the backing of domestic corporate-financial interests that are themselves
integrated into the corpus of international finance capital, the working people in the third
world will increasingly demand better material conditions of life and thereby rupture the
fascist discourse of jingoistic nationalism (that ironically in a third world context is not
anti-imperialist).
In fact, neoliberalism reaching a dead end and having to rely on fascist elements revives
meaningful political activity, which the heyday of neoliberalism had precluded, because most
political formations then had been trapped within an identical neoliberal agenda that appeared
promising. (Latin America had a somewhat different history because neoliberalism arrived in
that continent through military dictatorships, not through its more or less tacit acceptance by
most political formations.)
Such revived political activity will necessarily throw up challenges to neoliberal
capitalism in particular countries. Imperialism, by which we mean the entire economic and
political arrangement sustaining the hegemony of international finance capital, will deal with
these challenges in at least four different ways.
The first is the so-called spontaneous method of capital flight. Any political formation
that seeks to take the country out of the neoliberal regime will witness capital flight even
before it has been elected to office, bringing the country to a financial crisis and thereby
denting its electoral prospects. And if perchance it still gets elected, the outflow will only
increase, even before it assumes office. The inevitable difficulties faced by the people may
well make the government back down at that stage. The sheer difficulty of transition away from
a neoliberal regime could be enough to bring even a government based on the support of workers
and peasants to its knees, precisely to save them short-term distress or to avoid losing their
support.
Even if capital controls are put in place, where there are current account deficits,
financing such deficits would pose a problem, necessitating some trade controls. But this is
where the second instrument of imperialism comes into play: the imposition of trade sanctions
by the metropolitan states, which then cajole other countries to stop buying from the
sanctioned country that is trying to break away from thralldom to globalized finance capital.
Even if the latter would have otherwise succeeded in stabilizing its economy despite its
attempt to break away, the imposition of sanctions becomes an additional blow.
The third weapon consists in carrying out so-called democratic or parliamentary coups of the
sort that Latin America has been experiencing. Coups in the old days were effected through the
local armed forces and necessarily meant the imposition of military dictatorships in lieu of
civilian, democratically elected governments. Now, taking advantage of the disaffection
generated within countries by the hardships caused by capital flight and imposed sanctions,
imperialism promotes coups through fascist or fascist-sympathizing middle-class political
elements in the name of restoring democracy, which is synonymous with the pursuit of
neoliberalism.
And if all these measures fail, there is always the possibility of resorting to economic
warfare (such as destroying Venezuela's electricity supply), and eventually to military
warfare. Venezuela today provides a classic example of what imperialist intervention in a third
world country is going to look like in the era of decline of neoliberal capitalism, when
revolts are going to characterize such countries more and more.
Two aspects of such intervention are striking. One is the virtual unanimity among the
metropolitan states, which only underscores the muting of interimperialist rivalry in the era
of hegemony of global finance capital. The other is the extent of support that such
intervention commands within metropolitan countries, from the right to even the liberal
segments.
Despite this opposition, neoliberal capitalism cannot ward off the challenge it is facing
for long. It has no vision for reinventing itself. Interestingly, in the period after the First
World War, when capitalism was on the verge of sinking into a crisis, the idea of state
intervention as a way of its revival had already been mooted, though its coming into vogue only
occurred at the end of the Second World War. 11
Today, neoliberal capitalism does not even have an idea of how it can recover and revitalize
itself. And weapons like domestic fascism in the third world and direct imperialist
intervention cannot for long save it from the anger of the masses that is building up against
it.
Samuel Berrick Saul, Studies in British Overseas Trade, 1870–1914
(Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1960).
Paul A. Baran and Paul M. Sweezy, Monopoly Capital (New York:
Monthly Review Press, 1966).
One of the first authors to recognize this fact and its significance was Paul Baran in
The Political Economy of
Growth (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1957).
For the role of such colonial transfers in sustaining the British balance of payments and the
long Victorian and Edwardian boom, see Utsa Patnaik, "Revisiting the 'Drain,' or Transfers
from India to Britain in the Context of Global Diffusion of Capitalism," in Agrarian
and Other Histories: Essays for Binay Bhushan Chaudhuri , ed. Shubhra Chakrabarti and
Utsa Patnaik (Delhi: Tulika, 2017), 277-317.
Federal Reserve Board of Saint Louis Economic Research, FRED, "Capacity Utilization:
Manufacturing," February 2019 (updated March 27, 2019), http://fred.stlouisfed.org .
This issue is discussed by Charles P. Kindleberger in The World in Depression,
1929–1939 , 40th anniversary ed. (Oakland: University of California Press,
2013).
Joseph Schumpeter had seen Keynes's The Economic Consequences of the Peace as
essentially advocating such state intervention in the new situation. See his essay, "John
Maynard Keynes (1883–1946)," in Ten Great Economists (London: George Allen
& Unwin, 1952).
Utsa Patnaik is Professor Emerita at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning,
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Her books include Peasant Class Differentiation (1987),
The Long Transition (1999), and The Republic of Hunger and Other Essays (2007). Prabhat Patnaik
is Professor Emeritus at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru
University, New Delhi. His books include Accumulation and Stability Under Capitalism (1997),
The Value of Money(2009), and Re-envisioning Socialism(2011).
The question why the USA intelligence agencies were "unaware" about Epstein activities is an interesting one. Similar question can
be asked about Hillary "activities" related to "Clinton cash".
Actually the way the USA elite deal with scandals is to ostracize any whistleblower and silence any media that tryt to dig the story.
Open repression including physical elimination is seldom used those days as indirect methods are quite effective.
Notable quotes:
"... Either we root out every last source of rot by investigating, indicting and jailing every wrong-doer and everyone who conspired to protect the guilty in the Epstein case, or America will have sealed its final fall. ..."
"... If you doubt this, then please explain how 1) the NSA, CIA and FBI didn't know what Jeffrey Epstein was up to, and with whom; 2) Epstein was free to pursue his sexual exploitation of minors for years prior to his wrist-slap conviction and for years afterward; 3) Epstein, the highest profile and most at-risk prisoner in the nation, was left alone and the security cameras recording his cell and surroundings were "broken." ..."
"... America's ruling class has crucified whistleblowers , especially those uncovering fraud in the defense (military-industrial-security) and financial (tax evasion) sectors and blatant violations of public trust, civil liberties and privacy. ..."
"... Needless to say, a factual accounting of corruption, cronyism, incompetence, self-serving exploitation of the many by the few, etc. is not welcome in America. Look at the dearth of investigative resources America's corporate media is devoting to digging down to the deepest levels of rot in the Epstein case. ..."
Either we root out every last source of rot by investigating, indicting and jailing every wrong-doer and everyone who conspired
to protect the guilty in the Epstein case, or America will have sealed its final fall.
When you discover rot in an apparently sound structure, the first question is: how far has the rot penetrated? If the rot
has reached the foundation and turned it to mush, the structure is one wind-storm from collapse.
How deep has the rot of corruption, fraud, abuse of power, betrayal of the public trust, blatant criminality and insiders protecting
the guilty penetrated America's key public and private institutions? It's difficult to tell, as the law-enforcement and security
agencies are themselves hopelessly compromised.
If you doubt this, then please explain how 1) the NSA, CIA and FBI didn't know what Jeffrey Epstein was up to, and with whom;
2) Epstein was free to pursue his sexual exploitation of minors for years prior to his wrist-slap conviction and for years afterward;
3) Epstein, the highest profile and most at-risk prisoner in the nation, was left alone and the security cameras recording his cell
and surroundings were "broken."
If this all strikes you as evidence that America's security and law-enforcement institutions are functioning at a level that's
above reproach, then 1) you're a well-paid shill who's protecting the guilty lest your own misdeeds come to light or 2) your
consumption of mind-bending meds is off the charts.
How deep has the rot gone in America's ruling elite? One way to measure the depth of the rot is to ask how whistleblowers
who've exposed the ugly realities of insider dealing, malfeasance, tax evasion, cover-ups, etc. have fared.
America's ruling class has crucified whistleblowers , especially those uncovering fraud in the defense (military-industrial-security)
and financial (tax evasion) sectors and blatant violations of public trust, civil liberties and privacy.
Needless to say, a factual accounting of corruption, cronyism, incompetence, self-serving exploitation of the many by the
few, etc. is not welcome in America. Look at the dearth of investigative resources America's corporate media is devoting to digging
down to the deepest levels of rot in the Epstein case.
The closer wrong-doing and wrong-doers are to protected power-elites, the less attention the mass media devotes to them.
... ... ...
Here are America's media, law enforcement/security agencies and "leadership" class: they speak no evil, see no evil and
hear no evil, in the misguided belief that their misdirection, self-service and protection of the guilty will make us buy the narrative
that America's ruling elite and all the core institutions they manage aren't rotten to the foundations.
Either we root out every last source of rot by investigating, indicting and jailing every wrong-doer and everyone who conspired
to protect the guilty in the Epstein case, or America will have sealed its final fall.
The problem with Trump is that everything in him is second rate. Even bulling. and many americans were aware of that and
voted for him just because that thought that Hillary was worse. Much worse.
And Daniel
Larison is correct: when Trump faces strong backlash he just declare the partner in negotiation "terrible" and walks out and try
to justify his defeat ex post facto.
Notable quotes:
"... As we have seen, Trump's bullying, maximalist approach does not work with other governments, and this approach cannot work because the president sees everything as a zero-sum game and winning requires the other side's capitulation. ..."
"... The result is that no government gives Trump anything and instead all of them retaliate in whatever way is available to them. He can't agree to a mutually beneficial compromise because he rejects the idea that the other side might come away with something. Because every existing agreement negotiated in the past has required some compromise on our government's part, he condemns all of them as "terrible" because they did not result in the other party's surrender. ..."
"... he is so clueless about international relations and diplomacy that he still thinks it can get him what he wants. The reality is that all of his foreign policy initiatives are failing or have already failed, and the costs for ordinary people in the targeted countries and here at home keep going up. ..."
"... "Temperamentally, the president is unprepared for diplomacy and negotiations with sovereign states," said D'Antonio. "He doesn't know how to practice the give-and-take that would produce bilateral or multilateral achievements and he takes things so personally that he considers those with a different point of view to be enemies. He is offended when others decline to be bullied and angered by those who counter his proposals with their own ideas." ..."
"... The greatest trick that Trump pulled on Americans was to make many of them believe that he understood how to negotiate when he has never been any good at it. Now the U.S. and many other countries around the world are paying the price. ..."
"... "Trump has always been a lousy negotiator." ..."
"... But, but, but... he is very good in breaking up negotiated treaties, and breaking up negotiation itself. ..."
Michael Hirsh
reminds us
that Trump has always been a lousy negotiator:
Michael D'Antonio, a Trump biographer who interviewed him many times, agrees with Lapidus that there is no discernible difference
in the way Trump negotiates today, as president, compared to his career in business. "His style involves a hostile attitude and
a bullying method designed to wring every possible concession out of the other side while maximizing his own gain," D'Antonio
said. "As he explained to me, he's not interested in 'win-win' deals, only in 'I win' outcomes. When I asked if he ever left anything
on the table as a sign of goodwill so that he might do business with the same party in the future he said no, and pointed out
that there are many people in the world he can work with, one at a time."
As we have seen, Trump's bullying, maximalist approach does not work with other governments, and this approach cannot work
because the president sees everything as a zero-sum game and winning requires the other side's capitulation.
The result is that no government gives Trump anything and instead all of them retaliate in whatever way is available to them.
He can't agree to a mutually beneficial compromise because he rejects the idea that the other side might come away with something.
Because every existing agreement negotiated in the past has required some compromise on our government's part, he condemns all of
them as "terrible" because they did not result in the other party's surrender.
He seems particularly obsessed with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) because the trade-off inherent in any agreement
made with Iran was that they would regain access to frozen assets, and he ignorantly equates this with "giving" them money. The fact
that the JCPOA heavily favored the U.S. and the rest of the P5+1 doesn't interest Trump. Iran was allowed to come away with something
at the end, and even the little bit they were able to get is far too much for him. This is one reason he has been so closely aligned
with Iran hawks over the last four years, and it helps explain why he endorses absurd, unrealistic demands and "maximum pressure"
of collective punishment. He is doing more or less the same thing he has always done, and he is so clueless about international relations
and diplomacy that he still thinks it can get him what he wants. The reality is that all of his foreign policy initiatives are failing
or have already failed, and the costs for ordinary people in the targeted countries and here at home keep going up.
Here is another relevant point from the article:
"Temperamentally, the president is unprepared for diplomacy and negotiations with sovereign states," said D'Antonio. "He
doesn't know how to practice the give-and-take that would produce bilateral or multilateral achievements and he takes things so
personally that he considers those with a different point of view to be enemies. He is offended when others decline to be bullied
and angered by those who counter his proposals with their own ideas."
The greatest trick that Trump pulled on Americans was to make many of them believe that he understood how to negotiate when
he has never been any good at it. Now the U.S. and many other countries around the world are paying the price.
Pulling off that "greatest trick" was amazing easy, actually: all Trump and his creatures had to do was go on the assumption that
most Americans will readily believe what they see on television. Especially when it jibes with their prejudices.
"The greatest trick that Trump pulled on Americans was to make many of
them believe that he understood how to negotiate when he has never been
any good at it."
While I agree with pretty much all of the article, let us not forget that a majority of Americans was not, in fact, fooled.
Americans are certainly paying a price Benjamin Franklin warned about. But as for other countries, theirs is due strictly to their
own doing, for relying excessively on the goodwill of America and turning a blind-eye to our imperialism. Quite frankly, up to
now, US allies have been enablers.
Add to that, " When someone hits me, I hit them back ten times harder."
This is not what we teach our children. It is a miserable way to live, or to run a country. No wonder the President is longer
referred to as "the leader of the free world." He gave up that title. These are sad days.
Yes, he is utterly incompetent on his main selling point, his supposed skill at negotiating. It is very inconvenient having Trump
as our standard-bearer.
"The greatest trick that Trump pulled on Americans was to make many of them believe that he understood how to negotiate when he
has never been any good at it."
Actually, the people who voted for Trump and who support him now love him for being a bully. That's what they want. They want
a Tony Soprano as their president, a guy who will go out and beat up all the people they hate. They don't want "negotiation".
They want a guy who has a baseball bat and knows how to use it. What's "interesting" is that despite all of Trump's appeals to
violence, and his willingness to support violence (for example, Saudi Arabia), he largely shrinks from it himself. We've seen
far fewer Tomahawks than one might have expected, particularly considering the great press he received the first time around.
Will we continue to be lucky? I hope so, but it's hard to be optimistic.
I believe that the full and proper name of the psychiatric disorder in question is
Putin-Trump Derangement Syndrome [PTDS].
Symptoms include:
Eager and uncritical ingestion and social-media regurgitation of even the most patently
absurd MSM propaganda. For example, the meme that releasing factual information about actual
election-meddling (as Wikileaks did about the Dem-establishment's rigging of its own
nomination process in 2016) is a grave threat to American Democracy™;
Recent-onset veneration of the intelligence agencies, whose stock in trade is spying on
and lying to the American people, spreading disinformation, election rigging, torture and
assassination and its agents, such as liar and perjurer Clapper and torturer Brennan;
Rehabilitation of horrid unindicted GOP war criminals like G.W. Bush as alleged examples
of "norms-respecting Republican patriots";
Smearing of anyone who dares question the MSM-stoked hysteria as an America-hating
Russian stooge.
STEPHEN COHEN: I'm not aware that Russia attacked Georgia. The European Commission, if you're talking about the 2008 war,
the European Commission, investigating what happened, found that Georgia, which was backed by the United States, fighting with an
American-built army under the control of the, shall we say, slightly unpredictable Georgian president then, Saakashvili, that he
began the war by firing on Russian enclaves. And the Kremlin, which by the way was not occupied by Putin, but by Michael McFaul and
Obama's best friend and reset partner then-president Dmitry Medvedev, did what any Kremlin leader, what any leader in any country
would have had to do: it reacted. It sent troops across the border through the tunnel, and drove the Georgian forces out of what
essentially were kind of Russian protectorate areas of Georgia.
So that- Russia didn't begin that war. And it didn't begin the one in Ukraine, either. We did that by [continents], the overthrow
of the Ukrainian president in [20]14 after President Obama told Putin that he would not permit that to happen. And I think it happened
within 36 hours. The Russians, like them or not, feel that they have been lied to and betrayed. They use this word, predatl'stvo,
betrayal, about American policy toward Russia ever since 1991, when it wasn't just President George Bush, all the documents have
been published by the National Security Archive in Washington, all the leaders of the main Western powers promised the Soviet Union
that under Gorbachev, if Gorbachev would allow a reunited Germany to be NATO, NATO would not, in the famous expression, move two
inches to the east.
Now NATO is sitting on Russia's borders from the Baltic to Ukraine. So Russians aren't fools, and they're good-hearted, but they
become resentful. They're worried about being attacked by the United States. In fact, you read and hear in the Russian media daily,
we are under attack by the United States. And this is a lot more real and meaningful than this crap that is being put out that Russia
somehow attacked us in 2016. I must have been sleeping. I didn't see Pearl Harbor or 9/11 and 2016. This is reckless, dangerous,
warmongering talk. It needs to stop. Russia has a better case for saying they've been attacked by us since 1991. We put our military
alliance on the front door. Maybe it's not an attack, but it looks like one, feels like one. Could be one.
Real politik. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Don't start fights in the first place. The idea that American leadership
is any better than mid-Victorian imperialism, is laughable.
AARON MATE: We hear, often, talk of Putin possibly being the richest person in the world as a result of his entanglement
with the very corruption of Russia you're speaking about
Few appear to be aware that Bill Browder is single-handedly responsible for starting, and spreading, the rumor that Putin's
net worth is $200 billion (for those who are unfamiliar with Browder, I highly recommend watching Andrei Nekrasov's documentary
titled " The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes "). Browder
appears to have first
started this rumor early in 2015 , and has repeated it ad nauseam since then, including in
his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2017 . While Browder has always framed the $200 billion figure as his own
estimate, that subtle qualifier has had little effect on the media's willingness to accept it as fact.
Interestingly, during the press conference at the Helsinki Summit, Putin claimed Browder sent $400 million of ill-gotten gains
to the Clinton campaign. Putin
retracted the statement and claimed to have misspoke a week or so later, however by that time the $400 million figure had
been cited by numerous media outlets around the world. I think it is at least possible that Putin purposely exaggerated the amount
of money in question as a kind of tit-for-tat response to Browder having started the rumor about his net worth being $200 billion.
The stories I saw said there was a mistranslation -- but that the figure should have $400 thousand and not $400 million. Maybe
Putin misspoke, but the $400,000 number is still significant, albeit far more reasonable.
Putin never was on the Forbes list of billionaires, btw, and his campaign finance statement comes to far less. It never seems
to occur to rabid capitalists or crooks that not everyone is like them, placing such importance on vast fortunes, or want to be
dishonest, greedy, or power hungry. Putin is only 'well off' and that seems to satisfy him just fine as he gets on with other
interests, values, and goals.
Yes, $400,000 is the revised/correct figure. My having written that "Putin retracted the statement" was not the best choice
of phrase. Also, the figure was corrected the day after it was made, not "a week or so later" as I wrote in my previous comment.
From the Russia Insider link:
Browder's criminal group used many tax evasion methods, including offshore companies. They siphoned shares and funds from
Russia worth over 1.5 billion dollars. By the way, $400,000 was transferred to the US Democratic Party's accounts from these
funds. The Russian president asked us to correct his statement from yesterday. During the briefing, he said it was $400,000,000,
not $400,000. Either way, it's still a significant amount of money.
There's something weird about the anti-Putin hysteria. Somehow, many, many people have come to believe they must demonstrate
their membership in the tribe by accepting completely unsupported assertions that go against common sense.
In a sane world we the people would be furious with the Clinton campaign, especially the D party but the R's as well, our media
(again), and our intel/police State (again). Holding them all accountable while making sure this tsunami of deception and lies
never happens again.
It's amazing even in time of the internetz those of us who really dig can only come up with a few sane voices. It's much worse
now in terms of the numbers of sane voices than it was in the run up to Iraq 2.
Regardless of broad access to far more information in the digital age, never under estimate the self-preservation instinct
of American exceptionalist mythology. There is an inverse relationship between the decline of US global primacy and increasingly
desperate quest for adventurism. Like any case of addiction, looking outward for blame/salvation is imperative in order to prevent
the mirror of self-reflection/realization from turning back onto ourselves.
we're not to believe we're not supposed to believe we're supposed to believe
Believe whatever you want, however your comment gives the impression that you came to this article because you felt the need
to push back against anything that does not conform to the liberal international order's narrative on Putin and Russia, rather
than "with an eagerness to counterbalance the media's portrayal of Putin". WRT to whataboutism, I like
Greenwald's definition of the term :
"Whataboutism": the term used to bar inquiry into whether someone adheres to the moral and behavioral standards they seek
to impose on everyone else. That's its functional definition.
aye. I've never seen it used by anyone aside from the worst Hill Trolls.
Indeed, when it was first thrown at me, I endeavored to look it up, and found that all references to it were from Hillaryites
attempting to diss apostates and heretics.
The degree of consistency and or lack of hypocrisy based on words and actions separates US from Russia to an astonishing level.
That is Russia's largest threat to US, our deceivers. The propaganda tables have turned and we are deceiving ourselves to points
of collective insanity and warmongering with a great nuclear power while we are at it. Warmongering is who we are and what we
do.
Does Russia have a GITMO, torture Chelsea Manning, openly say they want to kill Snowden and Assange? Is Russia building up
arsenals on our borders while maintaining hundreds of foreign bases and conducting several wars at any given moment while constantly
threatening to foment more wars? Is Russia dropping another trillion on nuclear arsenals? Is Russia forcing us to maintain such
an anti democratic system and an even worse, an entirely hackable electronic voting system?
You ready to destroy the world, including your own, rather than look in the mirror?
You're talking about extending Russian military power into Europe when the military spending of NATO Europe alone exceeds Russia's
by almost 5-1 (more like 12-1 when one includes the US and Canada), have about triple the number of soldiers than Russia has,
and when the Russian ground forces are numerically smaller than they have been in at least 200 years?
" to put their self-interests above those of their constituents and employees, why can't we apply this same lens to Putin and
his oligarchs?"
The oligarchs got their start under Yeltsin and his FreeMarketDemocraticReformers, whose policies were so catastrophic that
deaths were exceeding births by almost a million a year by the late '90s, with no end in sight. Central to Yeltsin's governance
was the corrupt privatization, by which means the Seven Bankers came to control the Russian economy and Russian politics.
Central to Putin's popularity are the measures he took to curb oligarchic predation in 2003-2005. Because of this, Russia's
debt:GDP ratio went from 1.0 to about 0.2, and Russia's demographic recovery began while Western analysis were still predicting
the death of Russia.
So Putin is the anti-oligarch in Russian domestic politics.
I know of many people who sacrifice their own interests for those of their children (over whom they have virtually absolute
power), family member and friends. I know of others who dedicate their lives to justice, peace, the well being of their nation,
the world, and other people -- people who find far greater meaning and satisfaction in this than in accumulating power or money.
Other people have their own goals, such as producing art, inventing interesting things, reading and learning, and don't care two
hoots about power or money as long as their immediate needs are met.
I'm cynical enough about humans without thinking the worst of everyone and every group or culture. Not everyone thinks only
of nails and wants to be hammers, or are sociopaths. There are times when people are more or less forced into taking power, or
getting more money, even if they don't want it, because they want to change things for the better or need to defend themselves.
There are people who get guns and learn how to use them only because they feel a need for defending themselves and family but
who don't like guns and don't want to shoot anyone or anything.
There are many people who do not want to be controlled and bossed around, but neither want to boss around anyone else. The
world is full of such people. If they are threatened and attacked, however, expect defensive reactions. Same as for most animals
which are not predators, and even predators will generally not attack other animals if they are not hungry or threatened -- but
that does not mean they are not competent or can be dangerous.
Capitalism is not only inherently predatory, but is inherently expansive without limits, with unlimited ambition for profits
and control. It's intrinsically very competitive and imperialist. Capitalism is also a thing which was exported to Russia, starting
soon after the Russian Revolution, which was immediately attacked and invaded by the West, and especially after the fall of the
Soviet Union. Soviet Russia had it's own problems, which it met with varying degrees of success, but were quite different from
the aggressive capitalism and imperialism of the US and Europe.
The pro-Putin propaganda is pretty interesting to witness, and of course not everything Cohen says is skewed pro-Putin – that's
what provides credibility. But "Putin kills everybody" is something NOBODY says (except Cohen, twice in one interview) – Putin
is actually pretty selective of those he decides to have killed. But of course, he doesn't kill anyone, personally – therefore
he's an innocent lamb, accidentally running Russia as a dictator.
The most recent dictator in Russian history was Boris Yeltsin, who turned tanks on his legislature while it was in the legal
and constitutional process of impeaching him, and whose policies were so catastrophic for Russians (who were dying off at the
rate of 900k/yr) that he had to steal his re-election because he had a 5% approval rating.
But he did as the US gvt told him, so I guess that makes him a Democrat.
Under Putin Russia recovered from being helpless, bankrupt & dying, but Russia has an independent foreign policy, so that makes
Putin a dictator.
"Does any sane person believe that there will ever be a Putin-signed contract provided as evidence? Does any sane person believe
that Putin actually needs to "approve" a contract rather than signaling to his oligarch/mafia hierarchy that he's unhappy about
a newspaper or journalist's reporting?"
Why do you think Putin even needs, or feels a need, to have journalists killed in the first place? I see no evidence to support
this basic assumption.
The idea of Russia poised to attack Europe is interesting, in light of the fact that they've cut their military spending by
20%. And even before that the budgets of France, Germany, and the UK combined well exceeded that of Russia, to say nothing of
the rest of NATO or the US.
Putin's record speaks for itself. This again points to the absurdity of claiming he's had reporters killed: he doesn't need
to. He has a vast amount of genuine public support because he's salvaged the country and pieced it back together after the pillaging
of the Yeltsin years. That he himself is a corrupt oligarch I have no particular doubt of. But if he just wanted to enrich himself,
he's had a very funny way of going about it. Pray tell, what are these 'other interpretations'?
"The US foreign policy has been disastrous for millions of people since world war 2. But Cohen's arguments that Russia isn't
as bad as the US is just a bunch of whattaboutism."
What countries has the Russian Federation destroyed?
Here is a fascinating essay ["Are We Reading Russia Right?"] by Nicolai N. Petro who currently holds the Silvia-Chandley Professorship
of Peace Studies and Nonviolence at the University of Rhode Island. His books include, Ukraine
in Crisis (Routledge, 2017), Crafting Democracy (Cornell, 2004), The Rebirth of Russian Democracy (Harvard, 1995), and Russian
Foreign Policy, co-authored with Alvin Z. Rubinstein (Longman, 1997). A graduate of the University of Virginia, he is the recipient
of Fulbright awards to Russia and to Ukraine, as well as fellowships from the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the National
Council for Eurasian and East European Research, the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies in Washington,
D.C., and the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. As a Council on Foreign Relations Fellow, he served as special assistant
for policy toward the Soviet Union in the U.S. Department of State from 1989 to 1990. In addition to scholarly publications
on Russia and Ukraine, he has written for Asia Times, American Interest, Boston Globe, Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian
(UK), The Nation, New York Times, and Wilson Quarterly. His writings have appeared frequently on the web sites of the Carnegie
Council for Ethics in International Affairs and The National Interest.
Thanks for so much for this. Great stuff. Cohen says the emperor has no clothes so naturally the empire doesn't want him on
television. I believe he has been on CNN one or two times and I saw him once on the PBS Newshour where the interviewer asked skeptical
questions with a pained and skeptical look. He seems to be the only prominent person willing to stand up and call bs on the Russia
hate. There are plenty of pundits and commentators who do that but not many Princeton professors.
It has been said in recent years that the greatest failure of American foreign policy was the invasion of Iraq. I think that
they are wrong. The greatest failure, in my opinion, is to push both China and Russia together into a semi-official pact against
American ambitions. In the same way that the US was able to split China from the USSR back in the seventies, the best option was
for America to split Russia from China and help incorporate them into the western system. The waters for that idea have been so
fouled by the Russia hysteria, if not dementia, that that is no longer a possibility. I just wish that the US would stop sowing
dragon's teeth – it never ends well.
The best option, but the "American exceptionalists" went nuts. Also, the usual play book of stoking fears of the "yellow menace"
would have been too on the nose. Americans might not buy it, and there was a whole cottage industry of "the rising China threat"
except the potential consumer market place and slave labor factories stopped that from happening.
Bringing Russia into the West effectively means Europe, and I think that creates a similar dynamic to a Russian/Chinese pact.
The basic problem with the EU is its led by a relatively weak but very German power which makes the EU relatively weak or controllable
as long as the German electorate is relatively sedate. I think they still need the international structures run by the U.S. to
maintain their dominance. What Russia and the pre-Erdogan Turkey (which was never going to be admitted to the EU) presented was
significant upsets to the existing EU order with major balances to Germany which I always believed would make the EU potentially
more dynamic. Every decision wouldn't require a pilgrimage to Berlin. The British were always disinterested. The French had made
arrangements with Germany, and Italy is still Italy. Putting Russia or Turkey (pre-Erdogan) would have disrupted this arrangement.
The Crimea voted to be annexed by Russia by a clear majority. The US overran Hawaii with total disregard for the wishes of
the native population. Your comparison is invalid.
"Putin's finger prints are all over the Balkan fiasco".How is that with Putin only becoming president in 2000 and the Nato
bombing started way beforehand. It's ridiculous to think that Putin had any major influence at that time as govenor or director
of the domestic intelligence service on what was going during the bombing of NATO on Belgrad. Even Gerhard Schroeder, then chancellor
of the Federal Republic of Germany, admitted in an interview in 2014 with a major German Newspaper (Die Zeit) that this invasion
of Nato was a fault and against international law!
Can you concrete what you mean by "fingerprints" or is this just another platitudes?
I believe that the full and proper name of the psychiatric disorder in question is Putin-Trump Derangement Syndrome [PTDS].
Symptoms include:
o Eager and uncritical ingestion and social-media regurgitation of even the most patently absurd MSM propaganda. For example,
the meme that releasing factual information about actual election-meddling (as Wikileaks did about the Dem-establishment's rigging
of its own nomination process in 2016) is a grave threat to American Democracy™;
o Recent-onset veneration of the intelligence agencies, whose stock in trade is spying on and lying to the American people,
spreading disinformation, election rigging, torture and assassination and its agents, such as liar and perjurer Clapper and torturer
Brennan;
o Rehabilitation of horrid unindicted GOP war criminals like G.W. Bush as alleged examples of "norms-respecting Republican
patriots";
o Smearing of anyone who dares question the MSM-stoked hysteria as an America-hating Russian stooge.
"... Latest is the secretive Andy Pryce squandering millions of public money on the "Open Information Partnership" (OIP) which is the latest name-change for the Integrity Initiative and the Institute of Statecraft, just like al-Qaeda kept changing its name. ..."
"... In true Orwellian style, they splashed out on a conference for "defence of media freedom", when they are in the business of propaganda and closing alternative 'narratives' down. And the 'media' they would defend are, in fact, spies sent to foreign countries to foment trouble to further what they bizarrely perceive as 'British interests'. Just like the disgraceful White Helmets, also funded by the FO. ..."
"... "The Guardian is struggling for money" Surely, they would be enjoying some of the seemingly unlimited US defense and some of the mind control programmes budgets. ..."
OffGuardian already covered the Global Media Freedom Conference, our article
Hypocrisy Taints UK's
Media Freedom Conference , was meant to be all there was to say. A quick note on the obvious hypocrisy of this event. But, in
the writing, I started to see more than that. This event is actually creepy. Let's just look back at one of the four "main themes"
of this conference:
Building trust in media and countering disinformation
"Countering disinformation"? Well, that's just another word for censorship. This is proven by their refusal to allow Sputnik or RT
accreditation. They claim RT "spreads disinformation" and they "countered" that by barring them from attending. "Building trust"?
In the post-Blair world of PR newspeak, "building trust" is just another way of saying "making people believe us" (the word usage
is actually interesting, building trust not earning trust). The whole conference is shot through with this language
that just feels off. Here is CNN's
Christiane Amanpour :
Our job is to be truthful, not neutral we need to take a stand for the truth, and never to create a false moral or factual equivalence."
Being "truthful not neutral" is one of Amanpour's
personal sayings
, she obviously thinks it's clever. Of course, what it is is NewSpeak for "bias". Refusing to cover evidence of The White
Helmets staging rescues, Israel arming ISIS or other inconvenient facts will be defended using this phrase – they will literally
claim to only publish "the truth", to get around impartiality and then set about making up whatever "truth" is convenient. Oh, and
if you don't know what "creating a false moral quivalence is", here I'll demonstrate: MSM: Putin is bad for shutting down critical
media. OffG: But you're supporting RT being banned and Wikileaks being shut down. BBC: No. That's not the same. OffG: It seems the
same. BBC: It's not. You're creating a false moral equivalence . Understand now? You "create a false moral equivalence" by
pointing out mainstream media's double standards. Other ways you could mistakenly create a "false moral equivalence": Bringing up
Gaza when the media talk about racism. Mentioning Saudi Arabia when the media preach about gay rights. Referencing the US coup in
Venezuela when the media work themselves into a froth over Russia's "interference in our democracy" Talking about the invasion of
Iraq. Ever. OR Pointing out that the BBC is state funded, just like RT. These are all no-longer flagrant examples of the media's
double standards, and if you say they are , you're "creating a false moral equivalence" and the media won't have to allow
you (or anyone who agrees with you) air time or column inches to disagree. Because they don't have a duty to be neutral or show both
sides, they only have a duty to tell "the truth" as soon as the government has told them what that is. Prepare to see both those
phrases – or variations there of – littering editorials in the Guardian and the Huffington Post in the coming months. Along
with people bemoaning how "fake news outlets abuse the notion of impartiality" by "being even handed between liars the truth tellers".
(I've been doing this site so long now, I have a Guardian-English dictionary in my head).
Equally dodgy-sounding buzz-phrases litter topics on the agenda. "Eastern Europe and Central Asia: building an integrated support
system for journalists facing hostile environments" , this means pumping money into NGOs to fund media that will criticize our
"enemies" in areas of strategic importance. It means flooding money into the anti-government press in Hungary, or Iran or (of course),
Russia. That is ALL it means. I said in my earlier article I don't know what "media sustainability" even means, but I feel I can
take a guess. It means "save the government mouthpieces". The Guardian is struggling for money, all print media are, TV news
is getting lower viewing figures all the time. "Building media sustainability" is code for "pumping public money into traditional
media that props up the government" or maybe "getting people to like our propaganda". But the worst offender on the list is, without
a doubt "Navigating Disinformation"
"Navigating Disinformation" was a 1 hour panel from the second day of the conference. You can watch it embedded above if you really
feel the need. I already did, so you don't have to. The panel was chaired by Chrystia Freeland, the Canadian Foreign Minister. The
members included the Latvian Foreign Minister, a representative of the US NGO Committee to Protect Journalists, and the Ukrainian
Deputy Minister of Information
Have you guessed what "disinformation" they're going to be talking about? I'll give you a clue: It begins with R. Freeland, chairing
the panel, kicks it off by claiming that "disinformation isn't for any particular aim" . This is a very common thing for establishment
voices to repeat these days, which makes it all the more galling she seems to be pretending its is her original thought. The reason
they have to claim that "disinformation" doesn't have a "specific aim" is very simple: They don't know what they're going to call
"disinformation" yet. They can't afford to take a firm position, they need to keep their options open. They need to give themselves
the ability to describe any single piece of information or political opinion as "disinformation." Left or right. Foreign or domestic.
"Disinformation" is a weaponised term that is only as potent as it is vague. So, we're one minute in, and all "navigating disinformation"
has done is hand the State an excuse to ignore, or even criminalise, practically anything it wants to. Good start. Interestingly,
no one has actually said the word "Russia" at this point. They have talked about "malign actors" and "threats to democracy", but
not specifically Russia. It is SO ingrained in these people that "propaganda"= " Russian propaganda" that they don't need
to say it.
The idea that NATO as an entity, or the individual members thereof, could also use "disinformation" has not just been dismissed
it was literally never even contemplated. Next Freeland turns to Edgars Rinkēvičs, her Latvian colleague, and jokes about always
meeting at NATO functions. The Latvians know "more than most" about disinformation, she says. Rinkēvičs says disinformation is nothing
new, but that the methods of spreading it are changing then immediately calls for regulation of social media. Nobody disagrees. Then
he talks about the "illegal annexation of Crimea", and claims the West should outlaw "paid propaganda" like RT and Sputnik. Nobody
disagrees. Then he says that Latvia "protected" their elections from "interference" by "close cooperation between government agencies
and social media companies". Everyone nods along. If you don't find this terrifying, you're not paying attention. They don't say
it, they probably don't even realise they mean it, but when they talk about "close cooperation with social media networks", they
mean government censorship of social media. When they say "protecting" their elections they're talking about rigging them. It only
gets worse. The next step in the Latvian master plan is to bolster "traditional media".
The problems with traditional media, he says, are that journalists aren't paid enough, and don't keep up to date with all the
"new tricks". His solution is to "promote financing" for traditional media, and to open more schools like the "Baltic Centre of Media
Excellence", which is apparently a totally real thing .
It's a training centre which teaches young journalists about "media literacy" and "critical thinking". You can read their depressingly
predictable list of "donors" here . I truly wish I was joking. Next
up is Courtney Radsch from CPJ – a US-backed NGO, who notionally "protect journalists", but more accurately spread pro-US propaganda.
(Their token effort to "defend"
RT and Sputnik when they were barred from the conference was contemptible).
She talks for a long time without saying much at all. Her revolutionary idea is that disinformation could be countered if everyone
told the truth. Inspiring. Beata Balogova, Journalist and Editor from Slovakia, gets the ship back on course – immediately suggesting
politicians should not endorse "propaganda" platforms. She shares an anecdote about "a prominent Slovakian politician" who gave exclusive
interviews to a site that is "dubiously financed, we assume from Russia". They assume from Russia. Everyone nods.
It's like they don't even hear themselves.
Then she moves on to Hungary. Apparently, Orban has "created a propaganda machine" and produced "antisemitic George Soros posters".
No evidence is produced to back-up either of these claims. She thinks advertisers should be pressured into not giving money to "fake
news sites". She calls for "international pressure", but never explains exactly what that means. The stand-out maniac on this panel
is Emine Dzhaparova, the Ukrainian First Deputy Minister of Information Policy. (She works for the Ministry of Information – nicknamed
the Ministry of Truth, which was formed in 2014 to "counter lies about Ukraine". Even
The Guardian thought that sounded dodgy.)
She talks very fast and, without any sense of irony, spills out a story that shoots straight through "disinformation" and becomes
"incoherent rambling". She claims that Russian citizens are so brainwashed you'll never be able to talk to them, and that Russian
"cognitive influence" is "toxic like radiation." Is this paranoid, quasi-xenophobic nonsense countered? No. Her fellow panelists
nod and chuckle. On top of that, she just lies. She lies over and over and over again. She claims Russia is locking up Crimean Tartars
"just for being muslims", nobody questions her. She says the war in Ukraine has killed 13,000 people, but doesn't mention that her
side is responsible for over 80% of civilian deaths.
She says only 30% of Crimeans voted in the referendum, and that they were "forced". A fact not supported by
any polls done by either side in the last
four years, and any referenda held
on the peninsula any time in the last last 30 year. It's simply a lie. Nobody asks her about the journalists
killed in Ukraine since their
glorious Maidan Revolution . Nobody questions the fact that she works for something called the "Ministry of Information". Nobody
does anything but nod and smile as the "countering disinformation" panel becomes just a platform for spreading total lies.
When everyone on the panel has had their ten minutes on the soapbox, Freeland asks for recommendations for countering this "threat"
– here's the list:
Work to distinguish "free speech" from "propaganda", when you find propaganda there must be a "strong reaction".
Pressure advertisers to abandon platforms who spread misinformation.
Regulate social media.
Educate journalists at special schools.
Start up a "Ministry of Information" and have state run media that isn't controlled, like in Ukraine.
This is the Global Conference on Media Freedom and all these six people want to talk about is how to control what can be said,
and who can say it. They single only four countries out for criticism: Hungary, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Russia .and Russia takes
up easily 90% of that. They mention only two media outlets by name: RT and Sputnik. This wasn't a panel on disinformation, it was
a public attack forum – a month's worth of 2 minutes of hate. These aren't just shills on this stage, they are solid gold idiots,
brainwashed to the point of total delusion.
They are the dangerous glassy eyes of a Deep State that never questions itself, never examines itself, and will do anything it
wants, to anyone it wants whilst happily patting itself on the back for its superior morality. They don't know, they don't care.
They're true believers. Terrifyingly dead inside. Talking about state censorship and re-education camps under a big sign that says
"Freedom". And that's just one talk. Just one panel in a 2 day itinerary filled to the brim with similarly soul-dead servants of
authority. Truly, perfectly Orwellian.
Read and be appalled at what America is up to .keep for further reference. We are in danger.
Tim Jenkins
It would serve Ms. Amanpour well, to relax, rewind & review her own interview with Sergei Lavrov:-
Then she might see why Larry King could stomach the appalling corporate dictatorship, even to the core of False & Fake recording
of 'our' "History of the National Security State" , No More
Amanpour was forced to laugh uncontrollably, when confronted with Lavrov's humorous interpretations of various legal aspects
of decency & his Judgement of others' politicians and 'Pussy Riots' >>> if you haven't seen it, it is to be recommended, the whole
interview, if nothing else but to study the body language and micro-facial expressions, coz' a belly up laugh is not something
anybody can easily control or even feign that first spark of cognition in her mind, as she digests Lavrov's response :- hilarious
Einstein
A GE won't solve matters since we have a Government of Occupation behind a parliament of puppets.
Latest is the secretive Andy Pryce squandering millions of public money on the "Open Information Partnership" (OIP) which
is the latest name-change for the Integrity Initiative and the Institute of Statecraft, just like al-Qaeda kept changing its name.
In true Orwellian style, they splashed out on a conference for "defence of media freedom", when they are in the business
of propaganda and closing alternative 'narratives' down. And the 'media' they would defend are, in fact, spies sent to foreign
countries to foment trouble to further what they bizarrely perceive as 'British interests'. Just like the disgraceful White Helmets,
also funded by the FO.
Pryce's ventriloquist's dummy in parliament, the pompous Alan Duncan, announced another Ł10 million of public money for this
odious brainwashing programme.
Tim Jenkins
That panel should be nailed & plastered over, permanently:-
and as wall paper, 'Abstracts of New Law' should be pasted onto a collage of historic extracts from the Guardian, in
offices that issue journalistic licenses, comprised of 'Untouchables' :-
A professional habitat, to damp any further 'Freeland' amplification & resonance,
of negative energy from professional incompetence.
Francis Lee
Apropos of the redoubtable Ms Freeland, Canada's Foreign Secretary.
The records now being opened by the Polish government in Warsaw reveal that Freeland's maternal grandfather Michael (Mikhailo)
Chomiak was a Nazi collaborator from the beginning to the end of the war. He was given a powerful post, money, home and car by
the German Army in Cracow, then the capital of the German administration of the Galician region. His principal job was editor
in chief and publisher of a newspaper the Nazis created. His printing plant and other assets had been stolen from a Jewish newspaper
publisher, who was then sent to die in the Belzec concentration camp. During the German Army's winning phase of the war, Chomiak
celebrated in print the Wehrmacht's "success" at killing thousands of US Army troops. As the German Army was forced into retreat
by the Soviet counter-offensive, Chomiak was taken by the Germans to Vienna, where he continued to publish his Nazi propaganda,
at the same time informing for the Germans on other Ukrainians. They included fellow Galician Stepan Bandera, whose racism against
Russians Freeland has celebrated in print, and whom the current regime in Kiev has turned into a national hero.
Those Ukrainian 'Refugees' admitted to Canada in 1945 were almost certainly members of the 14th Waffen SS Division Galizia 1.
These Ukie collaboraters – not to be confused with the other Ukie Nazi outfit – Stepan Bandera's Ukrainian Insurgent Army -were
held responsible for the massacre of many Poles in the Lviv area the most infamous being carried out in the Polish village of
Huta Pienacka. In the massacre, the village was destroyed and between 500] and 1,000 of the inhabitants were killed. According
to Polish accounts, civilians were locked in barns that were set on fire while those attempting to flee were killed. That's about
par for the course.
Canada's response was as follows:
The Canadian Deschęnes Commission was set up to investigate alleged war crimes committed by the collaborators
Memorial to SS-Galizien division in Chervone, Lviv Oblast, western Ukraine
The Canadian "Commission of Inquiry on War Crimes" of October 1986, by the Honourable Justice Jules Deschęnesconcluded that in
relation to membership in the Galicia Division:
''The Galicia Division (14. Waffen grenadier division der SS [gal.1]) should not be indicted as a group. The members of Galicia
Division were individually screened for security purposes before admission to Canada. Charges of war crimes of Galicia Division
have never been substantiated, either in 1950 when they were first preferred, or in 1984 when they were renewed, or before this
Commission. Further, in the absence of evidence of participation or knowledge of specific war crimes, mere membership in the Galicia
Division is insufficient to justify prosecution.''
However, the Commission's conclusion failed to acknowledge or heed the International Military Tribunal's verdict at the Nuremberg
Trials, in which the entire Waffen-SSorganisation was declared a "criminal organization" guilty of war crimes. Also, the Deschęnes
Commission in its conclusion only referenced the division as 14. Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS (Galizische Nr.1), thus in legal
terms, only acknowledging the formation's activity after its name change in August 1944, while the massacre of Poles in Huta Pieniacka,
Pidkamin and Palikrowy occurred when the division was called SS Freiwilligen Division "Galizien". Nevertheless, a subsequent review
by Canada's Minister of Justice again confirmed that members of the Division were not implicated in war crimes.
Yes, the west looks after its Nazis and even makes them and their descendants political figureheads.
mark
Most of these people are so smugly and complacently convinced of their own moral superiority that they just can't see the hypocrisy
and doublethink involved in the event.
Meanwhile Owen Jones has taken to Twitter to rubbish allegations that a reign of terror exists at Guardian Towers – the socialist
firebrand is quoted as saying 'journalists are free to say whatever they like, so long as it doesn't stray too far from Guardian-groupthink'.
Good analysis Kit, of the cognitive dissonant ping pong being played out by Nazi sympathisers such as Hunt and Freeland.
The echo chamber of deceit is amplified again by the selective use of information and the ignoring of relevant facts, such
as the miss reporting yesterday by Reuters of the Italian Neo-Nazi haul of weapons by the police, having not Russian but Ukrainian
links.
Not a word in the WMSM about this devious miss-reporting as the creation of fake news in action. But what would you expect?
Living as I do in Russia I can assure anyone reading this that the media freedom here is on a par with the West and somewhat
better as there is no paranoia about a fictitious enemy – Russians understand that the West is going through an existential crisis
(Brexit in the UK, Trump and the Clinton war of sameness in the US and Macron and Merkel in the EU). A crisis of Liberalism as
the failed life-support of capitalism. But hey, why worry about the politics when there is bigger fish to fry. Such as who will
pay me to dance?
The answer is clear from what Kit has writ. The government will pay the piper. How sweet.
I'd like to thank Kit for sitting through such a turgid masquerade and as I'm rather long in the tooth I do remember the old
BBC schools of journalism in Yelsin's Russia. What I remember is that old devious Auntie Beeb was busy training would be hopefuls
in the art of discretion regarding how the news is formed, or formulated.
In other words your audience. And it ain't the public
The British government's "Online Harms" White Paper has a whole section devoted to "disinformation" (ie, any facts, opinions,
analyses, evaluations, critiques that are critical of the elite's actual disinformation). If these proposals become law, the government
will have effective control over the Internet and we will be allowed access to their disinformation, shop and watch cute cat videos.
Question This
The liberal news media & hypocrisy, who would have ever thought you'd see those words in the same sentence.
But what do you expect from professional liars, politicians & 'their' free press?
Can this shit show get any worse? Yes, The other day I wrote to my MP regards the SNP legislating against the truth, effectively
making it compulsory to lie! Mr Blackford as much as called me a transphobic & seemed to go to great length publishing his neo-liberal
ideological views in some scottish rag, on how right is wrong & fact is turned into fiction & asked only those that agreed with
him contact him.
Tim Jenkins
"The science or logical consistency of true premise, cannot take place or bear fruit, when all communication and information is
'marketised and weaponised' to a mindset of possession and control."
B.Steere
Mikalina
I saw, somewhere (but can't find it now) a law or a prospective law which goes under the guise of harassment of MPs to include
action against constituents who 'pester' them.
I only emailed him once! That's hardly harassment. Anyway I sent it with proton-mail via vpn & used a false postcode using only
my first name so unlikely my civil & sincere correspondence will see me locked up for insisting my inalienable rights of freedom
of speech & beliefs are protected. But there again the state we live in, i may well be incarcerated for life, for such an outrageous
expectation.
Where to?
"The Guardian is struggling for money"
Surely, they would be enjoying some of the seemingly unlimited US defense and some of the mind control programmes budgets.
Harry Stotle
Its the brazen nature of the conference that is especially galling, but what do you expect when crooks and liars no longer feel
they even have to pretend?
Nothing will change so long as politicians (or their shady backers) are never held to account for public assets diverted toward
a rapacious off-shore economic system, or the fact millions of lives have been shattered by the 'war on terror' and its evil twin,
'humanatarian regime change' (while disingenuous Labour MPs wail about the 'horrors' of antisemitism rather than the fact their
former leader is a key architect of the killings).
Kit remains a go-to voice when deconstructing claims made by political figures who clearly regard the MSM as a propaganda vehicle
for promoting western imperialism – the self-satisfied smugness of cunts like Jeremy Cunt stand in stark contrast to a real journalist
being tortured by the British authorities just a few short miles away.
It's a sligtly depressing thought but somebody has the unenviable task of monitoring just how far our politicians have drifted
from the everyday concerns of the 'just about managing' and as I say Mr Knightly does a fine job in informing readers what the
real of agenda of these media love-ins are actually about – it goes without saying a very lengthy barge pole is required when
the Saudis are invited but not Russia.
Where to?
This Media Freedom Conference is surely a creepy theatre of the absurd.
It is a test of what they can get away with.
Mikalina
Yep. Any soviet TV watcher would recognise this immediately. Message? THIS is the reality – and you are powerless.
mark
When are they going to give us the Ministry of Truth we so desperately need?
"... We know our disinformation program is complete when almost everything the American public believes is false.' ..."
"... Using groundbreaking camera and lighting techniques, Riefenstahl produced a documentary that mesmerized Germans; as Pilger noted, her Triumph of the Will 'cast Adolf Hitler's spell'. She told the veteran Aussie journalist the "messages" of her films were dependent not on "orders from above", but on the "submissive void" of the public. ..."
"... All in all, Riefenstahl produced arguably for the rest of the world the most compelling historical footage of mass hysteria, blind obedience, nationalistic fervour, and existential menace, all key ingredients in anyone's totalitarian nightmare. That it also impressed a lot of very powerful, high profile people in the West on both sides of the pond is also axiomatic: These included bankers, financiers, industrialists, and sundry business elites without whose support Hitler might've at best ended up a footnote in the historical record after the ill-fated beer-hall putsch. (See here , and here .) ..."
"... The purpose of this propaganda barrage, as Sharon Bader has noted, has been to convince as many people as possible that it is in their interests to relinquish their own power as workers, consumers, and citizens, and 'forego their democratic right to restrain and regulate business activity. As a result the political agenda is now confined to policies aimed at furthering business interests.' ..."
Here was, of course, another surreal spectacle, this time courtesy of one of the Deep State's most dangerous, reviled, and divisive
figures, a notable protagonist in the Russia-Gate conspiracy, and America's most senior diplomat no less.
Not only is it difficult to accept that the former CIA Director actually believes what he is saying, well might we ask, "Who can
believe Mike Pompeo?"
And here's also someone whose manifest cynicism, hypocrisy, and chutzpah would embarrass the much-derided
scribes and Pharisees of Biblical days.
We have Pompeo on record recently in a rare moment of
honesty admitting – whilst laughing his ample ass off, as if recalling some "Boy's Own Adventure" from his misspent youth with a
bunch of his mates down at the local pub – that under his watch as CIA Director:
We lied, cheated, we stole we had entire training courses.'
It may have been one of the few times in his wretched existence that Pompeo didn't speak with a forked tongue.
At all events, his candour aside, we can assume safely that this reactionary, monomaniacal, Christian Zionist 'end-timer' passed
all the Company's "training courses" with flying colours.
According to Matthew Rosenberg
of the New York Times, all this did not stop Pompeo however from name-checking Wikileaks when it served his own interests. Back
in 2016 at the height of the election campaign, he had ' no compunction about pointing people toward emails stolen* by Russian hackers
from the Democratic National Committee and then posted by WikiLeaks."
[NOTE: Rosenberg's omission of the word "allegedly" -- as in "emails allegedly stolen" -- is a dead giveaway of bias on his part
(a journalistic Freudian slip perhaps?), with his employer
being one of those MSM marques leading the charge with the "Russian Collusion" 'story'. For a more insightful view of the source
of these emails and the skullduggery and thuggery that attended Russia-Gate, readers are encouraged to
check this out.]
And this is of course The Company we're talking about, whose past and present relationship with the media might be summed up in
two words:
Operation Mockingbird (OpMock). Anyone vaguely familiar with the well-documented Grand Deception that was OpMock, arguably the
CIA's most enduring, insidious, and successful
psy-ops gambit, will know what
we're talking about. (See
here ,
here ,
here , and
here .) At its most basic, this operation was all about propaganda and censorship, usually operating in tandem to ensure all
the bases are covered.
After opining that the MSM is 'totally infiltrated' by the CIA and various other agencies, for his part former NSA whistleblower
William Binney recently added , ' When it
comes to national security, the media only talk about what the administration wants you to hear, and basically suppress any other
statements about what's going on that the administration does not want get public. The media is basically the lapdogs for the government.'
We know our disinformation program is complete when almost everything the American public believes is false.'
In order to provide a broader and deeper perspective, we should now consider the views of a few others on the subjects at hand,
along with some history. In a 2013 piece musing on the modern significance of the practice, my compatriot John Pilger
ecalled a time when he met
Leni Riefenstahl
back in 70s and asked her about her films that 'glorified the Nazis'.
Using groundbreaking camera and lighting techniques, Riefenstahl produced a documentary that mesmerized Germans; as Pilger
noted, her Triumph of the Will 'cast Adolf Hitler's
spell'. She told the veteran Aussie journalist the "messages" of her films were dependent not on "orders from above", but on the
"submissive void" of the public.
All in all, Riefenstahl produced arguably for the rest of the world the most compelling historical footage of mass hysteria,
blind obedience, nationalistic fervour, and existential menace, all key ingredients in anyone's totalitarian nightmare. That it also
impressed a lot of very powerful, high profile people in the West on both sides of the pond is also axiomatic: These included
bankers, financiers, industrialists,
and sundry business elites without whose support Hitler might've at best ended up a footnote in the historical record after the
ill-fated
beer-hall
putsch. (See
here , and here .)
" Triumph " apparently still resonates today. To the surprise of few one imagines, such was the impact of the film -- as casually
revealed in the excellent 2018 Alexis Bloom documentary Divide and
Conquer: The Story of Roger Ailes -- it elicited no small amount of admiration from arguably the single most influential propagandist
of recent times.
[Readers might wish to check out Russell Crowe's recent portrayal of Ailes in Stan's mini-series
The Loudest Voice , in my view one the best performances of the man's career.]
In a recent piece unambiguously titled "Propaganda Is The Root Of All Our Problems", my other compatriot Caitlin Johnstone also
had a few things to
say about the subject, echoing Orwell when she observed it was all about "controlling the narrative".
Though I'd suggest the greater "root" problem is our easy propensity to ignore this reality, pretend it doesn't or won't affect
us, or reject it as conspiratorial nonsense, in this, of course, she's correct. As she cogently observes,
I write about this stuff for a living, and even I don't have the time or energy to write about every single narrative control
tool that the US-centralised empire has been implementing into its arsenal. There are too damn many of them emerging too damn
fast, because they're just that damn crucial for maintaining existing power structures.'
Fittingly, in a discussion encompassing amongst other things history, language, power, and dissent, he opined, ' Determining how
individuals communicate is' an objective which represents for the power elites 'the best chance' [they] have to control what people
think. This translates as: The more control 'we' have over what the proles think, the more 'we' can reduce the inherent risk for
elites in democracy.
' Clumsy men', Saul went on to say, 'try to do this through power and fear. Heavy-handed men running heavy-handed systems attempt
the same thing through police-enforced censorship. The more sophisticated the elites, the more they concentrate on creating intellectual
systems which control expression through the communications structures. These systems require only the discreet use of censorship
and uniformed men.'
In other words, along with assuming it is their right to take it in the first place, ' those who take power will always try to
change the established language ', presumably to better facilitate their hold on it and/or legitimise their claim to it.
For Oliver Boyd-Barrett, democratic theory presupposes a public communications infrastructure that facilitates the free and open
exchange of ideas.' Yet for the author of the recently published
RussiaGate and Propaganda: Disinformation in the Age of Social Media , 'No such infrastructure exists.'
The mainstream media he says, is 'owned and controlled by a small number of large, multi-media and multi-industrial conglomerates'
that lie at the very heart of US oligopoly capitalism and much of whose advertising revenue and content is furnished from other conglomerates:
The inability of mainstream media to sustain an information environment that can encompass histories, perspectives and vocabularies
that are free of the shackles of US plutocratic self-regard is also well documented.'
Of course the word "inability" suggests the MSM view themselves as having some responsibility for maintaining such an egalitarian
news and information environment. They don't of course, and in truth, probably never really have! A better word would be "unwilling",
or even "refusal". The corporate media all but epitomise the " plutocratic self-regard" that is characteristic of "oligopoly capitalism".
Indeed, the MSM collectively functions as advertising, public relations/lobbying entities for Big Corp, in addition to acting
as its Praetorian bodyguard , protecting their secrets,
crimes, and lies from exposure. Like all other companies they are beholden to their shareholders (profits before truth and people),
most of whom it can safely be assumed are no strangers to "self-regard", and could care less about " histories, perspectives and
vocabularies" that run counter to their own interests.
It was Aussie social scientist Alex Carey who
pioneered the study of nationalism ,
corporatism , and moreso for our purposes herein, the
management (read: manipulation) of public opinion, though all three have important links (a story for another time). For Carey, the
following conclusion was inescapable: 'It is arguable that the success of business propaganda in persuading us, for so long, that
we are free from propaganda is one of the most significant propaganda achievements of the twentieth century.' This former farmer
from Western Australia became one of the world's acknowledged experts on propaganda and the manipulation of the truth.
Prior to embarking on his academic career, Carey was a successful sheep
grazier . By all accounts, he was a first-class judge of the
animal from which he made his early living, leaving one to ponder if this expertise gave him a unique insight into his main area
of research!
In any event, Carey in time sold the farm and travelled to the U.K. to study psychology, apparently a long-time ambition. From
the late fifties until his death in 1988, he was a senior lecturer in psychology and industrial relations at the Sydney-based University
of New South Wales, with his research being lauded by such luminaries as Noam Chomsky and John Pilger, both of whom have had a thing
or three to say over the years about The Big Shill. In fact such was his admiration, Pilger
described him as "a second Orwell", which in anyone's lingo
is a big call.
In fact, for anyone with an interest in how public opinion is moulded and our perceptions are managed and manipulated, in whose
interests they are done so and to what end, it is as essential reading as any of the work of other more famous names. This tome came
complete with a foreword by Chomsky, so enamoured was the latter of Carey's work.
For Carey, the three "most significant developments" in the political economy of the twentieth century were:
the growth of democracy the growth of corporate power; and the growth of propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against
democracy.
For Carey, it is an axiom of conventional wisdom that the use of propaganda as a means of social and ideological control is 'distinctive'
of totalitarian regimes. Yet as he stresses: the most minimal exercise of common sense would suggest a different view: that propaganda
is likely to play at least as important a part in democratic societies (where the existing distribution of power and privilege is
vulnerable to quite limited changes in popular opinion) as in authoritarian societies (where it is not).' In this context, 'conventional
wisdom" becomes conventional ignorance; as for "common sense", maybe not so much.
The purpose of this propaganda
barrage, as Sharon Bader has noted, has been to convince as many people as
possible that it is in their interests to relinquish their own power as workers, consumers, and citizens, and 'forego their democratic
right to restrain and regulate business activity. As a result the political agenda is now confined to policies aimed at furthering
business interests.'
An extreme example of this view playing itself right under our noses and over decades was the cruel fiction of the "
trickle down effect " (TDE) -- aka the 'rising tide that would lift all yachts' -- of
Reaganomics . One of several mantras that defined Reagan's
overarching political shtick, the TDE was by any measure, decidedly more a torrent than a trickle, and said "torrent" was going up
not down. This reality as we now know was not in Reagan's glossy economic brochure to be sure, and it may have been because the Gipper
confused his prepositions and verbs.
Yet as the GFC of 2008 amply demonstrated, it culminated in a free-for all, dog eat dog, anything goes, everyman for himself form
of cannibal (or anarcho) capitalism -- an updated, much
improved version of the no-holds-barred mercenary mercantilism much reminiscent of the
Gilded Age and the
Robber Barons who 'infested' it, only one
that doesn't just eat its young, it eats itself!
Making the World Safe for Plutocracy
In the increasingly dysfunctional, one-sided political economy we inhabit then, whether it's widgets or wars or anything in between,
few people realise the degree to which our opinions, perceptions, emotions, and views are shaped and manipulated by propaganda (and
its similarly 'evil twin' censorship ,) its most adept practitioners, and those elite, institutional, political, and corporate entities
that seek out their expertise.
It is now just over a hundred years since the practice of propaganda took a giant leap forward, then in the service of persuading
palpably reluctant Americans that the war raging in Europe at the time was their war as well.
This was at a time when Americans had just voted their then-president
Woodrow Wilson back into office for a second term, a victory
largely achieved on the back of the promise he'd
"keep us out of the War." Americans were
very much in what was one of their most
isolationist
phases , and so Wilson's promise resonated with them.
But over time they were convinced of the need to become involved by a distinctly different appeal to their political sensibilities.
This "appeal" also dampened the isolationist mood, one which it has to be said was not embraced by most of the political, banking,
and business elites of the time, most of whom stood to lose big-time if the Germans won, and/or who were already profiting or benefitting
from the business of war.
For a president who "kept us out of the war", this wasn't going to be an easy 'pitch'. In order to sell the war the president
established the Committee on Public Information
(aka the Creel Committee) for the purposes of publicising the rationale for the war and from there, garnering support for it
from the general public.
Either way, Bernays 'combined their perspectives and synthesised them into an applied science', which he then 'branded' "public
relations".
For its part the Creel committee struggled with its brief from the off; but Bernays worked with them to persuade Americans their
involvement in the war was justified -- indeed necessary -- and to that end he devised the brilliantly inane slogan,
"making the world safe for democracy"
.
Thus was born arguably the first
great propaganda catch-phrases of the modern era, and certainly one of the most portentous. The following sums up Bernays's unabashed
mindset:
The conscious, intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic
society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power
of our country.'
The rest is history (sort of), with Americans becoming more willing to not just support the war effort but encouraged to view
the Germans and their allies as evil brutes threatening democracy and freedom and the 'American way of life', however that might've
been viewed then. From a geopolitical and historical perspective, it was an asinine premise of course, but nonetheless an extraordinary
example of how a few well chosen words tapped into the collective psyche of a country that was decidedly opposed to any U.S involvement
in the war and turned that mindset completely on its head.
' [S]aving the world for democracy' (or some 'cover version' thereof) has since become America's positioning statement, 'patriotic'
rallying cry, and the "Get-out-of-Jail Free" card for its war and its white collar criminal clique.
At all events it was by any measure, a stroke of genius on Bernays's part; by appealing to people's basic fears and desires, he
could engineer consent on a mass scale. It goes without saying it changed the course of history in more ways than one. That the U.S.
is to this day still using a not dissimilar meme to justify its
"foreign entanglements" is testament to both its utility and durability.
The reality as we now know was markedly different of course. They have almost always been about power, empire, control, hegemony,
resources, wealth, opportunity, profit, dispossession, keeping existing capitalist structures intact and well-defended, and crushing
dissent and opposition.
The Bewildered Herd
It is instructive to note that the template for 'manufacturing consent' for war had already been forged by the British. And the
Europeans did not 'sleepwalk'
like some " bewildered herd ' into this conflagration.
For twenty years prior to the outbreak of the war in 1914, the then stewards of the British Empire had been diligently preparing
the ground for what they viewed as a preordained clash with their rivals for empire the Germans.
To begin with, contrary to the opinion of the general populace over one hundred years later, it was not the much touted German
aggression and militarism, nor their undoubted imperial ambitions, which precipitated its outbreak. The stewards of the British Empire
were not about to let the Teutonic upstarts chow down on their imperial lunch as it were, and set about unilaterally and preemptively
crushing Germany and with it any ambitions it had for creating its own imperial domain in competition with the Empire upon which
Ol' Sol never set.
The "Great War" is worth noting here for other reasons. As documented so by Jim Macgregor and Gerry Docherty in their two books
covering the period from 1890-1920, we learn much about propaganda, which attest to its extraordinary power, in particular its
power to distort
reality en masse in enduring and subversive ways.
In reality, the only thing "great" about World War One was the degree to which the masses fighting for Britain were conned via
propaganda and censorship into believing this war was necessary, and the way the official narrative of the war was sustained for
posterity via the very same means. "Great" maybe, but not in a good way!
The horrendous carnage and destruction that resulted from it was of course unprecedented, the global effects of which linger on
now well over one hundred years later.
Such was the
enduring power
of the propaganda that today most folks would have great difficulty in accepting the following; this is a short summary of historical
realities revealed by Macgregor and Docherty that are at complete odds with the official narrative, the political discourse, and
the school textbooks:
It was Great Britain (supported by France and Russia) and not Germany who was the principal aggressor in the events and actions that
let to the outbreak of war; The British had for twenty years prior to 1914 viewed Germany as its most dangerous economic and imperial
rival, and fully anticipated that a war was inevitable; In the U.K. and the U.S., various factions worked feverishly to ensure the
war went on for as long as possible, and scuttled peacemaking efforts from the off; key truths about this most consequential of geopolitical
conflicts have been concealed for well over one hundred years, with no sign the official record will change; very powerful forces
(incl. a future US president) amongst U.S. political, media, and economic elites conspired to eventually convince an otherwise unwilling
populace in America that U.S. entry onto the war was necessary; those same forces and many similar groups in the U.K. and Europe
engaged in everything from war profiteering, destruction/forging of war records, false-flag ops, treason, conspiracy to wage aggressive
war, and direct efforts to prolong the war by any means necessary, many of which will rock folks to their very core.
But peace was not on the agenda. When, by 1916, the military failures were so embarrassing and costly, some key players in the
British government were willing to talk about peace. This could not be tolerated. The potential peacemakers had to be thrown under
the bus. The unelected European leaders had one common bond: They would fight Germany until she was crushed.
Prolonging the Agony details how this secret cabal organised to this end the change of government without a single vote being
cast. David Lloyd George was promoted to prime minister
in Britain and Georges Clemenceau made prime minister
in France. A new government, an inner-elite war cabinet thrust the Secret Elite leader, Lord
Alfred Milner into power at the very inner-core of the
decision-makers in British politics.
Democracy? They had no truck with democracy. The voting public had no say. The men entrusted with the task would keep going till
the end and their place-men were backed by the media and the money-power, in Britain, France and America.
Propaganda Always Wins
But just as the pioneering adherents of propaganda back in the day might never have dreamt how sophisticated and all-encompassing
the practice would become, nor would the citizenry at large have anticipated the extent to which the industry has facilitated an
entrenched, rapacious plutocracy at the expense of our economic opportunity, our financial and material security, our physical, social
and cultural environment, our values and attitudes, and increasingly, our basic democratic rights and freedoms.
We now live in the Age of the Big Shill -- cocooned in a submissive void no less -- an era where nothing can be taken on face
value yet where time and attention constraints (to name just a few) force us to do so; [where] few people in public life can be taken
at their word; where unchallenged perceptions become accepted reality; where 'open-book' history is now incontrovertible not-negotiable,
upon pain of imprisonment fact; where education is about uniformity, function, form and conformity, all in the service of imposed
neo-liberal ideologies embracing then prioritising individual -- albeit dubious -- freedoms.
More broadly, it's the "Roger Ailes" of this world -- acting on behalf of the power elites who after all are their paymasters
-- who create the intellectual systems which control expression through the communications structures, whilst ensuring these systems
require only 'the discreet use of censorship and uniformed men.'
They are the shapers and moulders of the discourse that passes for the accepted lingua franca of the increasingly globalised,
interconnected, corporatised political economy of the planet. Throughout this process they 'will always try to change the established
language.'
And we can no longer rely on our elected representatives to honestly represent us and our interests. Whether this decision making
is taking place inside or outside the legislative process, these processes are well and truly in the grip of the banks and financial
institutions and transnational organisations. In whose interests are they going to be more concerned with?
We saw this all just after the
Global Financial Crisis
(GFC) when the very people who brought the system to the brink, made billions off the dodge for their banks and millions for
themselves, bankrupted hundreds of thousands of American families, were called upon by the U.S. government to fix up the mess, and
to all intents given a blank cheque to so do.
That the U.S. is at even greater risk now of economic
implosion is something few serious pundits would dispute, and a testament to the effectiveness of the snow-job perpetrated upon Americans
regarding the causes, the impact, and the implications of the 2008 meltdown going forward.
In most cases, one accepts almost by definition such disconnects (read: hidden agendas) are the rule rather than the exception,
hence the multi-billion foundation -- and global reach and impact -- of the propaganda business. This in itself is a key indicator
as to why organisations place so much importance on this aspect of managing their affairs.
At the very least, once corporations saw how the psychology of persuasion could be leveraged to manipulate consumers and politicians
saw the same with the citizenry and even its own workers, the growth of the industry was assured.
As Riefenstahl noted during her chinwag with Pilger after he asked if those embracing the "submissive void" included the liberal,
educated bourgeoisie? " Everyone ," she said.
By way of underscoring her point, she added enigmatically: 'Propaganda always wins if you allow it'.
Greg Maybury is a freelance writer based in Perth, Australia. His main areas of interest are American history and politics
in general, with a special focus on economic, national security, military, and geopolitical affairs. For 5 years he has regularly
contributed to a diverse range of news and opinion sites, including OpEd News, The Greanville Post, Consortium News, Dandelion Salad,
Global Research, Dissident Voice, OffGuardian, Contra Corner, International Policy Digest, the Hampton Institute, and others.
nottheonly1
This brilliant essay is proof of the reflective nature of the Universe. The worse the propaganda and oppression becomes, the greater
the likelihood such an essay will be written.
Such is the sophistication and ubiquity of the narrative control techniques used today -- afforded increasingly by 'computational
propaganda' via automated scripts, hacking, botnets, troll farms, and algorithms and the like, along with the barely veiled
censorship and information gatekeeping practised by Google and Facebook and other tech behemoths -- it's become one of the
most troubling aspects of the technological/social media revolution.
Very rarely can one experience such a degree of vindication. My moniker 'nottheonly1' has received more meaning with this precise
depiction of the long history of the manipulation of the masses. Recent events have destroyed but all of my confidence that there
might be a peaceful way out of this massive dilemma. Due to this sophistication in controlling the narrative, it has now become
apparent that we have arrived at a moment in time where total lawlessness reigns. 'Lawlessness' in this case means the loss of
common law and the use of code law to create ever new restrictions for free speech and liberty at large.
Over the last weeks, comments written on other discussion boards have unleashed a degree of character defamation and ridicule
for the most obvious crimes perpetrated on the masses through propaganda. In this unholy union of constant propaganda via main
stream 'media' with the character defamation by so called 'trolls' – which are actually virtual assassins of those who write the
truth – the ability of the population, or parts thereof to connect with, or search for like minded people is utterly destroyed.
This assault on the online community has devastating consequences. Those who have come into the cross hairs of the unintelligence
agencies will but turn away from the internet. Leaving behind an ocean of online propaganda and fake information. Few are now
the web sites on which it is possible to voice one's personal take on the status quo.
There is one word that describes these kind of activities precisely: traitor. Those who engage in the character defamation
of commenters, or authors per se, are traitors to humanity. They betray the collective consciousness with their poisonous attacks
of those who work for a sea change of the status quo. The owner class has all game pieces positioned. The fact that Julian Assange
is not only a free man, but still without a Nobel price for peace, while war criminals are recipients, shows just how much the
march into absolute totalitarianism has progressed. Bernays hated the masses and offered his 'services' to manipulate them often
for free.
Even though there are more solutions than problems, the time has come where meaningful participation in the search for such
solution has been made unbearable. It is therefore that a certain fatalism has developed – from resignation to the acceptance
of the status quo as being inevitable. Ancient wisdom has created a proverb that states 'This too, will pass'. While that is a
given, there are still enough Human Beings around that are determined to make a difference. To this group I count the author of
this marvelous, albeit depressing essay. Thank you more that words can express. And thank you, OffGuardian for being one of the
last remaining places where discourse is possible.
Really great post! Thanks. I'm part of the way through reading Alex Carey's book: "Taking the Risk Out of Democracy: Corporate
Propaganda Versus Freedom and Liberty," referenced in this article. I've learned more about the obviously verifiable history of
U.S. corporate propaganda in the first four chapters than I learned gaining a "minor" in history in 1974 (not surprisingly I can
now clearly see). I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in just how pervasive, entrenched and long-standing are the
propaganda systems shaping public perception, thought and behavior in America and the West.
Norcal
Wow Greg Maybury great essay, congratulations. This quote is brilliant, I've never see it before, "For Carey, the following conclusion
was inescapable: 'It is arguable that the success of business propaganda in persuading us, for so long, that we are free from
propaganda is one of the most significant propaganda achievements of the twentieth century.' "
Too, Rodger Ailes was the man credited with educating Nixon up as how to "use" the TV media, and Ailes never looked back as
he manipulated media at will. Thank you!
nondimenticare
That is also one of the basic theses of Harold Pinter's Nobel Prize speech.
vexarb
I read in 'Guns, Germs and Steel' about Homo Sapiens and his domesticated animals. Apparently we got on best in places where we
could find animals that are very like us: sheep, cattle, horses and other herd animals which instinctively follow their Leader.
I think our cousins the chimpanzee are much the same; both species must have inherited this common trait from some pre-chimpanzee
ancestor who had found great survival value in passing on the sheeple trait to their progeny. As have the sheep themselves.
By the way, has anybody observed sheeple behaviour in ants and bees? For instance, quietly following a Leader ant to their
doom, or noisily ganging up to mob a worker bee that the Queen does not like?
I'd say the elites are both for and against. Competing factions.
It's clear that many are interested in overturning democracy, whilst others want to exploit it.
The average grunt on the street is in the fire, regardless of the pan chosen by the elites.
"... "You have no evidence for the so-called Russian IO. It is a fabrication." In fact, Putin rejects the claim many times publicly saying that Russia does not meddle in foreign elections as a matter of policy. Maybe I'm gullible, but I find his disclaimer pretty convincing.... ..."
"... Is there an unseen connection between the Democrat leadership and the Intel agencies??? And --if there is-- does that mean we are headed for a one-party system??? ..."
"... The Russians trying to rig the elections meme was a fallback for the failure of the “trump is a russianstooge" meme. ..."
Here are some insights into the minds of many movers and shakers in Russiagate:
Key US officials behind the Russia investigation have made no secret of their animus
towards Russia.
"I do always hate the Russians," Lisa Page, a senior FBI lawyer on the Russia probe,
testified to Congress in July 2018. "It is my opinion that with respect to Western ideals
and who it is and what it is we stand for as Americans, Russia poses the most dangerous
threat to that way of life."
As he opened the FBI's probe of the Trump campaign's ties to Russians in July 2016,
FBI agent Peter Strzok texted Page: "fuck the cheating motherfucking Russians Bastards. I
hate them I think they're probably the worst. Fucking conniving cheating savages."
Speaking to NBC News in May 2017, former director of national intelligence James
Clapper explained why US officials saw interactions between the Trump camp and Russian
nationals as a cause for alarm: "The Russians," Clapper said, "almost genetically driven to
co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique. So we were
concerned."
In a May interview with Lawfare, former FBI general counsel Jim Baker, who helped
oversee the Russia probe, explained the origins of the investigation as follows: "It was
about Russia, period, full stop. When the [George] Papadopoulos information comes across
our radar screen, it's coming across in the sense that we were always looking at Russia.
we've been thinking about Russia as a threat actor for decades and decades."
"You have no evidence for the so-called Russian IO. It is a fabrication." In fact, Putin
rejects the claim many times publicly saying that Russia does not meddle in foreign elections
as a matter of policy. Maybe I'm gullible, but I find his disclaimer pretty
convincing....
My question for Larry Johnson requires some speculation on his part: How did the claims of
"Russia meddling" which began with the DNC and Hillary campaign, take root at the FBI, CIA
and NSA???
Is there an unseen connection between the Democrat leadership and the Intel agencies???
And --if there is-- does that mean we are headed for a one-party system???
"... For Malaysia, starting with Prime Minister Mahathir, to stand up and say the US tried to cook the record to pin the crash on Russia is remarkable. ..."
"... A new documentary from Max van der Werff, the leading independent investigator of the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 disaster, has revealed breakthrough evidence of tampering and forging of prosecution materials; suppression of Ukrainian Air Force radar tapes; and lying by the Dutch, Ukrainian, US and Australian governments. An attempt by agents of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to take possession of the black boxes of the downed aircraft is also revealed by a Malaysian National Security Council official for the first time. ..."
"... Malaysia's exclusion from the JIT at the outset, and Belgium's inclusion (4 Belgian nationals were listed on the MH17 passenger manifest), have never been explained. ..."
"... The film reveals the Malaysian Government's evidence for judging the JIT's witness testimony, photographs, video clips, and telephone tapes to have been manipulated by the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU), and to be inadmissible in a criminal prosecution in a Malaysian or other national or international court. ..."
"... The new film reveals that a secret Malaysian military operation took custody of the MH17 black boxes on July 22, preventing the US and Ukraine from seizing them. The Malaysian operation, revealed in the film by the Malaysian Army colonel who led it, eliminated the evidence for the camouflage story, reinforcing the German Government's opposition to the armed attack, and forcing the Dutch to call off the invasion on July 27. ..."
"... Although German opposition to military intervention forced its cancellation, the Australians sent a 200-man special forces unit to The Netherlands and then Kiev. The European Union and the US followed with economic sanctions against Russia on July 29. ..."
"... In Kiev on July 24, 2014, left to right: Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop; Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin. Source: https://www.alamy.com/ The NATO intervention plan was still under discussion, but the black boxes were already under Malaysian control. ..."
"... Subsequent releases from the Kiev government to substantiate the allegation of Russian involvement in the shoot-down have included telephone tape recordings. These were presented last month by the JIT as their evidence for indictment of four Russians; for details, read this . ..."
"... Left: Dutch police chief Paulissen grins as he acknowledged during the June 19, 2019 , press conference of JIT that the telephone tape evidence on which the charges against the four accused Russians came from the Ukrainian SBU. ..."
"... Dubinsky testifies that he had no orders for and took no part in the shoot-down. As for the telephone tape-recording evidence against him, Dubinsky says the calls were made days before July 17, and edited by the SBU. ..."
"... She did not see a launch nor a plume from there. Notice the JIT 'launch site' is less than two kilometers from her house and garden. The BBC omitted this crucial part of her testimony." ..."
"... According to Kovalenko in the new documentary, at the firing location she has now identified precisely, "at that moment the Ukrainian Army were there." ..."
"... Volkov explained that on July 17 there were three radar units at Chuguev on "full alert" because "fighter jets were taking off from there;" Chuguev is 200 kilometres northwest of the crash site. He disputed that the repairs to one unit meant none of the three was operating. Ukrainian radar records of the location and time of the MH17 attack were made and kept, Volkov said. "There [they] have it. In Ukraine they have it." ..."
"... Last month, at the JIT press conference in The Netherlands on June 19, the Malaysian representative present, Mohammed Hanafiah Bin Al Zakaria, one of three Solicitors-General of the Malaysian Attorney General's ministry, refused to endorse for the Malaysian Governnment the JIT evidence or its charges against Russia. "Malaysia would like to reiterate our commitment to the JIT seeking justice for the victims," Zakaria said . "The objective of the JIT is to complete the investigations and gathering of evidence of all witnesses for the purpose of prosecuting the wrongdoers and Malaysia stands by the rule of law and the due process." [Question: do you support the conclusions?] "Part of the conclusions [inaudible] – do not change our positions." ..."
"... Why is the transcript of the Cockpit Voice Recorder kept a secret (see e.g. here for others)? ..."
"... Why is no journalist raising these questions? ..."
"... Bellingcat? The fellow using the pseudonym is called Eliot Higgins and hails from the Midlands, not far from the Jihadist masquerading as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights above a take away shop. He was a regular BTL commentator at the Grauniad before being paid to spout BS. Nice work if one can get it, eh? ..."
"... That territory where the missile was fired from was in Ukrainian hands at the time, not rebels, and those launchers were seen speeding rapidly west after the shooting down. ..."
"... Now that we have the crime and the five-year cover-up, the simplest explanation is actually the one of a likely false flag operation. Asking 'cui bono,' how would Russia or the rebels benefit from shooting down a plane with bunch of Dutch people on board? (Russia historically has had good relations with Holland, Malaysia, too.) ..."
"... Lots of terrible stuff happened in Ukraine after the govt changed (courtesy of the west). Have we forgotten about the burning of more than 40 people in Odessa? Or the murders of politicians and journalists? ..."
"... And let's not forget the appearance of (coordinated) magazine covers of VVP as the devil incarnate – almost in unison, right after the shooting of the plane. ..."
"... "Why are you so late", [Borodai] said I think [that was] very funny." That sounds like what happened at the Pan Am 103 site. For some reason yet to be explained over thirty years later, the Royal Air Force air accident investigation team, based at RAF Halton in Buckinghamshire, found an American military team on site when they landed by helicopter a bit before midnight. ..."
"... I was following this story very closely at the time and you could see that something was "off" within days. The Russians came out with a press conference and released radar tracks and full & total information. We in the west got – a YouTube link. Seriously. This was just the beginning. There was one clip that came out showing moving trucks that proved that the Russians did it – until someone woke up to the fact that the trees in the background were in the winter season whereas that jet was shot down in high summer. And so it went on. ..."
"... Another time an official visit had to be cancelled as the area was being shelled – by the Ukrainians. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to realize that there was a whole pack of dogs that were seriously not barking. ..."
"... That story about Australia wanting to send 3,000 troops was weird. That is a very large force for Australia and it would have taken weeks to put together a joint US/Dutch/Australian Task Force to go into the rebel area but you would have been talking about heavy casualties and risks of severe escalation with a nuclear Russia. ..."
"... Yeah, I remember watching those films. I saw this big, bearded rebel pick up a child's doll, showed it to the camera as in "Do you see this s***?", put it reverently back where he found it, and then crossed himself in a Orthodox blessing. So the western media took a screen shot of that rebel holding that child's doll and put a caption underneath that the rebel was boasting of the plane being shot down. As for that footage, I live in Oz and I am here to state that I would sooner trust CNN or Fox News before would I put any trust in News Corp Australia, especially their propaganda unit "60 Minutes Australia". ..."
"... If memory serves the late Robert Parry of Consortium News claimed to have USG sources who said the missile was a Buk fired by Ukrainian, not separatist troops. And I believe that Russia has said the rocket engine serial number from the investigation's evidence is for a Buk sold long ago to the Ukrainians. ..."
"... The good news is that the criminal coup regime in Kiev seems to have been decisively defeated with Sunday's election according to MOA in Links. Perhaps this particular branch of the New Cold War–which the Obama regime was so very much responsible for–will begin to find peace. ..."
Yves here. Hoo boy. The idea that eastern Ukrainian insurgents or Russia would target a passenger plane never made any sense (unless
the plane had high-priority targets or cargo), although it's always been possible that the downing of MH17 was an accident, and some
efforts to explain what happened are based on that idea. For Malaysia, starting with Prime Minister Mahathir, to stand up and
say the US tried to cook the record to pin the crash on Russia is remarkable.
A new documentary from Max van der Werff, the leading independent investigator of the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 disaster,
has revealed breakthrough evidence of tampering and forging of prosecution materials; suppression of Ukrainian Air Force radar tapes;
and lying by the Dutch, Ukrainian, US and Australian governments. An attempt by agents of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) to take possession of the black boxes of the downed aircraft is also revealed by a Malaysian National Security Council official
for the first time.
The sources of the breakthrough are Malaysian -- Prime Minister of Malaysia Mohamad Mahathir; Colonel Mohamad Sakri, the officer
in charge of the MH17 investigation for the Prime Minister's Department and Malaysia's National Security Council following the crash
on July 17, 2014; and a forensic analysis by Malaysia's OG IT Forensic Services of Ukrainian Secret Service (SBU) telephone tapes
which Dutch prosecutors have announced as genuine.
The 298 casualties of MH17 included 192 Dutch; 44 Malaysians; 27 Australians; 15 Indonesians. The nationality counts vary because
the airline manifest does
not identify dual nationals of Australia, the UK, and the US.
The new film throws the full weight of the Malaysian Government, one of the five members of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT),
against the published findings and the recent indictment of Russian suspects reported by the Dutch officials in charge of the JIT;
in addition to Malaysia and The Netherlands, the members of the JIT are Australia, Ukraine and Belgium. Malaysia's exclusion
from the JIT at the outset, and Belgium's inclusion (4 Belgian nationals were listed on the MH17 passenger manifest), have never
been explained.
The film reveals the Malaysian Government's evidence for judging the JIT's witness testimony, photographs, video clips, and
telephone tapes to have been manipulated by the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU), and to be inadmissible in a criminal prosecution
in a Malaysian or other national or international court.
For the first time also, the Malaysian Government reveals how it got in the way of attempts the US was organizing during the first
week after the crash to launch a NATO military attack on eastern Ukraine. The cover story for that was to rescue the plane, passenger
bodies, and evidence of what had caused the crash. In fact, the operation was aimed at defeating the separatist movements in the
Donbass, and to move against Russian-held Crimea.
The new film reveals that a secret Malaysian military operation took custody of the MH17 black boxes on July 22, preventing
the US and Ukraine from seizing them. The Malaysian operation, revealed in the film by the Malaysian Army colonel who led it, eliminated
the evidence for the camouflage story, reinforcing the German Government's opposition to the armed attack, and forcing the Dutch
to call off the invasion on July 27.
The 28-minute documentary by Max van der Werff and Yana Yerlashova has just been released. Yerlashova was the film director and
co-producer with van der Werff and Ahmed Rifazal. Vitaly Biryaukov directed the photography. Watch it in full
here .
The full interview with Prime Minister Mahathir was released in advance; it can be viewed and read
here .
Mahathir reveals why the US, Dutch and Australian governments attempted to exclude Malaysia from membership of the JIT in the
first months of the investigation. During that period, US, Dutch, Australian and NATO officials initiated a plan for 9,000 troops
to enter eastern Ukraine, ostensibly to secure the crash scene, the aircraft and passenger remains, and in response to the alleged
Russian role in the destruction of MH17 on July 17; for details of that scheme, read
this .
Although German opposition to military intervention forced its cancellation, the Australians sent a 200-man special forces
unit to The Netherlands and then Kiev. The European Union and the US followed with economic sanctions against Russia on July 29.
Malaysian resistance to the US attempts to blame Moscow for the aircraft shoot-down was made clear in the first hours after
the incident to then-President Barack Obama by Malaysia's Prime Minister at the time, Najib Razak. That story can be followed
here and
here .
In an unusual decision to speak in the new documentary, Najib's successor Prime Minister Mahathir announced: "They never allowed
us to be involved from the very beginning. This is unfair and unusual. So we can see they are not really looking at the causes of
the crash and who was responsible. But already they have decided it must be Russia. So we cannot accept that kind of attitude. We
are interested in the rule of law, in justice for everyone irrespective of who is involved. We have to know who actually fired the
missile, and only then can we accept the report as the complete truth."
On July 18, in the first Malaysian Government press conference after the shoot-down, Najib (right)
announced agreements he had already
reached by telephone with Obama and Petro Poroshenko, the Ukrainian President. " 'Obama and I agreed that the investigation will
not be hidden and the international teams have to be given access to the crash scene.' [Najib] said the Ukrainian president has
pledged that there would be a full, thorough and independent investigation and Malaysian officials would be invited to take part.
'He also confirmed that his government will negotiate with rebels in the east of the country in order to establish a humanitarian
corridor to the crash site,' said Najib. He also said that no one should remove any debris or the black box from the scene. The Government
of Malaysia is dispatching a special flight to Kiev, carrying a Special Malaysia Disaster Assistance and Rescue Team, as well as
a medical team. But we must – and we will – find out precisely what happened to this flight. No stone can be left unturned."
The new film reveals in an interview with Colonel Mohamad Sakri, the head of the Malaysian team, what happened next. Sakri's evidence,
filmed in his office at Putrajaya, is the first to be reported by the press outside Malaysia in five years. A year ago, Sakri gave
a partial account of his mission to a Malaysian
newspaper .
"I talked to my prime minister [Najib]," Colonel Sakri says. "He directed me to go to the crash site immediately." At the time
Sakri was a senior security official at the Disaster Management Division of the Prime Minister's Department. Sakri says that after
arriving in Kiev, Poroshenko's officials blocked the Malaysians. "We were not allowed to go there so I took a small team to leave
Kiev going to Donetsk secretly." There Sakri toured the crash site, and met with officials of the Donetsk separatist administration
headed by Alexander Borodai .
With eleven men, including two medical specialists, a signalman, and Malaysian Army commandos, Sakri had raced to the site ahead
of an armed convoy of Australian, Dutch and Ukrainian government men. The latter were blocked by Donetsk separatist units. The Australian
state press agency ABC
reported their
military convoy, prodded from Kiev by the appearance of Australian and Dutch foreign ministers Julie Bishop and Frans Timmermans,
had been forced to abandon their mission. That was after Colonel Sakri had taken custody of the MH17 black boxes in a handover ceremony
filmed at Borodai's office in Donetsk on July 22.
US sources told the
Wall Street
Journal at the time "the [Sakri] mission's success delivered a political victory for Mr. Najib's government it also handed
a gift to the rebels in the form of an accord, signed by the top Malaysian official present in Donetsk, calling the crash site 'the
territory of the Donetsk People's Republic.' That recognition could antagonize Kiev and Washington, which have striven not to give
any credibility to the rebels, whose main leaders are Russian citizens with few ties to the area. State Department deputy spokeswoman
Marie Harf said in a briefing Monday that the negotiation 'in no way legitimizes' separatists."
The Australian state radio then reported the Ukrainian government as claiming the black box evidence showed "the reason for the
destruction and crash of the plane was massive explosive decompression arising from multiple shrapnel perforations from a rocket
explosion." This was a fabrication – the evidence of the black boxes, the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder, first
reported six weeks later in September by the Dutch Safety Board, showed nothing of the kind; read what their evidence
revealed .
Foreign Minister Bishop, in Kiev on July 24, claimed she was negotiating with the Ukrainians for the Australian team in the country
to carry arms. "I don't envisage that we will ever resort to [arms]," she told her state news agency, "but it is a contingency planning,
and you would be reckless not to include it in this kind of agreement. But I stress our mission is unarmed because it is [a] humanitarian
mission."
In Kiev on July 24, 2014, left to right: Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop; Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans,
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin. Source:
https://www.alamy.com/ The NATO intervention plan was still under discussion, but the black boxes were already under Malaysian
control.
By the time she spoke to her state radio, Bishop was concealing that the plan for armed intervention, including 3,000 Australian
troops, had been called off. She was also concealing that the black boxes were already in Colonel Sakri's possession.
The document signed by Sakri for the handover of the black boxes is visible in the new documentary. Sakri signed himself and added
the stamp of the National Security Council of Malaysia.
Col. Sakri says on film the Donetsk leaders expressed surprise at the delay of the Malaysians in arriving at the crash site
to recover the black boxes. "Why are you so late", [Borodai] said I think [that was] very funny." Source:
https://www.youtube.com/ Min. 05:47.
Sakri goes on to say he was asked by the OSCE's special
monitoring mission for Ukraine to hand over
the black boxes; he refused. He was then met by agents of the FBI (Min 6:56). "They approached me to show them the black box. I said
no." He also reports that in Kiev the Ukrainian Government tried "forcing me to leave the black boxes with them. We said no. We cannot.
We cannot allow."
The handover ceremony in Donetsk, July 22, 2014: on far left, the two black boxes from MH17; in the centre, shaking hands,
Alexander Borodai and Mohamad Sakri.
Permission for Colonel Sakri to speak to the press has been authorized by his superiors at the prime ministry in Putrajaya, and
his disclosures agreed with them in advance.
Subsequent releases from the Kiev government to substantiate the allegation of Russian involvement in the shoot-down have
included telephone tape recordings. These were presented last month by the JIT as their evidence for indictment of four Russians;
for details, read
this .
Van der Werff and Yerlashova contracted with OG IT Forensic Services
, a Malaysian firm specializing in forensic analysis of audio, video and digital materials for court proceedings, to examine
the telephone tapes. The Kuala Lumpur firm has been endorsed by the
Malaysian Bar . The full 143-page technical report can be read
here .
The findings reported by Akash Rosen and illustrated on camera are that the telephone recordings have been cut, edited and fabricated.
The source of the tapes, according to the
JIT press conference on June 19 by Dutch police officer Paulissen, head of the National Criminal Investigation Service of The
Netherlands, was the Ukrainian SBU. Similar findings of tape fabrication and evidence tampering are reported on camera in the van
der Werff film by a German analyst, Norman Ritter.
Left: Dutch police chief Paulissen grins as he acknowledged during the
June 19, 2019 , press conference of
JIT that the telephone tape evidence on which the charges against the four accused Russians came from the Ukrainian SBU.
Minute 16:02 Right: Norman Ritter presented his analysis to interviewer Billy Sixt to show the telephone tape evidence has
been forged in nine separate "manipulations". One of the four accused by the JIT last month, Sergei Dubinsky, testifies from Min.
17 of the documentary. He says his men recovered the black boxes from the crash site and delivered them to Borodai at 23:00 hours
on July 17; the destruction of the aircraft occurred at 1320.
Dubinsky testifies that he had no orders for and took no part in the shoot-down. As for the telephone tape-recording evidence
against him, Dubinsky says the calls were made days before July 17, and edited by the SBU. "I dare them to publish the uncut
conversations, and then you will get a real picture of what was discussed." (Min. 17:59).
Van der Werff and Yerlashova filmed at the crash site in eastern Ukraine. Several local witnesses were interviewed, including
a man named Alexander from Torez town, and Valentina Kovalenko, a woman from the farming village of Red October. The man said the
missile equipment alleged by the JIT to have been transported from across the Russian border on July 17 was in Torez at least one,
possibly two days before the shoot-down on July 17; he did not confirm details the JIT has identified as a Buk system.
Kovalenko, first portrayed in a BBC documentary three
years ago (starting at Min.26:50) as a "unique" eye-witness to the missile launch, clarifies more precisely than the BBC reported
where the missile she saw had been fired from.
This was not the location identified in press statements by JIT. Van der Werff explains: "we specifically asked [Kovalenko] to
point exactly in the direction the missile came from. I then asked twice if maybe it was from the direction of the JIT launch site.
She did not see a launch nor a plume from there. Notice the JIT 'launch site' is less than two kilometers from her house and
garden. The BBC omitted this crucial part of her testimony."
According to Kovalenko in the new documentary, at the firing location she has now identified precisely, "at that moment the
Ukrainian Army were there."
Kovalenko also remembers that on the days preceding the July 17 missile firing she witnessed, there had been Ukrainian military
aircraft operating in the sky above her village. She says they used evasion techniques including flying in the shadow of civilian
aircraft she also saw at the same time.
On July 17, three other villagers told van der Werff they had seen a Ukrainian military jet in the vicinity and at the time of
the MH17 crash.
Concluding the documentary, van der Werff and Yerlashova present an earlier interview filmed in Donetsk by independent Dutch journalist
Stefan Beck, whom JIT officials had tried to warn off visiting the area. Beck interviewed Yevgeny Volkov, who was an air controller
for the Ukrainian Air Force in July 2014. Volkov was asked to comment on Ukrainian Government statements, endorsed by the Dutch Safety
Board report into the crash and in subsequent reports by the JIT, that there were no radar records of the airspace at the time of
the shoot-down because Ukrainian military radars were not operational.
Volkov explained that on July 17 there were three radar units at Chuguev on "full alert" because "fighter jets were taking
off from there;" Chuguev is 200 kilometres northwest of the crash site. He disputed that the repairs to one unit meant none of the
three was operating. Ukrainian radar records of the location and time of the MH17 attack were made and kept, Volkov said. "There
[they] have it. In Ukraine they have it."
Last month, at the JIT press conference in The Netherlands on June 19, the Malaysian representative present, Mohammed Hanafiah
Bin Al Zakaria, one of three Solicitors-General of the Malaysian Attorney General's ministry, refused to endorse for the Malaysian
Governnment the JIT evidence or its charges against Russia. "Malaysia would like to reiterate our commitment to the JIT seeking justice
for the victims," Zakaria
said . "The objective of the JIT is to complete the investigations and gathering of evidence of all witnesses for the purpose
of prosecuting the wrongdoers and Malaysia stands by the rule of law and the due process." [Question: do you support the conclusions?]
"Part of the conclusions [inaudible] – do not change our positions."
By John Helmer , the longest continuously serving foreign
correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties.
Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia.
He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published
at
Dances with Bears
I always come back to the same three questions:
1. If all civilian and military radars were out of order, why was the flight not redirected out of the Ukrainian airspace and
into some territory with radar?
2. Why is the transcript of the Cockpit Voice Recorder kept a secret (see e.g.
here for others)?
3. Why is no journalist raising these questions?
(I got a partial answer to 3. "because only Kremlin trolls and conspiracy specialists doubt the official/Bellingcat version")
Re 1) active radar is not used that much in civilian flight control anymore, it's basically a back-up for passive transponder
pick up. Dnipro Control was monitoring the flight using passive (that's for example how they knew they were off their approved
airway L980 and asked them to get back, which, if there was no radar, they could not do). Passive (civilian) radar is no use in
tracking missiles or military planes with no transporder on.
Bellingcat? The fellow using the pseudonym is called Eliot Higgins and hails from the Midlands, not far from the Jihadist
masquerading as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights above a take away shop. He was a regular BTL commentator at the Grauniad
before being paid to spout BS. Nice work if one can get it, eh?
Having grown up in a military family and knowing what precautions are taken, I am staggered at how Bell End Cat can track down
Russian secret servicemen with such ease and in their homeland.
If you watch the film, you'd learn that there were back-ups so not all were out of order. And if we knew the answer to your
questions, we'd likely know 'who done it.'
Undoubtedly there's something quite rotten afoot here, and I'll be sure to give this film a watch, but honestly the Malaysians
have zero credibility when it comes to airplane crashes involving their national airline, especially after they deliberately fed
false information to rescue and recovery teams concerning MH 370's flight path. Whatever they knew or didn't know they had no
interest in helping anyone find that airplane or discover what took place onboard before it vanished. They should spare us all
any sanctimony about 'justice for victims, truth, rule of law, etc.'
It seems the world has a real credibility crisis today, not many state actors I trust to tell the truth or not politicize tragedy.
These revelations certainly make it seem more likely Ukrainian forces were to blame for downing MH17, but at this point the mystery
will never be conclusively solved. Two warring factions with the exact same equipment/weaponry in close proximity, compromised
crash sites, tons of propaganda, lots of interested parties seeking to maximize the tragedy for political gain, corrupt authorities
all around.
Not an ideal situation for objective fact finding to say the least. With the 1MBD scandal and investigation still ongoing I
have no doubts the Malaysians are probably looking for leverage and bargaining chips where ever they can find them, further eroding
their objectivity and authority in my opinion. Getting to the bottom of the Kennedy assassination will be easier than MH17, but
if the truth does come out it will not be owed to the virtues of the Malaysian government. They've already shown the world how
much they care about airplane crash investigations.
I have to tell you, this is an ad hominem argument, which is a violation of our site Policies. You need to deal with the evidence
and not attack the source. With MH370, you had a crash of a plane under the control of the carrier, not as a result of an air
strike.
Quite apart from the ad hominem nature of JerryDenim's comment (and I disagree with Yves Smith; I think the credibility of
sources is relevant), what motive would Malaysia have for siding with Russia/east Ukraine against the west/west Ukraine? Does
JerryDenim know of one, or have any suggestions?
TBH, I have dire doubts on anything Malaysian government says, due to their handling of MH370 where they continue lying in
face of hard facts (that doesn't mean I believe any governments on this).
I believe that the most likely cause is an accidental shooting down, where an inexperienced and untrained separatist crew messed
up (this is what you get when even a semi-sophisticated equipment gets to untrained people who are keen to use it).
For me it fits Occam's razor the most, and is the only theory which explains the (documented) boasting of the separatists of
a large military plane being shot down immediately after the catastrophe.
How is "Russia did it" logical? That part of Ukraine was in the hands of separatists, not "Russia". "Russia" was not directing
their activities. Russia does not want to control the eastern part of Ukraine, which is an economic basket case. But it doesn't
want hostile forces parked on its border.
Sorry, that's irrelevant even if true. Even if "Russia" was formally providing troops, as opposed to engaged in a massive wink
and nod (a LOT of Russians had relatives in eastern Ukraine, a point you forget re motives and numbers), that's way way way short
of any evidence they were in charge.
Plus I was wrong on the key point, and it renders your argument moot. From Rev Kev below:
That territory where the missile was fired from was in Ukrainian hands at the time, not rebels, and those launchers were
seen speeding rapidly west after the shooting down.
This response is non-sensical. Have you been to the cemeteries you mention? Any picture can be posted and a caption written
– that is no proof of anything. Besides the point being irrelevant to the question of who shot down the plane.
Now that we have the crime and the five-year cover-up, the simplest explanation is actually the one of a likely false flag
operation. Asking 'cui bono,' how would Russia or the rebels benefit from shooting down a plane with bunch of Dutch people on
board? (Russia historically has had good relations with Holland, Malaysia, too.)
Lots of terrible stuff happened in Ukraine after the govt changed (courtesy of the west). Have we forgotten about the burning
of more than 40 people in Odessa? Or the murders of politicians and journalists?
I suppose if one believes the West's preferred version of Putin as some Bond type villain who takes great delight in shooting
down planes full of civilians, presumably while stroking a large white cat then I suppose the he dunnit version is the one for
you.
Personally I believe that Putin is not an idiot & would likely have been more interested in putting out that fire than throwing
more fuel onto it. As for who has any credibility – the Ukrainians under Porkyschenko with their Neo-Nazi element, would I think
be at the bottom of my list & that is without mentioning Neo-Cons with their Noble Lie BS.
And let's not forget the appearance of (coordinated) magazine covers of VVP as the devil incarnate – almost in unison, right
after the shooting of the plane.
"Why are you so late", [Borodai] said I think [that was] very funny." That sounds like what happened at the Pan Am 103
site. For some reason yet to be explained over thirty years later, the Royal Air Force air accident investigation team, based
at RAF Halton in Buckinghamshire, found an American military team on site when they landed by helicopter a bit before midnight.
The US team took charge even though they were on foreign soil.
That was a pretty gutsy move on the Malaysians to send in their own retrieval team for those recorders. I bet that those Malaysian
commandos would have a story to tell or two. The danger wasn't from the rebels however but from the west and their allied Ukrainians.
The rebels were more than glad to hand over the records that they found at first opportunity but the information, once in the
hands of the west, has been seeping out with all the speed of the translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
I was following this story very closely at the time and you could see that something was "off" within days. The Russians
came out with a press conference and released radar tracks and full & total information. We in the west got – a YouTube link.
Seriously. This was just the beginning. There was one clip that came out showing moving trucks that proved that the Russians did
it – until someone woke up to the fact that the trees in the background were in the winter season whereas that jet was shot down
in high summer. And so it went on.
There was a very slow walk to stop people going to the crash site. One Australian couple who lost someone went there in spite
of the efforts of our government to stop them.Another time an official visit had to be cancelled as the area was
being shelled – by the Ukrainians. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to realize that there was a whole pack of dogs that were
seriously not barking. A link from this page talks about how there is a silence when MH17 got hit. I have heard recordings
of aircraft that went down and there is usually something – a bang, crumpling, warning calls, shouts – but here there was nothing.
That story about Australia wanting to send 3,000 troops was weird. That is a very large force for Australia and it would
have taken weeks to put together a joint US/Dutch/Australian Task Force to go into the rebel area but you would have been talking
about heavy casualties and risks of severe escalation with a nuclear Russia. Having said that, Tony Abbott was Prime Minister
of the time and Julie Bishop was his Foreign minister and they are both hard right politicians (now both thankfully gone) and
may have been entertaining such thoughts.
My belief is that this was an operation to try and retrieve the situation in the Ukraine for the west. The US alone spent over
$5 billion on this coup but Russia grabbed the crown jewels of Crimea (with its naval bases & off-shore gas fields) and eastern
Ukraine which has a border with Russia. That territory where the missile was fired from was in Ukrainian hands at the time, not
rebels, and those launchers were seen speeding rapidly west after the shooting down. Ask yourself – who benefited from this tragedy
and that will tell you where to go looking for answers. Maybe, like happened with the Meuller investigation, Russian legal representations
should show up in a court of law and start demanding the discovery process of all the evidence. Now that could get interesting.
Rebels were the first to respond to the crash scene, recording themselves with a camcorder. The rebels were convinced they
had shot down a Ukrainian fighter jet and were searching for a pilot that would have ejected. The rebels then thought a
fighter downed the airliner and they downed the fighter. Their commander speaking in both Russian and Ukrainian tells the
rebels to stop filming and clear the area of civilians. The footage was aired by News Corp Australia.
Yeah, I remember watching those films. I saw this big, bearded rebel pick up a child's doll, showed it to the camera as
in "Do you see this s***?", put it reverently back where he found it, and then crossed himself in a Orthodox blessing. So the
western media took a screen shot of that rebel holding that child's doll and put a caption underneath that the rebel was boasting
of the plane being shot down. As for that footage, I live in Oz and I am here to state that I would sooner trust CNN or Fox News
before would I put any trust in News Corp Australia, especially their propaganda unit "60 Minutes Australia".
If memory serves the late Robert Parry of Consortium News claimed to have USG sources who said the missile was a Buk fired
by Ukrainian, not separatist troops. And I believe that Russia has said the rocket engine serial number from the investigation's
evidence is for a Buk sold long ago to the Ukrainians.
Of course Western sources will say the Russians have no credibility but then they don't either–the fog of propaganda war.
The good news is that the criminal coup regime in Kiev seems to have been decisively defeated with Sunday's election according
to MOA in Links. Perhaps this particular branch of the New Cold War–which the Obama regime was so very much responsible for–will
begin to find peace.
"... "President Trump's Cabinet is already rife with corruption, stocked full of former lobbyists and other private industry power players who don't seem to mind leveraging their government positions to enrich themselves personally. Esper should fit right in," ..."
"... The linkage between officials in US government, the Pentagon and private manufacturers is a notorious example of "revolving door". It is not unusual, or even remarkable, that individuals go from one sector to another and vice versa. That crony relationship is fundamental to the functioning of the "military-industrial complex" which dominates the entire American economy and the fiscal budget ($730 billion annually – half the total discretionary public spend by federal government). ..."
"... Raytheon is a $25 billion company whose business is all about selling missile-defense systems. Its products have been deployed in dozens of countries, including in the Middle East, as well as Japan, Romania and, as of next year, Poland. It is in Raytheon's vital vested interest to capitalize on alleged security threats from Iran, Russia, China and North Korea in order to sell "defense" systems to nations that then perceive a "threat" and need to be "protected". ..."
"... It is a certainty that Esper shares the same worldview, not just for engrained ideological reasons, but also because of his own personal motives for self-aggrandizement as a former employee of Raytheon and quite possibly as a future board member when he retires from the Pentagon. ..."
"... It is also about how US foreign policy and military decisions are formulated and executed, including decisions on matters of conflict and ultimately war. The insidiousness is almost farcical, if the implications weren't so disturbing, worthy of satire from the genre of Dr Strangelove or Catch 22. ..."
"... During senate hearings this week, Esper openly revealed his dubious quality of thinking and the kind of policies he will pursue as Pentagon chief. He told credulous senators that Russia was to blame for the collapse of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. That equates to more Raytheon profits from selling defense systems in Europe. ..."
"... It is ludicrous how blatant a so-called democratic nation (the self-declared "leader of the free world") is in actuality an oligarchic corporate state whose international relations are conducted on the basis of making obscene profits from conflict and war. ..."
Mark Esper is expected to be confirmed in coming days as the new US Secretary of Defense. His appointment is awaiting final Congressional
approval after customary hearings this week before senators. The 55-year-old nominee put forward by President Trump was previously
a decorated Lieutenant Colonel and has served in government office during the GW Bush administration.
But what stands out as his most conspicuous past occupation is working for seven years as a senior lobbyist for Raytheon, the
US' third biggest military manufacturing company. The firm specializes in missile-defense systems, including the Patriot, Iron Dome
and the Aegis Ashore system (the latter in partnership with Lockheed Martin).
As Defense Secretary, Esper will be the most senior civilian executive member of the US government, next to the president, on
overseeing military policy, including decisions about declaring war and deployment of American armed forces around the globe. His
military counterpart at the Pentagon is Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, currently held by Marine General Joseph Dunford who
is expected to be replaced soon by General Mark Milley (also in the process of senate hearings).
Esper's confirmation hearings this week were pretty much a rubber-stamp procedure, receiving lame questioning from senators about
his credentials and viewpoints. The only exception was Senator Elizabeth Warren, who
slammed
the potential "conflict of interest" due to his past lobbying service for Raytheon. She said it "smacks of corruption". Other than
her solitary objection, Esper was treated with kid gloves by other senators and his appointment is expected to be whistled through
by next week. During hearings, the former lobbyist even pointedly refused to recuse himself of any matters involving Raytheon if
he becomes the defense boss.
As Rolling Stone magazine
quipped
on Esper's nomination, "it is as swampy as you'd expect".
"President Trump's Cabinet is already rife with corruption, stocked full of former lobbyists and other private industry
power players who don't seem to mind leveraging their government positions to enrich themselves personally. Esper should fit right
in," wrote Rolling Stone.
The linkage between officials in US government, the Pentagon and private manufacturers is a notorious example of "revolving
door". It is not unusual, or even remarkable, that individuals go from one sector to another and vice versa. That crony relationship
is fundamental to the functioning of the "military-industrial complex" which dominates the entire American economy and the fiscal
budget ($730 billion annually – half the total discretionary public spend by federal government).
Nevertheless, Esper is a particularly brazen embodiment of the revolving-door's seamless connection.
Raytheon is a $25 billion company whose business is all about selling missile-defense systems. Its products have been deployed
in dozens of countries, including in the Middle East, as well as Japan, Romania and, as of next year, Poland. It is in Raytheon's
vital vested interest to capitalize on alleged security threats from Iran, Russia, China and North Korea in order to sell "defense"
systems to nations that then perceive a "threat" and need to be "protected".
It is a certainty that Esper shares the same worldview, not just for engrained ideological reasons, but also because of his own
personal motives for self-aggrandizement as a former employee of Raytheon and quite possibly as a future board member when he retires
from the Pentagon. The issue is not just merely about corruption and ethics, huge that those concerns are.
It is also about how US
foreign policy and military decisions are formulated and executed, including decisions on matters of conflict and ultimately war.
The insidiousness is almost farcical, if the implications weren't so disturbing, worthy of satire from the genre of Dr Strangelove
or Catch 22.
How is Esper's advice to the president about tensions with Russia, Iran, China or North Korea, or any other alleged adversary,
supposed to be independent, credible or objective? Esper is a de facto lobbyist for the military-industrial complex sitting in the
Oval Office and Situation Room. Tensions, conflict and war are meat and potatoes to this person.
During senate hearings this week, Esper openly revealed his dubious quality of thinking and the kind of policies he will pursue
as Pentagon chief. He told credulous senators that Russia was to blame for the collapse of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces
(INF) Treaty. That equates to more Raytheon profits from selling defense systems in Europe. Also, in a clumsy inadvertent admission
he advised that the US needs to get out of the INF in order to develop medium-range missiles to "counter China". The latter admission
explains the cynical purpose for why the Trump administration unilaterally ditched the INF earlier this year. It is not about alleged
Russian breaches of the treaty; the real reason is for the US to obtain a freer hand to confront China.
It is ludicrous how blatant a so-called democratic nation (the self-declared "leader of the free world") is in actuality an oligarchic
corporate state whose international relations are conducted on the basis of making obscene profits from conflict and war.
Little wonder then than bilateral relations between the US and Russia are in such dire condition. Trump's soon-to-be top military
advisor Mark Esper is not going to make bilateral relations any better, that's for sure.
Also at a precarious time of possible war with Iran, the last person Trump should consult is someone whose corporate cronies are
craving for more weapons sales. The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture
Foundation.
Looks like Mueller and his team were extremely sloppy and just milked the US government and try to feed rumors to the media.
Mueller emerged as a stooge of Clinton mafia.
Notable quotes:
"... In short, the US Government cannot come out and declare that Concord Management, for example, was acting on behalf or or in collaboration with the Russian Government without presenting actual evidence. A prosecutor cannot simply claim that Concord is a Putin Stooge. ..."
"... The lawyers for Concord Management read the Mueller report and noted significant discrepancies between what was alleged in the original complaint and what was asserted as "fact" in the Mueller report. ..."
"... On April 25, 2019, Concord filed the instant motion in which it argues that the Attorney General and Special Counsel violated Local Rule 57.7 by releasing information to the public that was not contained in the indictment. Concord's main contention is that the Special Counsel's Report, as released to the public, and the Attorney General's related public statements improperly suggested a link between the defendants and the Russian government and expressed an opinion about the defendants' guilt and the evidence against them. ..."
"... Concord's lawyers wanted Judge Friedrich to find Robert Mueller and Attorney General Barr in contempt for violating rule 57.7. ..."
"... the Court has entered an order limiting public statements about this case moving forward and cautions the government that any future violations of that order will trigger a range of potential sanctions. ..."
"... But the Judge did not stop there. She pointed out some glaring discrepancies between the Mueller Report and the actual indictment: ..."
"... By attributing IRA's conduct to "Russia" -- as opposed to Russian individuals or entities -- the Report suggests that the activities alleged in the indictment were undertaken on behalf of, if not at the direction of, the Russian government. ..."
"... But the activities of the IRA and Concord Management are not established. In fact, Mueller's own report undermines his claims, as noted in a recent article by Nation's Aaron Mate. ..."
"... Mate's article, as I mentioned in a previous piece, does an excellent job of showing that the Mueller Report is based on heartfelt beliefs but devoid of corroborating evidence. ..."
"... I think Mueller, Weissman, et al did not expect Concord to contest their indictment. They believed they could continue their PR effort that Russia changed the outcome of the election by sending out tweets and Facebook posts without anyone calling them out. ..."
"... The national security surveillance state is only going to get bigger and more powerful. I suppose that is the real competition between the CCP & the USA who can get more totalitarian sooner. ..."
"... a very valuable recent piece in the 'Epoch Times' about the questions that need to be put to Mueller, Jeff Carlson discusses some of the problems relating both to Christopher Steele's involvement with Oleg Deripaska, and the involvement of Fusion GPS with Natalia Veseltnitskaya which led to the Trump Tower meeting. (See https://www.theepochtimes.com/33-key-questions-for-robert-mueller_2988876.html .) ..."
"... Andrew McCarthy, in the 'National Review', picks up one of the most interesting, and puzzling, moments in the fascinating notes by Kathy Kavalec of the conversation she had with Steele when Jonathan Winer brought him to see on her in October 2016. (See https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/oleg-deripaska-fbi-russia-collusion-theory/ ) ..."
"... 'Moreover, by January 2017, F.B.I. agents had tracked down and interviewed one of Mr. Steele's main sources, a Russian speaker from a former Soviet republic who had spent time in the West, according to a Justice Department document obtained by The New York Times and three people familiar with the events. After questioning him, F.B.I. officials came to suspect that the man might have added his own interpretations to reports from his own sources that he passed on to Mr. Steele, calling into question the reliability of the information.' ..."
"... Without wanting to prejudge things, it seems to me quite likely that what Horowitz has been contemplating is a kind of 'limited hangout'. So, the idea could be to suggest that Steele did have sources, that however these were not as reliable as he thought they were, but everything was done in good faith etc etc. In the light of information coming out, including that in the Friedrich ruling, he may however have decided to 'hold his horses.' ..."
"... It is important that the general pattern of assuming that Putin is some kind of omnipotent Sauron-figure, which has clearly left Mueller open to a counter-attack by Concord, was given a classic expression in the testimony which Glenn Simpson gave to the House Intelligence Committee in November 2017. ..."
"... Litvinenko himself, as well as having been a key member of the late Boris Berezovsky's 'information operations team', was an agent, as distinct from an informant, of MI6: accounts differ as to whether Steele was his personal 'handler' (John Sipher), or had never met him (Luke Harding). ..."
"... Also relevant is the fact that Shvets, a fanatical Ukrainian nationalist, and an important figure in the original 'Orange Revolution', was also a key member of Berezovsky's 'information operations' team. ..."
"... The account of his career by the 'New York Times' journalist Barry Meier in his 2016 study 'Missing Man' is a tissue of sleazy evasions, not least in relation to the role of Levinson in 'investigating' the notorious mobster Semion Mogilevich, a key figure in 'information operations' against both Putin and Trump, and also the opponents of Yulia Tymoshenko. ..."
"... A large question involved is how co-operation between not simply elements in MI6 and the CIA, but also in the FBI, with the oligarchs who refused to accept Putin's terms goes back a very long way. ..."
Mueller Does Not Have Evidence That The IRA Was Part of Russian Government Meddling by
Larry C Johnson
In the criminal case against alleged Russian operatives--Internet Research Agency and
Concord Management and Consulting LLC--a Federal judge has declared that Robert Mueller has not
offered one piece of solid evidence that these defendants were involved in any way with the
Government of Russia. I think this is a potential game changer.
The world of law as opposed to the world of intelligence is as different as Mercury and
Mars. The intelligence community aka IC can traffic in rumor and speculation. IC "solid"
intelligence may be nothing more than the strident assertion of a source who lacks actual first
hand knowledge of an event. The legal world does not enjoy that kind of sloppiness. If a
prosecutor makes a claim, i.e., Jack shot Jill, then said prosecutor must show that Jack owned
a firearm that matches the bullets recovered from Jill's body. Then the prosecutor needs to
show that Jack was with Jill when the shooting took place and that forensic evidence recovered
from Jack showed he had fired a firearm. Keep this distinction in mind as you consider what has
transpired in the case against the Internet Research Agency and Concord Management and
Consulting.
To understand why Judge Friedrich ruled as she did you must understand Local Rule 57.7.
That rule: restricts public dissemination of information by attorneys involved in criminal cases where
"there is a reasonable likelihood that such dissemination will interfere with a fair trial or
otherwise prejudice the administration of justice." It also authorizes the court "[i]n a widely
publicized or sensational criminal case" to issue a special order governing extrajudicial
statements and other matters designed to limit publicity that might interfere with the conduct
of a fair trial. . . .
The rule prohibits lawyers associated with the prosecution or defense
from publishing, between the time of the indictment and the commencement of trial, "[a]ny
opinion as to the accused's guilt or innocence or as to the merits of the case or the evidence
in the case."
In short, the US Government cannot come out and declare that Concord Management, for
example, was acting on behalf or or in collaboration with the Russian Government without
presenting actual evidence. A prosecutor cannot simply claim that Concord is a Putin
Stooge.
The lawyers for Concord Management read the Mueller report and noted significant
discrepancies between what was alleged in the original complaint and what was asserted as
"fact" in the Mueller report.
On April 25, 2019, Concord filed the instant motion in which it argues that the Attorney
General and Special Counsel violated Local Rule 57.7 by releasing information to the public
that was not contained in the indictment. Concord's main contention is that the Special
Counsel's Report, as released to the public, and the Attorney General's related public
statements improperly suggested a link between the defendants and the Russian government and
expressed an opinion about the defendants' guilt and the evidence against them.
Concord's lawyers wanted Judge Friedrich to find Robert Mueller and Attorney General Barr in
contempt for violating rule 57.7.
Judge Friedrich gave Concord a partial victory:
Although the Court agrees that the government violated Rule 57.7 , it disagrees that
contempt proceedings are an appropriate response to that violation. Instead, the Court has
entered an order limiting public statements about this case moving forward and cautions the
government that any future violations of that order will trigger a range of potential
sanctions.
But the Judge did not stop there. She pointed out some glaring discrepancies between the
Mueller Report and the actual indictment:
The Special Counsel Report describes efforts by the Russian government to interfere with the
2016 presidential election. . . . But the indictment . . . does not link the defendants to the
Russian government. Save for a single allegation that Concord and Concord Catering had several
"government contracts" (with no further elaboration), id. ¶ 11, the indictment alleges
only private conduct by private actors.
. . . the concluding paragraph of the section of the [Mueller] Report related to Concord
states that the Special Counsel's "investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016
presidential election through the 'active measures' social media campaign carried out by"
Concord's co-defendant, the Internet Research Agency (IRA). By attributing IRA's conduct to
"Russia" -- as opposed to Russian individuals or entities -- the Report suggests that the
activities alleged in the indictment were undertaken on behalf of, if not at the direction of,
the Russian government.
Similarly, the Attorney General drew a link between the Russian government and this case
during a press conference in which he stated that "[t]he Special Counsel's report outlines two
main efforts by the Russian government to influence the 2016 election." . . . The "[f]irst"
involved "efforts by the Internet Research Agency, a Russian company with close ties to the
Russian government, to sow social discord among American voters through disinformation and
social media operations." Id. The "[s]econd" involved "efforts by Russian military officials
associated with the GRU," a Russian intelligence agency, to hack and leak private documents and
emails from the Democratic Party and the Clinton Campaign.
The Report explains that it used the term "established" whenever "substantial, credible
evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with confidence." . . . It then states in its
conclusion that the Special Counsel's "investigation established that Russia interfered in the
2016 presidential election through the 'active measures' social media campaign carried out by
the IRA." In context, this statement characterizes the evidence against the defendants as
"substantial" and "credible," and it provides the Special Counsel's Office's "conclusion" about
what actually occurred.
But the activities of the IRA and Concord Management are not established. In fact, Mueller's
own report undermines his claims, as noted in a recent article by Nation's Aaron Mate. Although
Mueller claims that it was "established that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential
election through the 'active measures' social media campaign carried out by" Concord's
co-defendant, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), he provided no such evidence.
After two years and $35 million, Mueller apparently failed to uncover any direct evidence
linking the Prigozhin-controlled IRA's activities to the Kremlin. His best evidence is that
"[n]umerous media sources have reported on Prigozhin's ties to Putin, and the two have appeared
together in public photographs."
Mate's article, as I mentioned in a previous piece, does an excellent job of showing that
the Mueller Report is based on heartfelt beliefs but devoid of corroborating evidence.
Some readers will insist that Mueller and his team have actual intelligence but cannot put
that in an indictment. Well boys and girls, here is a simple truth--if you cannot produce
evidence that can be presented in court then you do not have a case. There is that part of the
Constitution that allows those accused of a crime to confront their accusers.
Minor quibble: Judge
Friedrich is a woman.
I expect that this will get no play from the MSM, since Judge Friedrich was appointed by
Trump, and "everyone" knows she's just covering up for him.
Under the conditions and in the environment that it was returned, this indictment was
Mueller and his partisan team throwing raw meat fo the media so as to prolong their mission,
nothing more. Once filed, no one involved ever expected to appear in a courtroom to prosecute
anyone, or defend any part of it. It was an abuse of process, pure and simple.
Consider it as a count against Mueller, his competence or his integrity, maybe both. He let
himself become a tool.
Johnson refers to "heartfelt beliefs" but i doubt Mueller believes his own bs. in this i
guess he distinguishes himself from earlier witch-hunters, who apparently sincerely believed
their targets were minions of satan.
I think Mueller, Weissman, et al did not expect Concord to contest their indictment. They
believed they could continue their PR effort that Russia changed the outcome of the election
by sending out tweets and Facebook posts without anyone calling them out.
It seems on the current trajectory both the Trump colluded with Russia and our law
enforcement & IC attempted a soft-coup will die on the vine. The latter because Trump is
unwilling to declassify. It seems for him it was all just another reality TV show and him
tweeting "witch hunt" constantly was what the script called for.
The next time the IC &
law enforcement who now must believe that they are the real power behind the throne decide to
exercise that power it will be a doozie.
The national security surveillance state is only going to get bigger and more powerful. I
suppose that is the real competition between the CCP & the USA who can get more
totalitarian sooner.
I think a large question is raised as to how far the kind of sloppiness in the handling of
evidence which Judge Friedrich identified in the Mueller report may have characterised a
great deal of the treatment of matters to do with the post-Soviet space by the FBI and others
– including almost all MSM journalists – for a very long time.
Unfortunately, one also finds this among some of the most useful critics of 'Russiagate'.
So, for example, in a very valuable recent piece in the 'Epoch Times' about the questions
that need to be put to Mueller, Jeff Carlson discusses some of the problems relating both to
Christopher Steele's involvement with Oleg Deripaska, and the involvement of Fusion GPS with
Natalia Veseltnitskaya which led to the Trump Tower meeting. (See https://www.theepochtimes.com/33-key-questions-for-robert-mueller_2988876.html
.)
He then however goes on to write: 'In other words, not only was the firm that hired
Steele, Fusion GPS, hired by the Russians, but Steele himself was hired directly by the
Russians.'
And Andrew McCarthy, in the 'National Review', picks up one of the most interesting, and
puzzling, moments in the fascinating notes by Kathy Kavalec of the conversation she had with
Steele when Jonathan Winer brought him to see on her in October 2016. (See https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/oleg-deripaska-fbi-russia-collusion-theory/
)
Commenting on the fact that, in her scribbled notes, beside the names of Vladislav Surkov
and Vyacheslav Trubnikov, who are indeed a top Putin adviser and a former SVR chief
respectively, Kavalec writes 'source', McCarthy simply concludes that she meant that he had
said that these were his – indirect – sources, and that this was accurate. And he
goes on to write:
'Deripaska, Surkov, and Trubnikov were not informing on the Kremlin. These are Putin's
guys. They were peddling what the Kremlin wanted the world to believe, and what the Kremlin
shrewdly calculated would sow division in the American body politic. So, the question is: Did
they find the perfect patsy in Christopher Steele?'
If you look at Kavalec's typing up of the notes, among a good deal of what looks to me
like pure 'horse manure' – including the claim that 'Manafort has been the go-between
with the campaign' – the single reference to Surkov and Trubnikov is that they are said
to be 'also involved.'
As it happens, Surkov is a very complex figure indeed. His talents as a 'political
technologist' were first identified by Khodorkovsky, before he subsequently played that role
for Putin. It would obviously be possible that he and Steele still had common contacts.
The suggestion in Kavalec's notes that Sergei Millian 'may be involved in some way,' and
also that, 'Per Steele, Millian is connected Simon Kukes (who took over management of Yukos
when Khodorkovsky was arrested)' is interesting, but would seem to suggest that he would not
have been cited to Kavalec as an intermediary.
All this is obviously worth putting together with claims made in the 'New York Times'
follow-up on 9 July to the Reuters report on the same day breaking the story of the
interviews carried out with Steele by the Inspector General's team in early June.
'Moreover, by January 2017, F.B.I. agents had tracked down and interviewed one of Mr.
Steele's main sources, a Russian speaker from a former Soviet republic who had spent time in
the West, according to a Justice Department document obtained by The New York Times and three
people familiar with the events. After questioning him, F.B.I. officials came to suspect that
the man might have added his own interpretations to reports from his own sources that he
passed on to Mr. Steele, calling into question the reliability of the information.'
Some observations prompted by all this.
Without wanting to prejudge things, it seems to me quite likely that what Horowitz has
been contemplating is a kind of 'limited hangout'. So, the idea could be to suggest that
Steele did have sources, that however these were not as reliable as he thought they were, but
everything was done in good faith etc etc. In the light of information coming out, including
that in the Friedrich ruling, he may however have decided to 'hold his horses.'
In trying to put together the accumulating evidence, it is necessary to realise, as so
many people seem to find it difficult to do, that in matters like these people commonly play
double games – often for very good reasons.
To say as Carlson does that Fusion and Steele were hired by 'the Russians' implies that
these are some kind of collective entity – and then, one is one step away from the
assumption that Veselnitskaya and Deripaska, as well as 'Putin's Cook', are simply puppets
controlled by the master manipulator in the Kremlin. (The fact that Friedrich applies serious
standards for assessing evidence to Mueller's version of this is one of the reasons why her
judgement is so important.)
As regards what McCarthy says, to lump Surkov and Deripaska together as 'Putin's guys' is
unhelpful. Actually, it seems to me very unlikely, although perhaps not absolutely
impossible, that, had he been implicated in any conspiracy to intervene in an American
election, Surkov would have been talking candidly about his role to anyone liable to relay
the information to Steele.
Likewise, however, the notion of a Machiachiavellian Surkov, feeding disinformation about
a non-existent plot through an intermediary to Steele, who swallows it hook, line and sinker,
does not seem particularly plausible.
A rather more obvious possibility is that the intermediaries who were supposed to have
conveyed a whole lot of 'smoking gun' evidence to Steele were either 1. fabrications, 2.
people whom without their knowledge he cast in this role, or 3. co-conspirators. It would,
obviously, be possible that Millian, although one can say no more than that at this stage,
was involved in either or both of roles 2. and 3.
It is important that the general pattern of assuming that Putin is some kind of omnipotent
Sauron-figure, which has clearly left Mueller open to a counter-attack by Concord, was given
a classic expression in the testimony which Glenn Simpson gave to the House Intelligence
Committee in November 2017.
Providing his version of what was going on following his move from the Washington office
of the 'Wall Street Journal' to its European headquarters in January 2005, Simpson told the
Committee:
'And the oligarchs, during this period of consolidation of power by Vladimir Putin, when I
was living in Brussels and doing all this work, was about him essentially taking control over
both the oligarchs and the mafia groups. And so basically everyone in Russia works for Putin
now. And that's true of the diaspora as well. So the Russian mafia in the United States is
believed bylaw enforcement criminologists to have – to be under the influence of the
Russian security services. And this is convenient for the security services because it gives
them a level of deniability.'
A bit less than two years after Simpson's move to Brussels, a similar account featured in
what appears to have been the first attempt by Christopher Steele and his confederates to
provide a 'narrative' in terms of which could situate the supposed assassination by polonium
poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko.
This came in a BBC Radio 4 programme, entitled 'The Litvinenko Mystery', in which a
veteran presenter with the Corporation, Tom Mangold, produced an account by the former KGB
Major Yuri Shvets, supported by the former FBI Agent Robert Levinson, and an 'Unidentified
Informer', who is told by Mangold that he cannot be identified 'reasons of your own personal
security'.
This figure, whose credentials we have no means of assessing, explains:
'Well it's not well known to Western leaders or Western people but it is pretty well known
in Russia. Because essentially it is common knowledge in Russia that by the end of Nineties
the so called Russian organised crime had been destroyed by the Government and then the
Russian security agencies, primarily the law enforcement and primarily the FSB, essentially
assumes the functions and methods of Russian organised crime. And they became one of the most
dangerous organised crime group because they are protected by law. They're protected by all
power of the State. They have essentially the free hand in the country and this shadow
establishment essentially includes the entire structure of the FSB from the very top people
in Moscow going down to the low offices.'
The story Mangold told was a pathetic tale of how Litvinenko and Shvets, trying to turn an
honest penny from 'due diligence' work, identified damning evidence about the links of a
figure close to Putin to organised crime, who in return sent Andrei Lugovoi to poison the
former with polonium.
A few problems with this version have, however, subsequently, emerged. Among them is the
fact that, at the time, Litvinenko himself, as well as having been a key member of the late
Boris Berezovsky's 'information operations team', was an agent, as distinct from an
informant, of MI6: accounts differ as to whether Steele was his personal 'handler' (John
Sipher), or had never met him (Luke Harding).
Also relevant is the fact that Shvets, a fanatical Ukrainian nationalist, and an important
figure in the original 'Orange Revolution', was also a key member of Berezovsky's
'information operations' team.
Perhaps most interesting is the fact that the disappearance of Levinson, on the Iranian
island of Kish, the following March, was not as was claimed for years related to his private
sector work. His entrapment and imprisonment – from which we now know Deripaska was
later involved in attempting to rescue him – related to an undercover mission on behalf
of elements in the CIA.
The account of his career by the 'New York Times' journalist Barry Meier in his 2016 study
'Missing Man' is a tissue of sleazy evasions, not least in relation to the role of Levinson
in 'investigating' the notorious mobster Semion Mogilevich, a key figure in 'information
operations' against both Putin and Trump, and also the opponents of Yulia Tymoshenko.
A large question involved is how co-operation between not simply elements in MI6 and the
CIA, but also in the FBI, with the oligarchs who refused to accept Putin's terms goes back a
very long way.
And, among other things, that raises a whole range of questions about Mueller.
Great info, thanks. I admittedly don't watch the skeptics' comments closely enough, and
can be susceptible to twisted observations from guys like Carlson and Solomon.
"... The Epstein case has all the earmarks of CIA protection of an asset. ..."
"... Successful entry into politics requires candidates to first "tag themselves" with a "corrupted and venerable" "CAV" badge? ..."
"... Is the CAV Badge the weapon that has corrupted the intelligence services and stable of politicians in nearly every nation in the world? Did Colin Powell flash a CAV badge as he spoke to UN focus about the most likely presence of non existent WMDs that led to w__ in Iraq? ..."
Journalism. =>has disclosed the tunnel, and a few of its investigators are exploring
its contents, expecting to find at the end of this tunnel Successful entry into politics
requires candidates to first "tag themselves" with a "corrupted and venerable" "CAV"
badge?
Wonder if this has traction in the persons involved in Grace I, the failure of JCPOA.
Is the CAV badge the weapon that has corrupted nearly every nation state in the western
world?
Politicians make promises, and then within hours for unexplained reasons, reverse
them..Hmmm?
Is the CAV Badge the weapon that has corrupted the intelligence services and stable of
politicians in nearly every nation in the world? Did Colin Powell flash a CAV badge as he
spoke to UN focus about the most likely presence of non existent WMDs that led to w__ in
Iraq?
How can CAV badge victims be identified and isolated from politics?
The CAV badge could explain so many USA positive, American negative events?
"... "Classification," however, has been one of the Deep State's favorite tactics to stymie investigations -- especially when the material in question yields serious embarrassment or reveals crimes. And the stakes this time are huge. ..."
"... Judging by past precedent, Deep State intelligence and law enforcement officials will do all they can to use the "but-it's-classified" excuse to avoid putting themselves and their former colleagues in legal jeopardy. (Though this would violate Obama's executive order 13526 , prohibiting classification of embarrassing or criminal information). ..."
"... Recall that in a Sept. 2, 2016 text message to the FBI's then-deputy chief of counterintelligence Peter Strzok, his girlfriend and then-top legal adviser to Deputy FBI Director McCabe, Lisa Page, wrote that she was preparing talking points because the president "wants to know everything we're doing." [Emphasis added.] It does not seem likely that the Director of National Intelligence, DOJ, FBI, and CIA all kept President Obama in the dark about their FISA and other machinations -- although it is possible they did so out of a desire to provide him with "plausible denial." ..."
"... It seems more likely that Obama's closest intelligence confidant, Brennan, told him about the shenanigans with FISA, that Obama gave him approval (perhaps just tacit approval), and that Brennan used that to harness top intelligence and law enforcement officials behind the effort to defeat Trump and, later, to emasculate and, if possible, remove him. ..."
"... "That's the big one. If Horowitz is able to speak freely about what he has learned, his report could lead to indictments of former CIA Director John Brennan, former FBI Director James Comey, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, former Deputy Attorneys General Sally Yates and Rod Rosenstein, and Dana Boente -- Boente being the only signer of the relevant FISA applications still in office. (No, he has not been demoted to file clerk in the FBI library; at last report, he is FBI General Counsel!)." ..."
"... It will be a very interesting 2020 campaign if the Democratic candidate has to run with the ripe stinking dead albatross of Russiagate around her neck. ..."
"... The only outcome that could be more bizarre than the last go-round would be to see Trump favored by all the smart money and then lose to the latest corporate Democrat to shamelessly sell out the middle class in broad daylight. ..."
"... The Grabber in Chief vs Willie Brown's mistress – wonderful. ..."
"... Forgive my cynicism but the US government is so corrupt, has wielded illegitimate power for so long, and has covered the tracks of countless functionaries who have not upheld the constitution that I doubt this will go anywhere. I have been quoting Ben Franklin for some time "you have a republic, if you can keep it." I don't think we can. A reading of "A History of Venice" by John J. Norris would be appropriate here. The most serene republic lasted for essentially 1,000 years from roughly 800 to not quite 1800, first as a democracy, later as an oligarchy. Much like us, including having the most feared secret service in Europe at the time, Venice kept its power through trade but at least we don't hoist the new president up on a chair so that he can throw golden Ducats to the crowd on Wall Street the way that a new Doge would. ..."
"... I don't suppose anything will happen to anybody important about this. After all, nothing happened to anybody when they were caught mass spying on any and all american citizens, even before they made it legal. ..."
"... Unfortunately Webb and Parry exposed much of these gangster criminal "intel" savages for running guns and drugs to Central American pseudo fascist mercenary sadists throughout much of the late 1970s through the '80s. I say unfortunately b/c nothing much ever came along by way of true justice, by way of the criminal players rotting in maximum security jail cells for years on end, not unlike the crack or heroin addict who steals a $400 television. ..."
"... This has been one long crime against the American people. King should read what he knows into the Congressional Record. I have no sympathy for Trump's fear of the deep state. He has sent people to die knowing full well that his actions were based on lies, lies that would result in the deaths of civilians as well as our own military. If he is going to do that, then he should have the courage to face the deep state. That's partial penance for all the deaths he has caused. ..."
"... I also don't care about Trump's personal issue about being surveilled. He personally supports that against everyone else. That is why I feel this is a crime against our people as a whole. Our constitution has been stripped bare. We don't have the rule of law. Mass surveillance covering the globe is current reality. It is dangerous. It is wrong. It is lawless. It is a disaster. ..."
"... Further, Russiagate was used to keep real opposition away from Trump. His supporters doubled down on "liking" Trump because he appeared to be a victim of these lies. Democrats meanwhile learned to further worship the IC. They ignored Trump's actual unlawful behavior, and, in the case of war crimes, still support Trump on every war/regime change action etc. recommended to them by their IC "resistance" "leaders". ..."
"... This has been one of the most effective propaganda tools I have ever seen against our populace. It has created a divided, unthinking populace who is ripe for the picking by evil men and women. I am truly hoping that once this is exposed people will stop this madness and pull together for a common good. But I'm quite worried that, like most cults, when the leader is shown to be wrong, people cling to them even more. ..."
"... there have always been nefarious agents in one government or another for one gangster interest or another, whether was Milner's roundtable or Dulles's Gladio werewolves, these are nefarious individuals there is no gray area in that, however they may conduct themselves and their personal lives, it is not sloppy journalism, is to call something what it is, a this shadow government working in many instances against the direct interest of the American people ..."
"... It's the propaganda, the United States is one of the most heavily propagandize societies in the world, we make the Soviets look like children. No one wants you to have sympathy for Donald Trump, you do not have to agree or like a person to see that the cartel seeking to damage him is also simultaneously against your interests and they are against your interests whether you're from the left or the right because they do not have an ideology just it will to power. ..."
"... So reminiscent of the darker days of the Cold War. A stark education has just played out to this point. ..."
The Deep State almost always wins. But if Attorney General Barr leans hard on Trump to
unfetter investigators, all hell may break lose, says Ray McGovern.
A s Congress arrives back into town and the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees
prepare to question ex-Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller on July 17, partisan lines are being
drawn even more sharply, as Russias-gate blossoms into Deep-State-gate. On Sunday, a top
Republican legislator, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) took the gloves off in an unusually acerbic
public attack on former leaders of the FBI and CIA.
King
told a radio audience: "There is no doubt to me there was severe, serious abuses that were
carried out in the FBI and, I believe, top levels of the CIA against the President of the
United States or, at that time, presidential candidate Donald Trump," according to The
Hill.
King, a senior congressman specializing in national security, twice chaired the House
Homeland Security Committee and currently heads its Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and
Intelligence. He also served for several years on the House Intelligence Committee.
He asserted:
"There was no legal basis at all for them to begin this investigation of his campaign
– and the way they carried it forward, and the way information was leaked. All of this
is going to come out. It's going to show the bias. It's going to show the baselessness of the
investigation and I would say the same thing if this were done to Hillary Clinton or Bernie
Sanders It's just wrong."
The Long Island Republican added a well aimed swipe at what passes for the media today: "The
media went along with this – actually, keeping this farcical, ridiculous thought going
that the President of the United States was somehow involved in a conspiracy with Russia
against his own country."
King: Lashes out.
According to King, the Justice Department's review, ordered by Attorney General William
Barr, would prove that former officials acted improperly. He was alluding to the investigation
led by John Durham, U.S. Attorney in Connecticut. Sounds nice. But waiting for Durham to
complete his investigation at a typically lawyerly pace would, I fear, be much like the
experience of waiting for Mueller to finish his; that is, like waiting for Godot. What about
now?
So Where is the IG Report on FISA?
That's the big one. If Horowitz is able to speak freely about what he has learned, his
report could lead to indictments of former CIA Director John Brennan, former FBI Director James
Comey, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, former Deputy Attorneys General Sally Yates
and Rod Rosenstein, and Dana Boente -- Boente being the only signer of the relevant FISA
applications still in office. (No, he has not been demoted to file clerk in the FBI library; at
last report, he is FBI General Counsel!).
The DOJ inspector General's investigation, launched in March 2018, has centered on whether
the FBI and DOJ filing of four FISA applications and renewals beginning in October 2016 to
surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page amounted to abuse of the FISA process.
(Fortunately for the IG, Obama's top intelligence and law enforcement officials were so sure
that Hillary Clinton would win that they did not do much to hide their tracks.)
The Washington Examiner
reported last Tuesday, "The Justice Department inspector general's investigation of
potential abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is complete, a Republican
congressman said, though a report on its findings might not be released for a month." The
report continued:
"House Judiciary Committee member John Ratcliffe (R, Texas) said Monday he'd met with DOJ
watchdog Michael Horowitz last week about his FISA abuse report. In a media interview,
Ratcliffe said they'd discussed the timing, but not the content of his report and Horowitz
'related that his team's investigative work is complete and they're now in the process of
drafting that report. Ratcliffe said he was doubtful that Horowitz's report would be made
available to the public or the Congress anytime soon. 'He [Horowitz] did relay that as much
as 20% of his report is going to include classified information, so that draft report will
have to undergo a classification review at the FBI and at the Department of Justice,'
Ratcliffe said. 'So, while I'm hopeful that we members of Congress might see it before the
August recess, I'm not too certain about that.'"
Horowitz: Still waiting for his report
Earlier, Horowitz had predicted that his report would be ready in May or June but there may,
in fact, be good reason for some delay. Fox News reported Friday that "key
witnesses sought for questioning by Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz
early in his investigation into alleged government surveillance abuse have come forward at the
11th hour." According to Fox's sources, at least one witness outside the Justice Department and
FBI has started cooperating -- a breakthrough that came after Durham was assigned to lead a
separate investigation into the origins of the FBI's 2016 Russia case that led to Special
Counsel Robert Mueller's probe.
"Classification," however, has been one of the Deep State's favorite tactics to stymie
investigations -- especially when the material in question yields serious embarrassment or
reveals crimes. And the stakes this time are huge.
Judging by past precedent, Deep State intelligence and law enforcement officials will do all
they can to use the "but-it's-classified" excuse to avoid putting themselves and their former
colleagues in legal jeopardy. (Though this would violate Obama's executive order 13526 ,
prohibiting classification of embarrassing or criminal information).
It is far from clear that DOJ IG Horowitz and Attorney General Barr will prevail in the end,
even though President Trump has given Barr nominal authority to declassify as necessary. Why
are the the stakes so extraordinarily high?
What Did Obama Know, and When Did He Know It?
Recall that in a Sept. 2, 2016 text message to the FBI's then-deputy chief of
counterintelligence Peter Strzok, his girlfriend and then-top legal adviser to Deputy FBI
Director McCabe, Lisa Page, wrote that she was preparing talking points because the president
"wants to know everything we're doing." [Emphasis added.] It does not seem likely that
the Director of National Intelligence, DOJ, FBI, and CIA all kept President Obama in the dark
about their FISA and other machinations -- although it is possible they did so out of a desire
to provide him with "plausible denial."
It seems more likely that Obama's closest intelligence confidant, Brennan, told him about
the shenanigans with FISA, that Obama gave him approval (perhaps just tacit approval), and that
Brennan used that to harness top intelligence and law enforcement officials behind the effort
to defeat Trump and, later, to emasculate and, if possible, remove him.
Moreover, one should not rule out seeing in the coming months an "Obama-made-us-do-it"
defense -- whether grounded in fact or not -- by Brennan and perhaps the rest of the gang.
Brennan may even have a piece of paper recording the President's "approval" for this or that --
or could readily have his former subordinates prepare one that appears authentic.
Reining in Devin Nunes
That the Deep State retains formidable power can be seen in the repeated
Lucy-holding-then-withdrawing-the-football-for-Charlie Brown treatment experienced by House
Intelligence Committee Ranking Member, Devin Nunes (R-CA). On April 5, 2019, in the apparent
belief he had a green light to go on the offensive, Nunes
wrote that committee Republicans "will soon be submitting criminal referrals on numerous
individuals involved in the abuse of intelligence for political purposes. These people must be
held to account to prevent similar abuses from occurring in the future."
On April 7, Nunes was even more specific, telling Fox News that he was preparing to send
eight criminal referrals to the Department of Justice "this week," concerning alleged
misconduct during the Trump-Russia investigation, including leaks of "highly classified
material" and conspiracies to lie to Congress and the FISA court. It seemed to be
no-holds-barred for Nunes, who had begun to
talk publicly about prison time for those who might be brought to trial.
Except for Fox, the corporate media ignored Nunes's explosive comments. The media seemed
smugly convinced that Nunes's talk of "referrals" could be safely ignored -- even though a new
sheriff, Barr, had come to town. And sure enough, now, three months later, where are the
criminal referrals?
There is ample evidence that President Trump is afraid to run afoul of the Deep State
functionaries he inherited. And the Deep State almost always wins. But if Attorney General Barr
leans hard on the president to unfetter Nunes, IG Horowitz, Durham and like-minded
investigators, all hell may break lose, because the evidence against those who took serious
liberties with the law is staring them all in the face.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. No fan of the current President, Ray has been trained to
follow and analyze the facts, wherever they may lead. He spent 27 years as a CIA analyst, and
prepared the President's Daily Brief for three presidents. In retirement he co-founded Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
If you enjoyed this original article, please considermaking a donationto Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this
one.
Joe T Wallace , July 8, 2019 at 20:24
I'm a great admirer of Ray McGovern's reporting. He exposes much that is never revealed by
the mainstream media. That said, I do have one quibble about this article. In the seventh
paragraph, just below the heading "So Where is the IG Report on FISA?" he writes:
"That's the big one. If Horowitz is able to speak freely about what he has learned, his
report could lead to indictments of former CIA Director John Brennan, former FBI Director
James Comey, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, former Deputy Attorneys General Sally
Yates and Rod Rosenstein, and Dana Boente -- Boente being the only signer of the relevant
FISA applications still in office. (No, he has not been demoted to file clerk in the FBI
library; at last report, he is FBI General Counsel!)."
My immediate reaction was: Who is Horowitz? It was confusing not to know. Further down in
the article, I learned that Ray was referring to Michael Horowitz, a DOJ watchdog who is
preparing an IG report about FISA abuse, but readers should have been informed who he was
earlier in the article.
John , July 8, 2019 at 17:10
Peter King? Devin Nunes?
At one point the article says little effort was made to cover tracks because of certainty
that HRC would win but later that the FBI et al were planting land mines to either defeat
Trump or blow up his presidency. Seemed contradictory to me.
Perhaps you have the skinny on these machinations, if indeed there were machinations by
one person or group or another for this purpose or that.
But Peter King and Devin Nunes? If either ever was credible, their track record condemns
them to be received, if at all, with extreme skepticism.
Realist , July 8, 2019 at 16:59
It will be a very interesting 2020 campaign if the Democratic candidate has to run with
the ripe stinking dead albatross of Russiagate around her neck. Or will she be expected to
repudiate the Hitlery-run DNC? Where does the money and the ground game originate if the
latter?
The only outcome that could be more bizarre than the last go-round would be to see Trump
favored by all the smart money and then lose to the latest corporate Democrat to shamelessly
sell out the middle class in broad daylight. I won't like it, but I can see Trump Derangement
Syndrome pulling out the chestnuts for the Dems, what with all their celebrity spokespeople
constantly running and ranting like their hair is on fire underneath those pussy hats. My
poor gullible sister from Cali embraces that whole ball of wax as revealed truth holier than
the total dry weight of all the Abrahamic scriptures rolled into one big bale for the
recycling center. Kamala Harris seems to be emerging as the new messiah anointed to lead this
country back to Obamian gridlock and more prestidigitation like mandated insurance to ensure
the health of the insurance companies. Again, it will only be the illusion of "free
stuff."
The only way such a scenario won't cause four more years of turmoil for this country
(rinse and repeat in 2024) is if the victor is Gabbard and she ends all the illegal and
unconstitutional wars by edict, telling all the sure-to-be pissing and moaning Deep State
functionaries to pick up their severance pay and go pound sand. Then shut the world-wide
spider web of military bases and bring home the troops while we can still afford the carfare.
That would be "morning in America," and Gabbard would be the most heroic chief exec since
Lincoln and FDR made their marks in the history books, though such fantasies never play out
in the real world. More likely all the criminal evidence of treason remains classified, most
Americans pop the blue pill, the actual rabbit hole continues to grow ever deeper but the
masses are contentedly oblivious to it all, satisfied to blame select scapegoats from
Russia, China and other "malign" countries for our viewing entertainment.
Deniz , July 8, 2019 at 17:50
The Grabber in Chief vs Willie Brown's mistress – wonderful.
ML , July 8, 2019 at 20:12
You are really something, Realist. I love the way you flourish that pen of yours. Thank
you.
Rob Roy , July 8, 2019 at 20:13
Realist, well said, per usual. To add a bit the Dems probably gave Trump the gift of a
lifetime the next election. Wasting three years on Russiagate instead of hammering out a
decent platform for the party was beyond dumb. That reminds me. the Dems's next dumbest idea
choosing Joe Biden as their next candidate. Just like Hillary, he can't beat Trump. The
duopoly is dead, they just don't know it.
As for Tulsi, she's got my vote.
John Earls , July 8, 2019 at 16:55
Looks like Barry Eisler's John Rain (expert in "death by natural causes") will have a lot
of work in front of him if the investigation builds and a whole lot of "material witnesses"
begin to testify.
ricardo2000 , July 8, 2019 at 16:33
I'm supposed to feel sorry for the surveillance of a right-wing creep? OH PLEASE.
No one in government, or the right wing ReThugs, has ever suffered the intrusive, lying,
speculative 'investigations' that social justice, environmental, or human rights activists
have over the past 70 years.
When these buttheads suffer what MLK and Malcolm X have suffered then I might just wipe
away a few tears, after I stop roaring with laughter and get off the floor.
Realist , July 8, 2019 at 17:08
You prefer a race to the bottom of the cesspool?
You never win when you adopt the methods you claim to revile. The opponent who introduced
the tactics you condemn wins if you embrace them as your own. You didn't beat him, you joined
him.
LibertyBonBon , July 8, 2019 at 18:12
Must be nice to think the justice system should revolve around your particular emotions,
rather than equality and objectivity. Safe and easy.
Dunderhead , July 8, 2019 at 20:41
ricardo2000, nothing personal, I get the revulsion to Trump and entourage not to mention a
large portion of the Maga crowd but this right and left thing is really just an illusion, the
people doing the persecuting here regardless of how disgusting Trump is are the same ones
doing the persecuting to a large degree of everyone else from Assange to the Iranians, that
is this government deep state in combination with all of the various American alphabet soup
agencies as well as foreign deep states have cornered the market in State power, hate Trump
but don't confuse this with a good thing.
Thank you, Ray McGovern. You are a good man, Charlie Brown!
Thing is, all of this was predictable from the beginning. Many of us saw it coming.
No one really wanted an incompetent baboon running things – the song about Monkey
and the Engineer comes to mind – so Obama tried to hamstring Trump with this
investigation. I mean, Obama couldn't very well have not completed the transfer of power
because it is the most valuable thing about democracy. There is no ten year bloody hellified
civil war every time the crown changes hands from one inbred to the next.
So Obama did the next best thing on his way out the Oval Office doors, he put Brennan and
the boys on it. Seemed like a good idea at the time, I'm sure. But it backfired because he
couldn't call the dogs off once he was no longer president. Not Brennan, not anyone could
call them off after the snowball really got rolling because the spooks believed their own
story and the media made too much money off selling the mythology:
Only question left to answer now is whether or not Trump the carnival barker can milk his
opportunist Armageddon into a second term of fleecing the rubes.
This is a very serious Constitutional Law issue and MUST be pursued–and it makes no
difference the political party denomination of those breaking the law! The Current
Oligarchy–Deep State–is the adversary of the vast majority of US citizens and
humanity. With Epstein's arrest and the developments McGovern relates, some progress appears
to be happening.
Lydia , July 8, 2019 at 14:51
You summed it up perfectly, Jill.
Pablo Diablo , July 8, 2019 at 14:42
"the effort to defeat Trump and, later, to emasculate and, if possible, remove him." says
it all. Trump is a loose cannon. The so called "Deep State" has been "controlling" our
Presidents since at least the Dulles Brothers. Truman even admitted giving them power was a
BIG mistake. Still question the Kennedy Assassination.
In the 70's, the FBI mailed me a box of drugs, which I refused to take from a very
incompetent fake Mail Man, and three minutes later they showed up with a search warrant for
my house that listed all the drugs in the failed mailed box signed by a Federal Judge. So
much for FISA. The bullshit continues. I could reveal more if necessary.
robert e williamson jr , July 8, 2019 at 14:32
Sam F. whether you realize it or not you got it pretty much on the nose. Except for
this.
The judiciary has been compromised by the congresses refusal to hold CIA et. al.
accountable for their actions. Why? Those in congress remember what happened to JFK.
The number one reason is because the deep state ensures that if anyone goes after CIA
officials or designees that the persons career and life are ruined. Which is something else
that needs to be investigated. Something that if explored may very well put a stop to CIA's
B.S. of lying about everything and getting away with it.
Currently no deterrent exists. None.
Anytime some one or entity gets close the Deep State ends up with their guy as AG. See the
Bill Barr story.
Barr may get his chance to prove me right and at the same time prove "Lady Justice" has
little to do with the DOJ! I think he is a cowardly blowhard. Justice would be Trump and Barr
going to jail .
Justice in this country for the true scoundrels in government or billionaires is non-
existent at this point in time. Putting Epstein in prison for life is called for and if he is
threatened with that maybe his jaw will loosen up.
Until DOJ can become a deterrent to bad actors in government, all government the country
will be controlled by the Deep State. The SWETS, super wealthy elitists.
@ "Justice would be Trump and Barr going to jail ."
Are you suggesting that *any* of their living predecessors don't deserve the same? If so,
which do not and why?
Jay , July 8, 2019 at 14:18
Bif:
I agree something very suspect occurred.
And it's very likely the Obama White House knew that either the NSA or the FBI was tapping
into the communications of some of Trump's campaign team BEFORE Hillary lost in Nov.
2016.
However the xenophobic, lying, terrorist (IRA) supporting, Peter King is not a credible
messenger. (Right, Rep Steve King of Iowa is even worse than King of Long Island.)
Peter Dyer , July 8, 2019 at 14:09
Thanks, Ray.
DH Fabian , July 8, 2019 at 13:59
Actually, that deep split among the masses, and certainly within the Dem voting base, was
achieved in the 1990s -- middle class vs. poor, workers vs. those left jobless, further split
by race. The Obama years confirmed that this split is permanent. Russia had nothing to do
with the Democrats' 2016 defeat, nor will it be the reason for their 2020 defeat. Democrats
maintain their resistance against acknowledging the consequences of dividing and conquering
their own voting base.
EuGene Miller , July 9, 2019 at 00:24
DH, that's an interesting assessment. However, I doubt that any House or Senate Democrat
sought an advantage by "splitting their base". The elected Dems do not control the narrative.
So, who benefits by splitting the masses into rival factions?
Perhaps the narrative of social and political discourse is defined by the owners, boards,
and foundations that control the main-stream media and pop-culture.
Robert Reich wrote that an oligarchy divides-and-conquers the rest of us. I suspect that
controlling the narrative is not simply a propaganda tool; it is the basis of
divide-and-conquer strategy.
Is it possible that the DOJ, see the Sec. of Labor's problems developing with the Espstein
case, is about to have it's gloriously corrupt underbelly rolled over into the sunlight? (you
must roll the snake over to see its belly)
Please Ray tell me this is where we might be heading or instead will we end up with the
courts truncating investigation because they say it will be best for the country not to have
all this filthy laundry dragged out into the sunlight or someones bull shit sources and
methods might be exposed. The DOJ has become a really bad joke!
I'm hoping you know something I don't because Barr's past history pretty much speaks for
itself I'd say after be made sure he pardoned all of Bush 41 henchmen!
At this point I certainly do not have much faith in the DOJ doing the right thing. What
Acosta did in Florida with Epstein was hardly the right thing to do.
They all need to be locked up.
Eric32 , July 8, 2019 at 13:33
Very little "punishment" will occur, and no deep change cleanup will occur.
The US govt. is controlled by money and blackmail – not "voting" or public outrage.
So many high level people have so much dirt on other high level people that nothing major
will be done.
A series of very big events, including the JFK murder and the 9/11 charade went unexposed and
undealt with – there is no reason to think that this medium size event will wind up
making a big difference.
What will happen is that US "democracy" will continue on its downward course, but maybe
with a better facade.
Dunderhead , July 8, 2019 at 20:59
I personally believe that the empire will crash when it hits maximum overreach it will
also simultaneously go broke at the same time, as the money interests at that point Will
probably move east, this will partially be due to both the feds tendency to over inflate in
order to cover military acquisitions as well as the decline of swift and the ascendancy of
China in the rest. I actually think that this is what some American factions desire, it is
potentially good for all of us if we can regain a republic but it will mean the end of
American hegemony.
Gary Weglarz , July 8, 2019 at 13:22
This is the same "deep state" that assassinated a sitting president, then proceeded to
assassinate the next three most important and influential progressive leaders in the country
all over a five year period. Problem solved. And just when you thought Allen Dulles didn't
know what to do with all those oh so experienced Nazi war criminals he'd recruited to the
CIA.
When Congress investigated the CIA in the mid-1970's (before Congress became completely
"owned" by the deep state) right on cue witnesses began to "commit suicide" just before they
would be scheduled to testify. Problem solved. Hardly a raised eyebrow from the always
complicit MSM through all of this. Expecting anything more than a massive coverup of this
latest deep state corruption and abuse is beyond my abilities to even effectively fantasize
about.
herbert davis , July 8, 2019 at 14:12
Justice in the USA?
John Drake , July 8, 2019 at 13:20
The corporate Democrats strike out again. They run a corrupt, violent(war monger)
candidate, who loses to a buffoon-an election which was hers to lose. Meanwhile trying to
hedge their bets they play sleazeball with the investigative arm's authority in order to
sabotage said buffoon; which as it is revealed gives ammunition and the advantage to their
target. i.e. "They were illegally picking on me"
If Trump is smart-a very long stretch, but some advisor might suggest this- he will expose
all this slime closer to the election for maximum effect. What a distressing thought. All the
more reason to run a progressive Presidential candidate that can disavow the DNC clowns and
their corruption.
geeyp , July 8, 2019 at 12:37
It's past time for the Deep State to come up from the deep state of hell in which they
reside. At least to purgatory for some fresh air and a wee ray of light. I couldn't let the
Schumer warning keep me from giving the go ahead on this. If my coconut is shattered, someone
somewhere (not our current media) would have a clue as to what happened to me. Sic 'em,
President Trump and A.G. and Devin Nunes!
Sam F , July 8, 2019 at 12:14
The US needs to solve the underlying problem of corruption of secret agencies and
judiciary, otherwise the political wrongdoing of one faction will only be matched by that of
its opponents, regardless of a few prosecutions. I know from experience the extreme
corruption of the Repubs, and little doubt that the Dems do such things at least when
desperate.
The solution includes:
1. All secrets meaningfully shared among multiparty committees;
2. All politicians and top officials monitored for corrupt influence;
3. Entire federal judiciary fired, replaced, and monitored like the politicians; and
4. Amendments to protect elections and mass media from control by money power.
Until then all government acts are tribal gangsterism and little more.
Guy , July 8, 2019 at 13:50
You forgot about dual citizenship members of the senate and congress . Elected as a
representative for the country of the US should mean just that and not another country . And
while we are at it , major reform on monetary contributions to candidates running for
re-election . There is something terribly wrong with needing millions if not billions of
dollars to run the electoral races.There is much more that needs to be done but this would be
a good start .
Sam F , July 8, 2019 at 17:32
Yes, the proposed Amendments would restrict funding of mass media and elections to
registered individual contributions (some prefer government funding) limited to the average
day's pay annually (for example), with full reporting by candidates and all intermediaries.
We all can see the destruction of democracy that was caused by economic power controlling
elections, mass media, the judiciary, etc.
But of course we cannot get those amendments because those tools of democracy now belong
to the rich, etc. History suggests that we are in for generations of severe decline before
the people are hurting enough to turn off the tube and do something, and generations more
before they can re-establish democracy.
Ray McGovern writes:"Classification," however, has been one of the Deep State's favorite
tactics to stymie investigations -- especially when the material in question yields serious
embarrassment or reveals crimes. And the stakes this time are huge"
On the matter of government reform classification there is a great need of public
discussion and radical reform. Why? Because the government is playing with an essential
right, the right to know. All the red herrings needed to be thrown in the trash and the
burden placed on the classifiers to justify why the public does not have a right to know.
Sam F , July 8, 2019 at 17:24
Yes, the facts and their significance (especially about false flags and scandals) need to
be publicly debated, as well as policy goals, and the policies derived from facts and goals.
We have far too many government secrets to sustain a democracy.
I suggest limiting secrets to ongoing investigations (with a time limit), defensive
military plans and operations (not alleged provocations or aggressive war schemes), and
personal IDs of those at risk. Beyond that secrets disguise tyranny.
Ida G Millman , July 8, 2019 at 16:02
Another path towards a solution to government corruption could be term limits for all
federal representatives. Limiting the number of terms would curtail the opportunities for
forming the uninterrupted years of long coalitions between public servants and government
officials that result in the abuses of power that have damaged the interests of ordinary less
wealthy citizens, in favor of corporate and military interests.
In the matter of the original intentions of the men who wrote our founding documents, we
should consider one of the enormous differences that technology has made between us: that our
representatives can travel between DC and their homes with enough ease that they can continue
reasonably, or nearly reasonably, satisfactory family lives – something that could not
be done in the 18th century. The forefathers did not foresee that being a member of
government would become a career for a lifetime. They assumed, I believe, that members of
government would always be citizens who would give our country a few years of their lives and
then return to private life to share their experience and knowledge with their neighbors.
Such a change would not magically reform government corruption. There will always be those
who will find a way – but it could slow things down and it would certainly engage an
increasing number of citizens who would participate in governing, as well as the circles of
people surrounding each of them whose interest in and understanding of government would
increase because everyone would know more of their representatives. Got that, kids?
L&B&L
Sam F , July 8, 2019 at 17:37
Term limits are useful and we should enact more. There seems to be a sufficient supply of
puppets for the rich/WallSt/Mic/zionists to ensure that all new candidates represent only
those interests, unless we go further and control funding of mass media and elections,
monitoring of politicians and judges for life, etc.
Rob Roy , July 8, 2019 at 20:28
Ida,
Term limits wouldn't be necessary if money were out of elections and all elections were
publicly funded. Next, a law should be passed to prevent retired congress people from
lobbying for any private company of any kind. Then people wouldn't have to spend all their
time in congress lining up money for the next election, nor would they owe favors to
anyone.
Dunderhead , July 8, 2019 at 21:19
Sam F, all of those goals seem very nice but it would probably be better if we just
dissolved back into 50 states save for an interstate system and a very small navy for common
defense, maybe four nuclear submarines total, the American people will be best off without a
government completely working it out for themselves, if some of them work it out in
completely different ways without hurting each other so be it. Besides even a libertarians
would have to acknowledge democracy best works for smaller populations. We may never be able
to curb the will to power of evil men but we can diminish their abilities to fleece the
public if we are not subject to them.
Jay , July 8, 2019 at 11:42
Peter King?
Really now.
Not a credible source, no matter how invention filled Russia-gate is. And no matter how
clear it is that in 2016 the FBI was poking around campaign Trump and likely telling the
White House what it found.
Bif Webster , July 8, 2019 at 13:28
I agree that King isn't the best of messengers, but we can also go to others who are not
right-wing to see something fishy went on.
Those text messages convinced me something was going on. And that was before all the other
stuff came to light.
I think this will be about who has more dirt on the other side you know, leverage?
Jeff Harrison , July 8, 2019 at 11:41
Thank you, Ray. Forgive my cynicism but the US government is so corrupt, has wielded
illegitimate power for so long, and has covered the tracks of countless functionaries who
have not upheld the constitution that I doubt this will go anywhere. I have been quoting Ben
Franklin for some time "you have a republic, if you can keep it." I don't think we can. A
reading of "A History of Venice" by John J. Norris would be appropriate here. The most serene
republic lasted for essentially 1,000 years from roughly 800 to not quite 1800, first as a
democracy, later as an oligarchy. Much like us, including having the most feared secret
service in Europe at the time, Venice kept its power through trade but at least we don't
hoist the new president up on a chair so that he can throw golden Ducats to the crowd on Wall
Street the way that a new Doge would.
I don't see that as necessarily much of a plus.
Steven Berge , July 8, 2019 at 11:40
I don't suppose anything will happen to anybody important about this. After all, nothing
happened to anybody when they were caught mass spying on any and all american citizens, even
before they made it legal.
Drew Hunkins , July 8, 2019 at 11:32
Unfortunately Webb and Parry exposed much of these gangster criminal "intel" savages for
running guns and drugs to Central American pseudo fascist mercenary sadists throughout much
of the late 1970s through the '80s. I say unfortunately b/c nothing much ever came along by
way of true justice, by way of the criminal players rotting in maximum security jail cells
for years on end, not unlike the crack or heroin addict who steals a $400 television.
Jill , July 8, 2019 at 11:15
This has been one long crime against the American people. King should read what he knows
into the Congressional Record. I have no sympathy for Trump's fear of the deep state. He has
sent people to die knowing full well that his actions were based on lies, lies that would
result in the deaths of civilians as well as our own military. If he is going to do that,
then he should have the courage to face the deep state. That's partial penance for all the
deaths he has caused.
I also don't care about Trump's personal issue about being surveilled. He personally
supports that against everyone else. That is why I feel this is a crime against our people as
a whole. Our constitution has been stripped bare. We don't have the rule of law. Mass
surveillance covering the globe is current reality. It is dangerous. It is wrong. It is
lawless. It is a disaster.
Further, Russiagate was used to keep real opposition away from Trump. His supporters
doubled down on "liking" Trump because he appeared to be a victim of these lies. Democrats
meanwhile learned to further worship the IC. They ignored Trump's actual unlawful behavior,
and, in the case of war crimes, still support Trump on every war/regime change action etc.
recommended to them by their IC "resistance" "leaders".
People won't speak to one another because of this division, all based on lies. Democrats
want Assange put to death because he exposed truthful information about Clinton. Neighbor has
turned against neighbor over this. We have stopped talking and stopped thinking about whether
claims make sense or have evidence behind them. Political parties have become cults with cult
leaders. Meanwhile, many who think it was wrong to use surveillance against Trump, accept
mass surveillance against everyone else, including themselves.
This has been one of the most effective propaganda tools I have ever seen against our
populace. It has created a divided, unthinking populace who is ripe for the picking by evil
men and women. I am truly hoping that once this is exposed people will stop this madness and
pull together for a common good. But I'm quite worried that, like most cults, when the leader
is shown to be wrong, people cling to them even more.
I cannot believe what Russiagate has done to our own people. I am terrified at the wars it
has/may yet cause and the cruelty against others, both foreign and domestic, which it has
wrought.
Dunderhead , July 8, 2019 at 21:51
What else would you call it, there have always been nefarious agents in one government or
another for one gangster interest or another, whether was Milner's roundtable or Dulles's Gladio werewolves, these are nefarious individuals there is no gray area in that, however
they may conduct themselves and their personal lives, it is not sloppy journalism, is to call
something what it is, a this shadow government working in many instances against the direct
interest of the American people, I'm not trying to be you over the head with this but Mr.
McGovern was once upon a Time swimming in the same waters and he knows what he is talking
about. The deep state maybe several different factions but all of it at least so far is
fairly I'm Accountable, this thing must be named.
AnneR , July 8, 2019 at 14:18
First the Disclaimer: I'm not a supporter of either side of the one party two headed
monster political machine, not of either HRC or DT, both, and their "parties," making me want
to puke.
I am curious about the following: "He [DT] has sent people to die knowing full well that
his actions were based on lies, lies that would result in the deaths of civilians as well as
our own military. If he is going to do that, then he should have the courage to face the deep
state. That's partial penance for all the deaths he has caused."
While I have no doubt that DT has been responsible for civilian deaths (I am far less
concerned about military deaths – join the military and you cannot expect not to have
to chance it, particularly in a warmongering nation state; if the recruit doesn't recognize
this reality, then they need to do some reading), *most* such deaths in those countries we
(the US and its vassal states and proxies) have been happily bombing, shelling, destroying
one way or another, even since the late 1980s (not therefore including the appalling and
illegal warring on Vietnam et al) are down, not to DT, but rather to presidents: BC, GHB,
GWB, BO. Pretty evenly divided betwixt the two heads, wouldn't you say?
That's not to excuse DT (and I wouldn't excuse HRC either – think Libya; as bad as
MA, if with different forms of warfare; but then they're buddies, like attracting like).
We – the US – need to stop killing other peoples (let's cry for the war-making
profiteers), stop destroying other countries (and for our corporate-capitalists who plunder
them); need to mind our own "shop" and business. And stop pretending that we're such a
wonderful, white-hatted, "good" nation.
Jill , July 8, 2019 at 15:15
AnneR,
We have had war criminal presidents from the legacy parties, period. Barr is a party to
war crimes so I share other's doubts that he will do anything about actual justice. He may be
in on the current winning side of the IC and they may be purging some enemies at this time.
That is the only thing I see Barr being involved in.
Speaking as someone who has done counter-recruitment in schools, I will just give you my
experience. Students are tracked from grade school. A file is kept on them with over a
thousand data points. These files are taken by recruiters and used to "pitch" the military to
young people. I don't know if you were sophisticated at 16. I was a little bit but not much.
So here's an example–they told one young woman who had a single mother that if she went
in the military she would not be a burden on her mother any longer. They understood the
family had few resources and they played on this young woman's "guilt" over being a financial
"drain" on her mother. No, recruiters do not tell the truth to those they meet. They lie and
they lie very well because they have excellent information to help them tell the correct
lies. That girl is dead and I mourn her death.
Dunderhead , July 8, 2019 at 22:05
AnneR, you have so much anger, I understand, it is terrible what our nation has done and
is continuing to do, it has gone on so long that many of the people currently perpetrating
the crimes against foreign populations are themselves of descendents of peoples the US has
victimized. It's the propaganda, the United States is one of the most heavily propagandize
societies in the world, we make the Soviets look like children. No one wants you to have
sympathy for Donald Trump, you do not have to agree or like a person to see that the cartel
seeking to damage him is also simultaneously against your interests and they are against your
interests whether you're from the left or the right because they do not have an ideology just
it will to power.
Dunderhead , July 8, 2019 at 22:09
Jill that was an incredibly cogent description of the mess we are currently in,
congratulations on such clarity, peace out.
David Otness , July 9, 2019 at 00:18
With you on all that you state, Jill. It's really exposed the U.S. population for what we
unfortunately are, if not what we've become. So reminiscent of the darker days of the Cold
War. A stark education has just played out to this point. I wonder how many have learned anything at all from it?
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
FBI Deputy Director David Bowdich announces charges against 'six Russsian intelligence
officers' at the Department of Justice, October 19, 2020. © Andrew Harnik/Pool via
REUTERS 14 Follow RT on 
![]({"default":{"load":"defer","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17JxQi.img?h=100&w=100&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=t&l=f"}})
Trump falsely claims coronavirus is "disappearing" and Russia
![]({"default":{"load":"defer","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17IMkn.img?h=100&w=100&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=t&l=f"}})
Coronavirus updates: School district says 100 students, staff positive for COVID-19
![a group of people standing next to a person in a suit and tie: Joseph R. Biden Jr. last week in Wilmington, Del. A new intelligence assessment said Russia continues to interfere in the election on President Trump's behalf, while China prefers Mr. Biden.]({"default":{"load":"default","w":"80","h":"45","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17HDgI.img?h=450&w=799&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f"},"size3column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"35","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17HDgI.img?h=351&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f"},"size2column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"35","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17HDgI.img?h=351&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f"}})
© Michelle V. Agins/The New York Times Joseph R. Biden Jr. last week in Wilmington, Del. A
new intelligence assessment said Russia continues to interfere in the election on President
Trump's behalf, while China prefers Mr. Biden.
![a group of people posing for a picture: Trump supporters in Ohio on Thursday, during the president's visit to a factory in Clyde.]({"default":{"load":"default","w":"80","h":"45","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17HOTh.img?h=450&w=799&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=710&y=584"},"size3column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"35","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17HOTh.img?h=351&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=710&y=584"},"size2column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"35","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17HOTh.img?h=351&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=710&y=584"}})
© Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times Trump supporters in Ohio on Thursday, during the
president's visit to a factory in Clyde.
January 20, 2020 © Photo: Wikimedia The New York
Times caused a mini-commotion last week with a front-page 
Print
