"... 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
It should be clear on what the fight is really about in the US. It's about stopping the rise
of socialism. Regardless of party affiliation, the elites know what the populace wants and
are desperately trying to stop it. I refuse to accept that the Democrats have no idea what
they're doing.
I honestly can't see Sanders getting the nomination with all the corruption openly being
displayed. I would be pleasantly surprised if Sanders did manage to get it, but he still have
to deal with the ELECTORAL COLLEGE (EC). The Electors have the final say. Yes, one can point
out that some States have laws forcing Electors to vote what the populace wants, but that is
being challenged in court. The debate on whether such laws are unconstitutional or not,
remains to be seen. It's too late now to deal with the EC for this election, but people need
to be more active in politics at the State level as that's where Electors are (s)elected.
IF Sanders is genuine then he should prepare to run as an independent just to get the EC
attention.
RR @ 14;
Everything in the U$A today, is driven by the unofficial Party of $, and it's reach
transcends both Dems & repubs. It's cadre is the majority of the D.C. "rule makers", so
we get what they want, not what "we the people" want or need.
They own the banks, MSM media, and even our voting systems.
IMO, to assume one party is to blame for conditions in the U$A is a bit naive.
Question is, can anything the masses do, change the system? Or is rank and file America
just along for the ride?
I'm assuming us peons will get what the party of $ wants this November also.
P.S. If any blame is given, it needs to go to the American public, because " you get the
kind of Gov. you deserve" through your inactions...
It's a lot like living, death is certain, but until that occurs, I'll move forward trying
to mitigate current paradigms.
Pepe Escobar pointed out once that certain members of the "Masters of the Universe" (as he
terms the US elites who actually run things) supported Trump in 2016, and were opposed to
other "Masters" who supported Hillary Clinton. Given that Clinton disappointed her "Masters"
by losing and damaging her credibility with the whole "Russiagate" fiasco, perhaps they
switched sides to Trump - especially given that Trump can be controlled and manipulated more
easily (since he is an idiot and ignoramus) to start the wars the "masters" are yearning for
to improve their corporate profits (regardless of his alleged desire to avoid wars - a
fanciful story also told about Barrack Obama from the beginning as well, which resulted in
Obama destroying four more countries than Bush during his administration.)
So now they've decided the Dems need to be kept out of it for whatever reasons of
incompetent politicking or too much socialism for the "Masters" liking, or whatever. So
they're arranging for the Dems to self-destruct this year.
Just a speculative thought, and I wouldn't put any stock in it absent any real
evidence.
In the end, it doesn't matter. Absent Gabbard being nominated and elected, nothing will
change in US foreign policy anyway. And to quote Percival Rose from the Nikita show about
Gabbard's chances, "That ain't gonna happen."
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.
Entrapment of Flynn and his own stupid behavior (for former chief of DIA this really
unass[eble naivity) that facilitated it is an interesting case study here...
David G. Horsman Although I am not
familar with all the players, in context to early 2017 the one part of the article I thought
exaggerated was this:'Probably the most intelligent analysis of the Deep State was written for
The Nation by Greg Grandin. Titled "What is the Deep State?", it makes many very good points
I
n 1956, C. Wright Mills wrote that "the conception of the power elite and of its unity rests
upon the corresponding developments and the coincidence of interests among economic, political,
and military organizations."
If nothing else, the "Trump v. Deep State" framings show that unity is long gone.'The three
seem generally aligned with the people on the outside looking in. Infighting is the norm.
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.
"... 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.
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.
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 £40,000
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.
Donald Trump ran on a platform guaranteed to arouse the hatred of this elite. His
immigration-related proposals and comments
(e.g., " Paris
is
no longer Paris ," "When
Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best") and his advocacy of a
non-interventionist foreign policy were red flags to an Establishment bent on massive
immigration and endless wars in the Middle East to protect Israel. His victory was a hostile
takeover of the Presidency, opposed by the entire spectrum of elite political opinion, from the
far Left to the
neoconservative "Right," and including
Conservatism, Inc. cheap-labor lobbyists like Paul Ryan.
...So it's no surprise that Trump's actual election was greeted with quite unprecedented
anguish and frustration. The Washington Post headlined
The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has Begun the day of Trump's inauguration. [By
Matea Gold, January 17, 2017] (But in fact -- incredibly -- it dates back to even
before his nomination).
So it's no surprise that Trump's actual election was greeted with quite unprecedented
anguish and frustration. The Washington Post headlined The Campaign to Impeach President
Trump Has Begun the day of Trump's inauguration. [By Matea Gold, January 17, 2017] (But in
fact -- incredibly -- it dates back to even before his nomination).
In fact, right around the time of the Republican convention in 2016, James Kirchik was
already openly stating that a coup against Trump was possibility, if he won the election. You
can't say we weren't given fair warning.
I believe the present political crisis should be seen as a struggle between our new,
Jewish-dominated elite, stemming from the 1880–1920 First Great Wave of immigration,
and the traditional white Christian majority of America, significantly derived from
pre-Revolutionary colonial stock but augmented by subsequent white Christian
immigration.
But as Kevin himself later notes, Trump is such a raging Zionist and he's surrounded by
Zionist Jews–including his own family! So I'm thinking maybe this is all actually a
schism between rival factions of Jews: say, globalist Jews vs. zionist Jews. The
WASPs, after all, are finished. They surrendered their country long ago.
The nascent elite defeated Sen. McCarthy, despite subsequent evidence that he was
substantially right. Of course, it is simply a fact that the individuals caught up in the
McCarthy accusations were disproportionately Jewish. McCarthy's crusade may be regarded as
the last gasp of traditional America.
McCarthy himself was controlled opposition. Please note that he never, ever raised the
Judenfrage in public. And with good reason: some of leading advisors, like the
ultra-creepy Roy Cohn, were Jews. So 'Tailgunner Joe' was just more controlled
opposition–and so were the Birchers, too.
I suggest that that the "visceral animosity" that I noted above is motivated by the
parallels between Trump's white working-class base and working-class support for National
Socialism in 1930s Germany. This phenomenon was traumatic for Jewish intellectuals, who at
the time were deeply immersed in classical class-struggle Marxism. It was of critical
importance in motivating the shift pioneered by Frankfurt School toward conceptualizing
Jewish interests in terms of race -- that the real problem Jews faced was white
ethnocentrism, the latter solvable only by propaganda efforts aimed at vilifying white
racial identity (which soon became mainstream in the educational efforts of the Jewish
activist community) and by importing non-whites in order to diminish white political
power.
This! Jewish intellectual support for the working class a hundred years ago was purely and
transparently cynical. In the 1930s, once it became clear that the working class was capable
of acting in its own interests without the help of Shmuel, the Frankfurt Schoolers (who, as
the name implies, originated in Frankfurt, Germany) were stunned. That's why hardly any
Jewish leftists anymore give a rat's rumpus about the working class. And Bernie Sanders is
just a relic of a bygone era assuming he's even sincere.
Assuming eliminating the white majority is the goal, what are Jews supposed to do once
they've accomplished it? This strategy seems self-destructive since all the other racial and
ethnic groups being imported are far less tolerant of Jews.
@Curmudgeon Regrettably, not a single country in the world fully complies with Article 19
nowadays; this standard appears to be just too difficult to live up to:
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom
to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of frontiers.
The 65 Open, Unlimited , un Vetted Immigration plan that was lobbied ... passed by the team
that killed JFK, knew exactly what they were engineering. Their plan to cut off the European
white society and was the end game. 80 % of our immigrants prior to 65 came from Europe
– after the 65 laws – only 8% were permitted. This is the Smoking Gun !..
@Franz Has John Bolton flipped by leaking early drafts of his book and saying that he
will testify if subpoenaed? Not really, he's now trying to help dislodge Trump from office
because Trump is wobbly on starting a war with Iran. After the Soleimani hit at the behest of
his administration neoconservatives, Trump's in-house nationalist isolationists then got his
fickle, ADD ear and talked him down from further escalations. No real tit-for-tat came after
the Iranian symbolic strike on a US empty hangar (one that was prefaced with a warning so as
to ensure no US deaths). Rhetoric aside, both the Iranian leadership and Trump realized that
full-scale war is a very bad idea for both Iran and the US.
The neocon element and their Israeli allies are unhappy to be derailed from their path to
war, so they, including Bolton, probably now believe that it's time to remove Trump and
replace him with Mike Pence, a 100% Useful Idiot for Israel. With Pence, and maybe an
October/November Surprise, the vile, treasonous neocons would get the disastrous war with
Iran they so desperately want America to fight on behalf of Israel.
By the way, it's important to remember that the Democratic leadership decided not to take
their House subpoenas to court and to involve the judicial branch in enforcing them, which it
ultimately would have. The Dems made a political decision to favor expediency over historic
congressional prerogatives and power because they didn't want the impeachment to be near the
election. Won't it be ironic if it ends up that Senate Republicans end up being the enforcers
of subpoenas by using their political clout from being in Trump's party, all due to the book
by a former staffer (and to backroom animosities toward Trump and to Senate interventionists
such as Lindsey Graham and Mitt Romney).
Donald Trump ran on a platform guaranteed to arouse the hatred of this elite. His
immigration-related proposals and comments (e.g., "Paris is no longer Paris," "When Mexico
sends its people, they're not sending their best") and his advocacy of a
non-interventionist foreign policy were red flags to an Establishment bent on massive
immigration and endless wars in the Middle East to protect Israel.
While immigration was a big part of his appeal the longest running theme with Trump has
been unfavourable terms of trade and military largesse undermining American primacy.
Saudi Arabia cannot defend itself. The US army cannot be kept in Saudi Arabia, and if the
US wants the Saudi oil money to the kept in US bonds then the US must be prepared to use
military force to defend Saudi Arabia. Iran already has the beginnings of an alliance with
Russia and China having conducted unprecedented naval exercises with them recently. The
Iranians have it in for Saudi Arabia. It really will not do to walk away from Saudi Arabia;
does anyone think China would hesitate to build a base in Saudi if the Saudis decided they
would be a better protector than the US? If the US withdrew from the Middle East, China would
be in there like a shot, nothing would stop them. This is the same China that Trump opposed
the so called free trade with that put people out a job who are killing themselves in the
White Death with fentanyl that China funnels into the US.
DONALD TRUMP: THE MAKING OF A WORLD VIEW by Brendan Simms shows that for past thirty five
years Trump has focused on on trade and economic power and his concern is with countries that
either rival the US economy (especially China) or so called allies that undermine American
strength by exploiting relations with the US. Since the 80s Trump has been extremely critical
of Saudi Arabia , Germany, and Japan's failure to contribute to their own defence.
Indeed, in his call with Zelensky, Trump spotlighted his displeasure that the U.S. was
helping Ukraine while Germany and other European nations were not doing enough.
I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time.
Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than
they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it's
something that you should really ask them about. When I was speaking to Angela Merkel she
talks Ukraine, but she ·doesn't do anything. A lot of the European countries are
the same way so I think it's something you want to look at but the United States has been
very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things
are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.
How about Germany opening up a pipeline into Russia? And we are supposed to be fighting
Russia. So Germany is paying Russia like 2 billion dollars a month and they a member of
NATO And we are paying 90% of the cost of NATO.
The hatred oozing from every pore of Schiff, Nadler, and the others mentioned cannot be
explained even in part by hatred of the person of DJT, because none of them know him enough
to hate him the way they do. The American tragedy is that average whites can't see he's a
proxy for them and that that hatred is a brazen display of sanguinary intent about
what they would do if they could, as happened in Russia a century ago at the hands of their
forefathers.
Unless you've worked with them where they're running the show, such as, say, on Wall
Street, you really have no idea how visceral their hatred for you is when they don't need
your cooperation for something or other. In suburban NYC towns on Long Island and up in
Fairfield County, Connecticut you've got thousands of nouveau riche goys working as traders
on the Street tooling around in their Porsche convertibles in dusty pink baseball caps on
Sunday mornings, worshipping at the bagel shop instead of church. They've got the money and
they're surely not going to upset the apple cart for anyone. Mega-sellout Sean Hannity tops
most of them, however, selling out his people and country with a straight face every night
for a cool $40 MM a year, with a net worth of $250 MM, according to Forbes.
For a different take, see Linh Dinh's prescient column of June 12, 2016.
Since at least the closed door reaming apparently administered after Helsinki in summer
2018, "Trump's lack of success in effecting fundamental change" is due to Trump's lack of
EFFORT in effecting fundamental change. And the farcical impeachment is just puppet show
turned up to 11, the latest, desperate way to stir up enough sheep to vote RedBlue and keep
things just as they are.
The whole Impeachment is in MY opinion staged , another story , a fable designed by the
worlds greatest liars . Cover up Epstein , cover up Syria and Saudi Arabia / U.S. military
ops and Venezuela . Of course the Chosen Ones will give only the side of the news fit for the
goy ..
The US deep state is planning it to backfire. Impeachment was proven to be Bill Clinton's
ticket to a second term. They are also running nothing but losers on the Dem side of the
contest. The last thing the MIC will allow to happen is for the people to elect a government
to control their own lives or to control them. When they have hundreds of billions every year
to throw around, all filched from taxpayers, with the money barons calling the shots of whom
is to run for the top position, and mutually reticent about any real control from the people,
they will use the impeachment process to ensure Trump gets a second term.
People who get stuck on "the Jews" become tiresome after long It is more accurate to point
to elite families or institutions like the Rothschilds or Rockefellers, the Vatican, the
Skull & Bones/Trilateral/Bilderberg types, the various secret societies and/or Occultist
sects If you dig even deeper you may realize that archaic hominids and their hybridization
with us plays a role going back millennia
The first problem with blaming Jews and/or Jewish systems is that it absolves non-Jews who
partake and are just as effectually guilty as the Jews who do, so it is to some degree slave
mentality (similar to how black liberals blame "whites" for everything). The other problem is
that there are dark Occult sects whom historically use Jews as a sacrificial front; they'd
rather Jews take the fall than "bankers", "Luciferians", etc., it's literally part of their
playbook.
@Ship Track If I remember correctly, many heavy industries in Germany during that time
were not Jew owned, Hitler received the funding for his NSDAP from companies like Thyssen and
Krupp. They donated because they knew Hitler wasn't really 'socialist' and wouldn't seize
control of their industries, and that he would be a better alternative to the Communist
parties that were on the rise at that time.
Jews have a complete stranglehold on most aspects of money in 2020, I doubt something like
this could happen again, Zionists Sheldon Adelson and Paul Singer were donating to Trump
after he won the primaries. All politicians can be bought these days and the buyers are
always Jews.
I am in a foreign country and must "rely" on CNN for the daily news. The CNN despicable
insects reporting is so one-sided pro-Democrats that suggesting "CNN is to Democrats what
Goebbels was to Nazis" is a very mild comparison. Instead of discussing Trump's defense team
points they are deflecting by discussing Bolton book and pathetic Romney's hate. It looks
like Democrats are now holding on to a razor.
Bolton wants to make money by selling his book unfortunately Democrats would not buy
Bolton's book, hence create controversy, Trump slander and they will.
I've never commented without fully delving into an article but today is an exception because
the rhetorical headline says it all: it's a clash of the competing elites of America and
there is no two ways about it!
@Z-man "I'm still hoping he's playing 3D chess with the CABAL but that hope is fading
fast. Lets see the particulars of this 'Deal of the Century' (rolls eyes)."
Z-man, this interview with Ann Coulter (I know, I know) is kind of fun watching for her
comments Trumps "3D" chess. Actually quite a few of these PBS frontline interviews published
on YouTube, Jan 13th, are interesting/worth a casual view:
Wonderful analysis, but didn't Rothschild bail out Trump?
Thank you.
Yes, he did. More than that, Lord Rothschild's son was dating Ivanka. The big Jews were
more or less united in the early years of this century, long past 9/11.
But at some point, in light of the repeated war games that showed Iran defeating the
United States in a conventional war, it occurred to the financial powers that had set up
Israel in the first place that Israel, much as they loved the idea, was getting to be too
high-maintenance. Adolf Hitler had conjectured in his memoirs that the real reason a homeland
for the Jews was being pushed was to give the cover of sovereign immunity to the deprecations
of a criminal tribe. Let's say the main motive was utilitarian. And so the Yinon ambitions of
Israel had to be pruned back somewhat. And so Obama did his nuke treaty. That's when the
big-Jew split came about.
It's a family quarrel snd Trump is s dues-paid member of the Kehilla. But he's broken the
rules of the biggest big Jews and has to be brought down.
"Cyrus card" doesn't doesn't quite render it right. Cyrus wasn't a Jew. And if you're
keeping up on the impeachment, the Parnas recording showed that traditional Jewish religious
concepts, specifically the Messiah, had to be explained to Trump. "In a secretly recorded
video of a dinner with President Donald Trump, businessmen and Rudy Giuliani associates Lev
Parnas and Igor Fruman draw a parallel between the president and the Messiah." (Haaretz) But
the flattery that was on his wavelength and which he retweeted was" King of the Jews". What
he wants is not, what the Adelsons have suggested, a book of his own in the Jewish bible like
the Book of Esther, but to be thought of as the biggest Jew macher of all time.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"... Of course, Biden in 2019 said "I never talked with my son or my brother or anyone else -- even distant family -- about their business interests. Period." ..."
"... James Biden : Joe's younger brother James has been deeply involved in the lawmaker's rise since the early days - serving as the finance chair of his 1972 Senate campaign. And when Joe became VP, James was a frequent guest at the White House - scoring invites to important state functions which often "dovetailed with his overseas business dealings," writes Schweizer. ..."
"... According to Fox Business 's Charlie Gasparino in 2012, HillStone's Iraq project was expected to "generate $1.5 billion in revenues over the next three years," more than tripling their revenue. According to the report, James Biden split roughly $735 million with a group of minority partners . ..."
"... David Richter - the son of HillStone's parent company's founder - allegedly told investors at a private meeting; it really helps to have "the brother of the vice president as a partner." ..."
Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer is out with a new book, "
Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America's Progressive Elite," in which he reveals
that five members of the Biden family, including Hunter, got rich using former Vice President
Joe Biden's "largesse, favorable access and powerful position."
While we know of Hunter's profitable exploits in Ukraine and China - largely in part thanks
to Schweizer, Joe's brothers James and Frank, his sister Valerie, and his son-in-law Howard all
used the former VP's status to enrich themselves.
Of course, Biden in 2019 said "I never talked with my son or my brother or anyone else --
even distant family -- about their business interests. Period."
As Schweizer puts writes in the
New York Post ; "we shall see."
James Biden : Joe's younger brother James has been deeply involved in the lawmaker's rise since the early days - serving
as the finance chair of his 1972 Senate campaign. And when
Joe became VP, James was a frequent guest at the White House - scoring invites to important
state functions which often "dovetailed with his overseas business dealings," writes Schweizer.
Consider the case of
HillStone International , a subsidiary of the huge construction management firm, Hill
International. The president of HillStone International was Kevin Justice, who grew up in
Delaware and was a longtime Biden family friend. On November 4, 2010, according to White
House visitors' logs, Justice visited the White House and met with Biden adviser Michele
Smith in the Office of the Vice President .
Less than three weeks later, HillStone announced that James Biden would be joining the
firm as an executive vice president . James appeared to have little or no background in
housing construction, but that did not seem to matter to HillStone. His bio on the company's
website noted his "40 years of experience dealing with principals in business, political,
legal and financial circles across the nation and internationally "
James Biden was joining HillStone just as the firm was starting negotiations to win a
massive contract in war-torn Iraq. Six months later, the firm announced a contract to build
100,000 homes. It was part of a $35 billion, 500,000-unit project deal won by TRAC
Development , a South Korean company. HillStone also received a $22 million U.S. federal
government contract to manage a construction project for the State Department. -
Peter Schweizer, via NY Post
According to Fox Business 's Charlie Gasparino in 2012, HillStone's Iraq project was
expected to "generate $1.5 billion in revenues over the next three years," more than tripling
their revenue. According to the report, James Biden split roughly $735 million with a group of
minority partners .
David Richter - the son of HillStone's parent company's founder - allegedly told investors
at a private meeting; it really helps to have "the brother of the vice president as a
partner."
Unfortunately for James, HillStone had to back out of the major contract in 2013 over a
series of problems, including a lack of experience - but the company maintained "significant
contract work in the embattled country" of Iraq, including a six-year contract with the US Army
Corps of Engineers.
In the ensuing years, James Biden profited off of Hill's lucrative contracts for dozens of
projects in the US, Puerto Rico, Mozambique and elsewhere.
Frank Biden , another one of Joe's brothers (who said the Pennsylvania Bidens
voted for Trump over Hillary), profited handsomely on real estate, casinos, and solar power
projects after Joe was picked as Obma's point man in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Months after Joe visited Costa Rica, Frank partnered with developer Craig Williamson and the
Guanacaste Country Club on a deal which appears to be ongoing.
In real terms, Frank's dream was to build in the jungles of Costa Rica thousands of homes,
a world-class golf course, casinos, and an anti-aging center. The Costa Rican government was
eager to cooperate with the vice president's brother.
As it happened, Joe Biden had been asked by President Obama to act as the Administration's
point man in Latin America and the Caribbean .
Frank's vision for a country club in Costa Rica received support from the highest levels
of the Costa Rican government -- despite his lack of experience in building such
developments. He met with the Costa Rican ministers of education and energy and environment,
as well as the president of the country. -
NY Post
And in 2016, the Costa Rican Ministry of Public Education inked a deal with Frank's Company,
Sun Fund Americas to install solar power facilities across the country - a project the Obama
administration's OPIC authorized $6.5 million in taxpayer funds to support.
This went hand-in-hand with a solar initiative Joe Biden announced two years earlier, in
which "American taxpayer dollars were dedicated to facilitating deals that matched U.S.
government financing with local energy projects in Caribbean countries, including Jamaica,"
known as the Caribbean Energy Security Initiative (CESI).
Frank Biden's Sun Fund Americas announced later that it had signed a power purchase
agreement (PPA) to build a 20-megawatt solar facility in Jamaica.
Valerie Biden-Owens , Joe's sister, has run all of her brother's Senate campaigns - as well
as his 1988 and 2008 presidential runs.
She was also a senior partner in political messaging firm Joe Slade White & Company ,
where she and Slade White were listed as the only two executives at the time.
According to Schweizer, " The firm received large fees from the Biden campaigns that Valerie
was running . Two and a half million dollars in consulting fees flowed to her firm from
Citizens for Biden and Biden For President Inc. during the 2008 presidential bid alone."
Dr. Howard Krein - Joe Biden's son-in-law, is the chief medical officer of StartUp Health -
a medical investment consultancy that was barely up and running when, in June 2011, two of the
company's execs met with Joe Biden and former President Obama in the Oval Office .
The next day, the company was included in a prestigious health care tech conference run by
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) - while StartUp Health executives became
regular White House visitors between 2011 and 2015 .
StartUp Health offers to provide new companies technical and relationship advice in
exchange for a stake in the business. Demonstrating and highlighting the fact that you can
score a meeting with the president of the United States certainly helps prove a strategic
company asset: high-level contacts. -
NY Post
Speaking of his homie hookup, Krein described how his company gained access to the highest
levels of power in D.C.:
"I happened to be talking to my father-in-law that day and I mentioned Steve and Unity were
down there [in Washington, D.C.]," recalled Howard Krein. "He knew about StartUp Health and was
a big fan of it. He asked for Steve's number and said, 'I have to get them up here to talk with
Barack.' The Secret Service came and got Steve and Unity and brought them to the Oval
Office."
And then, of course, there's Hunter Biden - who was paid millions of dollars to sit on the
board of Ukrainian energy giant Burisma while his father was Obama's point man in the
country.
But it goes far beyond that for the young crack enthusiast.
With the election of his father as vice president, Hunter Biden launched businesses fused
to his father's power that led him to lucrative deals with a rogue's gallery of governments
and oligarchs around the world . Sometimes he would hitch a prominent ride with his father
aboard Air Force Two to visit a country where he was courting business. Other times, the
deals would be done more discreetly. Always they involved foreign entities that appeared to
be seeking something from his father.
There was, for example, Hunter's involvement with an entity called Burnham Financial Group
, where his business partner Devon Archer -- who'd been at Yale with Hunter -- sat on the
board of directors. Burnham became the vehicle for a number of murky deals abroad, involving
connected oligarchs in Kazakhstan and state-owned businesses in China.
But one of the most troubling Burnham ventures was here in the United States, in which
Burnham became the center of a federal investigation involving a $60 million fraud scheme
against one of the poorest Indian tribes in America , the Oglala Sioux.
Devon Archer was arrested in New York in May 2016 and
charged with "orchestrating a scheme to defraud investors and a Native American tribal
entity of tens of millions of dollars." Other victims of the fraud included several public
and union pension plans. Although Hunter Biden was not charged in the case, his fingerprints
were all over Burnham . The "legitimacy" that his name and political status as the vice
president's son lent to the plan was brought up repeatedly in the trial. -
NY Post
"... The "movement conservatives" leader was Barry Goldwater who Trump's dad was a big supporter of, and Trump was raised in and among AND represents that faction of elite power. ..."
"... The LIEO or Rules Based Order is based on being closely allied with European elites against Russia to contain the Middle East and Central Asia (Iran and Afghanistan) based on Zbigniew Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard theory. ..."
"... The 1950's triangle of power was superseded by the oligarch's counter revolution that led to supranational trade institutions. Democracies were relegated to a secondary status and run by technocrats for the benefit of oligarchs until Donald Trump. He is a nationalist plutocrat; admittedly a lower level one, a NY casino owner who went bankrupt. Mike Bloomberg represents the other side, a globalist billionaire. Elizabeth Warren is a top level technocrat but no politician. ..."
"... The endless wars are fought to make a profit for the plutocracy and destabilize nations to make foreign corporate exploitation possible. That was why Hunter Biden was in Ukraine. The conflicts are not meant to be won. ..."
"... He makes stupid mistakes. Through the barrage of propaganda, reports of shell shocked troops, destroyed buildings and 11 concussion causalities from Iran's missile attack made it into the news. The military must be pissed. The aura of invincibility is gone. ..."
"... Donald Trump should be removed by the 25th amendment before he mistakenly triggers the Apocalypse. Except the 1% politician VP, Mike Pence, believes that the End of Time is God's Will and necessary for his Ascension. ..."
"... The power triangle theory is less in line with the facts than a simple duality: Wall Street & the MIC, you have to advance interests of both or you're out. ..."
"... Second, the 'meeting in the Tank' sounds like complete b.s. designed to sell books ..."
"... And the 'rules-based international order' rings very false as something that would be said with a straight face by real MIC insiders, which those generals are. ..."
"... Not only sick of wars, his mobster approach to foreign policy and allies is an embarrassment to RINO and Independents. ..."
"... Humanity is in a civilization war about public/private finance being fought by proxies and character actors like Trump. Maybe after this war is over, and if we survive, we can all communicate about the social contract directly instead of through proxy fronts. Do you want to live in a sharing/caring world or a selfish/competitive one?....socialism or barbarism? ..."
That Power Elite theory which was written in the 50s by C.W. Mills is incomplete for today
because in the 60s there was a split among the power elite between the new "movement
conservatives" and the old eastern bank establishment. The conservatives were more focused on
the pacific region and containing China, and the liberal establishment were more focused on
Europe and containing Russia.
The "movement conservatives" leader was Barry Goldwater who Trump's dad was a big supporter
of, and Trump was raised in and among AND represents that faction of elite power. In fact he
is the 1st president from that faction of the elites to hold the oval office, many people
thought Reagan was, but he was brought under the control of George Bush and the liberal
elites after taking office after he was injured by a Bush related person. The different
agendas of the the two factions are out in the open today with one being focused on
anti-Russia and the other being focused on anti-China. It has been like that since the
1960s.
The anti-China conservative faction which Trump represents (and which unleashed the VietNam
War) is screwing up the "rules based order" aka "Liberal International
Economic Order" aka Pax Americana which was set up after WWII at Bretton Woods and then
altered in the 1970s with the creation of the petrodollar and petrodollar recycling into
Treasury Bonds, by destroying the monetary scam they set up to control the world
It needed
the cooperation of the elites of Europe and elsewhere, which Trump and his faction doesn't
care about -- they only care about short term profits on Wall St.
The LIEO or Rules Based Order is based on being closely allied with European elites
against Russia to contain the Middle East and Central Asia (Iran and Afghanistan) based on
Zbigniew Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard theory. China trade is important for them, Russia is
their main enemy. ( War of the Worlds:
The New Class ). Trump and his movement conservative faction is ruining their world order
for their own short term gain on Wall St.
The 1950's triangle of power was superseded by the oligarch's counter revolution that led
to supranational trade institutions. Democracies were relegated to a secondary status and run
by technocrats for the benefit of oligarchs until Donald Trump. He is a nationalist
plutocrat; admittedly a lower level one, a NY casino owner who went bankrupt. Mike Bloomberg
represents the other side, a globalist billionaire. Elizabeth Warren is a top level
technocrat but no politician.
The endless wars are fought to make a profit for the plutocracy and destabilize nations to
make foreign corporate exploitation possible. That was why Hunter Biden was in Ukraine. The
conflicts are not meant to be won.
Donald Trump is way for over his head and getting old. His competent staff are in jail or
fired. Apparently no one told him about the thousands of ballistic missiles that can destroy
the Gulf States' oil facilities at will and make the buildup for the invasion of Iran
impossible. He makes stupid mistakes. Through the barrage of propaganda, reports of shell
shocked troops, destroyed buildings and 11 concussion causalities from Iran's missile attack
made it into the news. The military must be pissed. The aura of invincibility is gone.
Donald Trump should be removed by the 25th amendment before he mistakenly triggers the
Apocalypse. Except the 1% politician VP, Mike Pence, believes that the End of Time is God's
Will and necessary for his Ascension.
The power triangle theory is less in line with the facts than a simple duality: Wall Street
& the MIC, you have to advance interests of both or you're out.
Second, the 'meeting in the Tank' sounds like complete b.s. designed to sell books, with
an obvious sales strategy, as b said, of pleasuring both the pro/anti Trump sides of the
book-buying bourgeoisie.
And the 'rules-based international order' rings very false as
something that would be said with a straight face by real MIC insiders, which those generals
are.
Finally, whether Trump ridiculed the generals or not, that's a sideshow to entertain the
rubes. Trump's always been on side with the big picture Neocon approach essential to the MIC.
Their global dominance or chaos approach is essential to keeping military budgets gigantic
until 'forever'. True that Trump whined about endless wars as a 2016 campaign strategy, but
he was either b.s.-ing or at the time didn't get that they are part of the overall Neocon
approach he backs.
Not a very good analysis by b because this does not explain why 90 % of US corporate media
is hostile to Trump. This does not happen without significant elite support.
That Trump is backed by the military faction is something i have been saying often. But
there are forces within the government faction that dislike him, for example the CIA.
As for the corporate faction, it is not true that free money made them supportive of
Trump. Rather the faction is divided - between the globalist corporate faction, relying on
globalisation, including most tech companies, and US nationalist faction, such as local US
businesses, big oil, shale gas, etc.
Another point - jews have large influence within the US, and 80 % voted against Trump
regardless of his Israeli support. They again voted 80 % Dem in 2018. Having 80 % of US jews
against you means encountering significant resistance.
Demographically speaking, most women, jews, muslims, latinos, asians, afroamericans, lgbt
people, young people, etc. are strongly against him so i think that he will lose. Unless for
some reason they do not vote.
Even if he somehow wins again, this will lead to civil war like situation and extreme
polarisation in the US.
The US military, the various factions within the Deep State, political and corporate
cabals has the attitude of a spoiled 3-year-old: If I can't have it, I'll break it so it is
of little use to others.
Unfortunately, breaking other countries is just fine for the MIC... arms sales all around
and chaos to impede non-military commerce with other major power centers like Russia or
China.
Trump is the product of a dysfunctional family, a "greed is good" trust-fund social circle
and a sociopathic US bully/gun culture.
The fact "bone spurs" Trump weaseled out of the draft will also not play well with the
generals, let alone the grunts who suffer most from endless POTUS idiocy (not limited to
Trump, see Prince Bush/Bandar the 2nd)
All the more proof that most Western "democracies" would be better served with a lottery
to choose their Congressional and POTUS chair-warmers. Joe Sixpack could do a better job. A
200-lb sack of flour would do better than any POTUS since Kennedy.
your: "Trump can't start a war without ruling class backing any more than he can end the
wars if the rulers veto it."
May be, I think is, true in one sense. But Trump is far from the sole agent capable of
starting a war. War, as opposed to simple murder, involve 2 or more parties. Whatever the
intentions, the recent murders by drone in Baghdad hav,e it seems, brought Iran to consider
war exists now...and they have a nifty MAGA policy. On Press TV today they hosted an expert
who called for the execution of several exceptional American leaders...sounds like war to
me.
(Make America Go Away)
The system is so screwy and peopled by such uneducated and delusional people that it's
quite simple that they would do some stupid that that caused a war. Looks like war to me. I
await the horrors.
Decaying empires usually start wars that bring about their rapid ruin. Does it matter how
they do this?
............
The thesis of the triangle of elite factions is fascinating.
Walter recalls that JFK got the reports from Vietnam that said we were winning, while at
the same time Johnson got the true story. And also what happened then with the "correction"
of 1963 (their words) and the immediate change of war policy. Can't help an old guy from
remembering old folly. And noting that history repeats as farce.
The Iran affair is liable to coordinate with NATO. Lavrov spoke to the NATO preparations
today @ TASS...
Some say Trumpie screwed up the schedule, which goes hot in April as a showdown with the
Roooskies. I take that with a grain of salt. But I think the sources I've seen might be
right. They say that if Barbarossa had not been delayed, the nazis woulda won in Russia.
Screwups can be very important.
I can't see any way the US won't use atomic bangers. But maybe...
I agree with wagelaborer in comment #3 and worth a repeat of most of it
"Trump can't start a war without ruling class backing any more than he can end the wars if
the rulers veto it.
US foreign policy is not run by White House puppets.
The US trash-talked Saddam Hussein and starved Iraqis for 14 years, but didn't actually
invade until he started trading oil in Euros.
The US trash-talked Ghaddafi for decades, and even launched missiles which killed his
child in the 80s, but didn't destroy Libya until Ghaddafi decided to sell oil in dinars.
The US has trash-talked and sanctioned Iran for decades, but it was the threat of Iran and
Saudi Arabia making peace that pushed them to assassinate General Soleimani, as he arrived at
the airport on that diplomatic mission.
If Iran and Saudi Arabia make peace, and the Saudis drop the petro-dollar, the US Empire
crumbles.
It doesn't matter at all who is in the White House at the time, the Empire will never allow
that."
Humanity is in a civilization war about public/private finance being fought by proxies and
character actors like Trump. Maybe after this war is over, and if we survive, we can all
communicate about the social contract directly instead of through proxy fronts. Do you want
to live in a sharing/caring world or a selfish/competitive one?....socialism or
barbarism?
I think the "triangle of power" theory walks towards the truth, but is not the truth.
For starters, the USA is a very large and complex society. There are a lot of classes and
a lot of groups which clash and prop up each other all the time. The only consensus is that
it is and must remain a capitalist society, i.e. that capitalism must be preserved at any
cost.
That said, I see many interests involved, but a hierarchy, in layered form. Here's my
opinion on the state of the art of the USA right now:
1) at the highest level, there's the division between the most powerful members of the
capitalist class between what should be the American foreign policy strategy for the rest of
this century. It is divided between two different ideologies: russophobes (i.e. the
"establishment") and the believers of the "clash of civilizations" (i.e. the far-right,
sinophobes). The only thing that unites both groups is the conviction Eurasia should remain
divided, i.e. that Russia and China should not consolidate their newborn alliance. If that
alliance consolidates a century from now, then this contradiction will disappear, but
America's new enemy will be stronger than ever - possibly more powerful than the USA.
2) at the lower level, there's the division of the American people about how the spoils
that come from the imperial conquests should be better shared. This division manifests itself
in the battle between social-democracy and fascism. Neoliberalism is basically a rotten
corpse after 2008, but it is important to state it is not an ideology per se, but a political
doctrine, from which both American social-democracy and American fascism lend some
aspects.
3) at the vestigial level, you have many micro battles which shock with each other. For
example, the good part of the American middle class imploded Elizabeth Warren's support for
universal healthcare because they wanted to keep their class distinction as the class which
has access to healthcare through expensive health insurances (which are often directly linked
to distinct jobs they probably have) - but they still will vote Democrat, and probably will
support Warren as long as she's viable. In the far-right camp, there are those who want to
emphasize the fight against China must happen because China represents modern socialism,
while another part wants to fight China for the simple fact they want some jobs back. In the
deep state, there's the usual Pentagon vs CIA clash of philosophies about how to better
operate overseas. In the lobby industry, each one is fending for themselves.
In conclusion, my take is all of these conflicts have one ultimate cause: the
exhaustion of the American imperial system installed in 1945 . Capitalism doesn't know
national barriers; in 1945, the USA was both the industrial and financial superpower, but
capital must spread and expand or it dies. The Marshall Plan soon begun and, in two decades,
Germany and Japan - both spawns of the American post-war doctrine - directly threatened the
USA as the industrial superpower. It still managed to fend off these two nations with the
Plaza Accord (1985), but at a huge cost: outsourcing its own industrial capacity to China. In
2011, China definitely overcame the USA and now holds the belt of the industrial superpower.
It is now trying to be also the financial superpower, with the "opening up" reforms.
This generated a structural contradiction: the loss of the industrial superpower title
left the USA only with the financial superpower title. But the financial superpower title can
only be maintained, in a nation-State architecture, with increased submission of the rest of
the world - naturally, through violent means and financial sanctions.
However, that was not the way the USA was able to build its overwhelming post-war
alliance: it did so with nation building , i.e. the proverbial "carrot", the massive
investments in infrastructure and better living standards for Western Europe, Japan, Asian
Tigers and Australia. But without the industrial superpower title, the USA cannot maintain
its "alliance" (i.e. the empire), which reinforces its condition as the financial superpower
- which, in turn, increases its necessity to maintain the alliance (empire) which, in turn,
weakens more and more said alliance, which, in turn, increases even more its necessity to
maintain said alliance, and so on, in a downward spiral movement.
The result of this dialectical contradiction is that the USA will, over time, resort to
ever more violent methods to keep the corners of its empire whole, which will drive it ever
closer to an epic war against its ultimate enemy: socialism (China/Eurasia).
"And many of them may actually be as mind-blowingly stupid as he is as well and they don't
see what a problem it is to have such an arrogant moron running the world's only superpower.
If there's one thing right-wingers take as an article of faith it's that expertise is nothing
but a scam and the guy at the end of the bar can run the world better than the pointy-headed
elites. They got what they wanted."
Trump might be appropriate. The survivors, if any, will have more resources, as the ditch
he is heading into.
A slow death by Dims would be worse.
Your analysis nicely maps onto the Braudelian model of the phases of capitalism,
especially as articulated in the chapter by Arrighi and Moore in Phases of
Capitalist Development . They argue that the historical signal that the US had begun to
lose its hegemony in commodity production (M-C-M') was the Nixon shock/Oil Shock (1970-73).
They further argue that the inevitable shift to financial hegemony (M-M'), which has occurred
in every other phase (Genovese, Dutch, British), has taken place more quickly than the one
before it. As a result, they predicted (in 2001) very broadly that the terminal point of this
financial (self-)vampirism -- when the system reaches a point of complete contradiction --
would take place around 2020. One key difference they note between the US global regime with
all prior hegemonic orders is the reach and power of the military. The British Empire was
able to deploy its navy to support its hegemony only up to a point -- and then became a paper
tiger overnight. But the US military has not been deployed to any extent comparable to
1941-45. If it saw a real existential threat to dollar hegemony their military capacity would
postpone any collapse indefinitely -- and throw the world into utter chaos.
My question to you and all is this: where are we in the timeline between their loss of
industrial hegemony and the real crisis of their financial hegemony? Is this the decade of
hegemonic challenge and change -- and therefore war? And to what extent will Iran be the
trigger? Or will it be another GFC and de-dollarization?
"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."
Yes! The inability to tell the truth about the genuine aim of policy despite its being published because that policy goal--to
attain Full Spectrum Dominance over the planet and its people such that neoliberal bankers can rule the world--is actually 100%
against genuine American Values as expressed by the Four Freedoms (1.Freedom of speech; 2.Freedom of worship; 3.Freedom from want;
4.Freedom from fear) and the articulated goals/vision of the UN Charter--World Peace arrived at via collective security and diplomacy,
not war--which are still taught in schools along with Wilson's 14 Points. Then of course, there's the war against British Tyranny
known as the Spirit of '76 and the Revolutionary War for Independence and the documents that bookend that era. In 1948, Kennan
stated, in an internal discussion that was never censored, the USA consumed 60% of global resources with only 5% of the population
and needed to somehow come up with a policy to both continue and justify that great disparity to both the domestic and international
audience. Yet, those truths were never provided in an overt manner to the American public or the international audience. The upshot
being the US federal government since it dropped the bombs on Japan has been lying or misleading its people such that it's now
habitual. And Trump's diatribe against the generals reflects the reality that he too was taken in by those lies.
"... 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]
Sitting in coffee shop in Chicago listening to Americans. The general sentiment is they had
it coming and Iran should be nuked.
Glass parking lot is the desired end.
This sentiment is bottom to top in America. Measured response? No way can Iran 'measure' a
response.
More generally the sentiment is that a little war in Iran, a few nukes, is not even a big
thing. Football scores more important.
"Sitting in coffee shop in Chicago listening to Americans. The general sentiment is they had
it coming and Iran should be nuked.
Glass parking lot is the desired end."
That's pretty much the picture i get from reading responses in UK MSM, not only from
English, but many giving American addresses. They are all pretty much thoroughly brainwashed,
believing as gospel the lies they've told, and still think that they are the "White hatted,
good guys, who do good things for the places they bomb and invade".
it seems they will be supportive of an attack on Iran, and if their maniac "leaders", the
basement crazies who got out of the basement, realise this, it increases substantially the
chances of a "hot" war. In that case, should it escalate out of control, your Chicago coffee
deadheads will get the Glass parking lot they want. It just wont be in the ME. Or Russia.
They can have their very own, in their own back yard.
Yes I also noticed this, what I believe is most depressing is how dumb people are.
Trump/White house tell alot of lies which then become the truth for alot of his supporters
and he also manage to get MSM where he wants, because MSM do not seems to care either, they
are on-board when it comes to war.
And yes additional to that, a clear psychological operation going on to get the propaganda
out.
I try to counter it on social media, I hope everyone here also do the same.
Its about conditioning people that its the new normal. Anything goes, "do as thou wilt".
So long as it serves the interests of our masters. With no fear that MSM or alt media can or
will provide sustained or effective criticism, and the corruption of religious or secular
morals among the population thanks to hollywoods cultural marxism/propaganda and corruption
of christianity , they can get support among the people for just about anything. People can
be made to believe anything. The past 100 years has proven that beyond all doubt. With all
doubt now removed they can show their true colors and this will be accepted as the new
normal.
The problem with the US is most everyone in the US military, US citizenry, and US government
believe their own Exceptionalism propaganda and act accordingly. Attacking the PMU units of
the Iraqi army was certainly an unwise decision, but killing Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi
Al-Muhandis is an act of complete moronic insanity!
The United States launched a war of aggression, the supreme crime, upon Iraq in 2003, based
on blatant lies, and are still there. Prior to that, they helped foment the war between Iraq
and Iran, then attacked Iraq in 1991, and on top of the overt warfare there was the economic
sanctions warfare. The death and maiming and poisoning of millions of Iraqis has been the
American contribution to Iraq, over the last several decades. What for? How has this helped
the United States? Or Europe? The main advocates for this supreme criminality has been the
Israel lobby, Israel, and the supporters of Israel.
The American Apache helicopters are still buzzing around over Baghdad, dealing out terror
and intimidation and death. The murder by the United States of yet more Iraqi soldiers and
officials recently has been largely absent from the propaganda narratives. But could those be
'the final straw'?
As far as Trump's 52 target threat, this comes after the apparent please don't escalate
and we'll make a deal - good cop-bad cop routine.
The 52 number was used to remind mind-controlled Americans that the evil Iranians
outrageously took 52 Americans hostage. American's don't just take people hostage; they give
them orange suits and torture them, unless they kill them. Apart from murdering and maiming
by the millions, they even stage fictional killings, like Osama bin laden, to entertain the
zombies, and stick out their chests, hand out medals and the like.
"... 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?
"... 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.
"The attempt to isolate the China-Russia-Iran bloc has no way of succeeding and is clearly
based on short term profits for the corporations pushing American policy, rather than the
health of the economic system as a whole. This is clearly seen in how America is targeting
Europe with sanctions over the Nordstream gas pipeline project from Russia to Germany. If you
think this is just about the Trump administration you would be wrong, this has bi-partisan
support in America and is clearly being pushed by the big banks and corporations with the
politicians in both parties being pushed into doing their bidding. This is a huge mistake and
like the economic meltdown of 2008 caused by the short-term profiteering of Wall Street greed,
we are seeing a far greater mistake being made by the attempt to enforce submission on so many
major economic powers. Their obvious reaction is to isolate themselves from American economic
reach which means they WILL join the Russia-China-Iran bloc.
Brzezinski's 2016 advice to bring Russia-China-Iran in from out of the cold was the smart
path to follow. It still is. It is THE ONLY way to save the world economy from splitting more
and more in ways that adversely affects America more and more and by extension the rest of the
world whose economies are tied to America.
The current leaders of both establishment cliques need to accept that their continuance of
the Grand Chessboard strategy is outdated and self-defeating -- and dangerous. It threatens the
lives of so many on a daily basis around the world, including Americans. The rise of China and
Russia has made a unipolar world impossible unless the Chinese all of a sudden decide to submit
to the LIEO. And that is what the American establishment seems to think they can force on them.
They hope to wait out Putin to change Russia when he is gone. While that may be possible, what
they hope with China is extremely unlikely. China is aggressively courting other nations for
partnerships while America is losing more and more respect among the people and leaders of the
world."
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.
"I don't think there's any actual material reason that there should be any material wants
anywhere on this planet, instead "only" political and managerial ones but that's because I
believe (and I'm not an expert) one can add additional levels of safeguards -- both physical
and administrative -- to existing or new nuclear power-plants and "burn" most of the
byproducts into essentially new fuel thus buying humanity at least several thousands of years
of time instead of for example chopping up large volumes of air and everything in it be it
insects or birds.
We should already be in a post-scarcity world, no -isms required, only kindness and
applied knowledge. So to me that will be our death sentence if that is the final outcome; too
little kindness (towards all life), too little application and sharing of knowledge.
I don't know if that is inspiring or depressing or both :)"
I always find those thoughts scary - since you and I are both NOT Farmers - and depend
upon those little people to supply us with the foodstuffs we need to survive.
It's GREAT to be a rocket scientist - but before a rocket scientist can exist - ya need
Farmers.
Here is a synopsis of the behavioral loop described above:
Step 1. Individuals and groups evolved a bias to maximize fitness by maximizing power,
which requires over-reproduction and/or over-consumption of natural resources (overshoot),
whenever systemic constraints allow it. Differential power generation and accumulation result
in a hierarchical group structure.
Step 2. Energy is always limited, and overshoot eventually leads to decreasing power
available to some members of the group, with lower-ranking members suffering first.
Step 3. Diminishing power availability creates divisive subgroups within the original
group. Low-rank members will form subgroups and coalitions to demand a greater share of power
from higher-ranking individuals, who will resist by forming their own coalitions to maintain
power.
Step 4. Violent social strife eventually occurs among subgroups who demand a greater share
of the remaining power.
Step 5. The weakest subgroups (high or low rank) are either forced to disperse to a new
territory, are killed, enslaved, or imprisoned.
Step 6. Go back to step 1.
The above loop was repeated countless thousands of times during the millions of years that
we were evolving[9]. This behavior is inherent in the architecture of our minds -- is
entrained in our biological material -- and will be repeated until we go extinct. Carrying
capacity will decline[10] with each future iteration of the overshoot loop, and this will
cause human numbers to decline until they reach levels not seen since the Pleistocene.
Current models used to predict the end of the biosphere suggest that sometime between 0.5
billion to 1.5 billion years from now, land life as we know it will end on Earth due to the
combination of CO2 starvation and increasing heat. It is this decisive end that biologists
and planetary geologists have targeted for attention. However, all of their graphs reveal an
equally disturbing finding: that global productivity will plummet from our time onward, and
indeed, it already has been doing so for the last 300 million years.[11]
It's impossible to know the details of how our rush to extinction will play itself out,
but we do know that it is going to be hell for those who are unlucky to be alive at the
time.
And:
The Olduvai theory is defined by the ratio of world energy production and population. It
states that the life expectancy of Industrial Civilization is less than or equal to 100
years: 1930-2030. After more than a century of strong growth -- energy production per capita
peaked in 1979. The Olduvai theory explains the 1979 peak and the subsequent decline.
Moreover, it says that energy production per capita will fall to its 1930 value by 2030, thus
giving Industrial Civilization a lifetime of less than or equal to 100 years. This analysis
predicts that the collapse will be strongly correlated with an 'epidemic' of permanent
blackouts of high-voltage electric power networks -- worldwide.
Will Humans reach the Stars? I believe NOT - and that extinction is but a heart beat away. We
are not a Peaceful species - amongst many others - but the Universe lives in Harmony.
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.
America at War Forever Feb 2, 2020
The Trump Impeachment Defense. "The Best Interest of the Country" Concept Jan 31, 2020
Unequal Justice: Call Trump to Testify at His Impeachment Trial Jan 26, 2020
Impeach the Impeachers Jan 22, 2020
Trump Parties in Davos While Ordinary Americans Struggle to Make Ends Meet Jan 22, 2020
Trump At Davos: "The Great American Comeback" Jan 21, 2020
Articles by: Massoud Nayeri Disclaimer: 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]
January 20, 2020 © Photo: Wikimedia The New York Times caused a mini-commotion last week with a front-page story suggesting that Russian intelligence had hacked a Ukrainian energy firm known as Burisma Holdings in order to get dirt on Joe Biden and help Donald Trump win re-election.
